Language learning strategies and multilingualism

LYDIA MITITS

Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism

Monolingual EFL and Multilingual EFL/L2 Greek Learners in

Greek Secondary Education

2 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism

Lydia Mitits was born in 1966, in Serbia and has been a practicing EFL teacher since 1989. She has taught English FL in primary, secondary and tertiary education. She holds a MA in TEFL and a PhD in Linguistics. She has presented her research in a number of national and international conferences on theoretical and applied linguistics. She has been peer reviewed and has published research papers on multilingualism, language learning strategies, instrument adaptation, etc. in books and conference proceedings. Her main research interests lie in the fields of Multilingualism, Language Teaching Methodology and Language Assessment.

LYDIA MITITS

Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism

Monolingual EFL and Multilingual EFL/L2 Greek Learners in Greek Secondary Education


Lydia Mitits, Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism ISBN: 978-618-5147-26-6 March 2015 Cover: The Tree of Wisdom, 70x70 Christopher Foridis [email protected] Page layout: Iraklis Lampadariou www.lampadariou.eu Language’s parallels: Theory and teaching practice Series Editor: Zoe Gavriilidou, Professor at Democritus University of Thrace Saita publications 42 Athanasiou Diakou str, 652 01, Kavala, Greece Τ.: 0030 2510 831856 M.: 0030 6977 070729 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.saitapublications.gr

Creative Commons license Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivs 3.0 Unported

With the agreement of the author and publisher, you are free to share, copy, distribute and transmit the work under the following conditions: attribution, non commercial use, no derivative works. Detailed information about this license cc, you can read at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/


To my family


Language’s parallels: Theory and teaching practice

Series Editor: Zoe Gavriilidou, Professor at Democritus University of Thrace

The study of Language has always been a central issue in Humanities and has attired the interest of a number of famous scholars, linguists, language teachers or language policy makers. This is reflected in the number of important publications in that field. The series "Language's parallels: theory and teaching practice" intends to contribute to the study of all linguistic levels (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, vocabulary, semantics, pragmatics) or fields (computational linguistics, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, text linguistics, forensic linguistics, etc) from a theoretical or applied perspective. The series aims to assist in exploring more in depth current issues of language study. For the moment it includes two titles in Greek. Τhe current book is the first publication in the Series in English Language. Its focus is on multilingualism and how it affects the choice of language learning strategies. This study is of particular interest for language teachers or students of philology departments and is one of the few comparative studies and probably the first large-scale study in the field of language learning strategies in the Greek context.

Zoe Gavriilidou, Series Editor


Table of contents

List of abbreviations.............................................................................................................................14

List of tables and figures ......................................................................................................................15

List of appendices .................................................................................................................................16

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................19

2. Theoretical background of language learning strategies............................................26 2.1. Theories of general learning..........................................................................................26 2.2. Language Acquisition theories ......................................................................................30 2.3. Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theories ...............................................................31 2.4. Models of cognitive views of second/foreign language learning...............................36 2.5. The ‘Good language learner’ studies .............................................................................39 2.6. The concept of autonomy ..............................................................................................44 2.7. The concept of self-regulation.......................................................................................46 Summary.......................................................................................................................................52

3. Language learning strategies overview ........................................................................53 3.1. Definitions of language learning strategies..................................................................53 3.2. Classifications of language learning strategies ............................................................58

3.2.1. Language learning versus language use strategies controversy.........................63 3.2.2. LLS terminology issues ...........................................................................................65

3.3. Methods of assessing language learning strategies .....................................................68 Summary.......................................................................................................................................72

4. Factors influencing language learning strategy use....................................................74 4.1. Age....................................................................................................................................75 4.2. Gender..............................................................................................................................77 4.3. Learner’s language proficiency level ............................................................................79 4.4. Motivation to learn a language......................................................................................84 4.5. Learners’ beliefs about language learning....................................................................87 4.6. Characteristics of the learner ........................................................................................89 4.7. Cultural background.......................................................................................................91 4.8. Situational and social context........................................................................................93 4.9. Language being learned .................................................................................................94 4.10. Type of the language learning task............................................................................96 4.11. Career orientation and/or field of specialization.....................................................97 4.12. Language teaching methods.......................................................................................98 4.13. Type of strategy training ............................................................................................99 4.14. Degree of metacognitive awareness ........................................................................102 4.15. Prior language learning experience ........................................................................104 Summary.....................................................................................................................................107

5. Multilingualism .............................................................................................................109 5.1. Definitions and terminology........................................................................................110

Lydia Mitits 11

5.1.1. Criteria for defining a multilingual speaker .......................................................113 5.1.2. Multilingual proficiency .......................................................................................116

5.2. Views of bi-/multilingualism.......................................................................................119 5.3. Linguistic, cognitive and sociocultural implications of multilingualism.................121

5.3.1. Crosslinguistic influence as a drawback in multilinguals..................................121 5.3.2. Benefits from being multilingual.........................................................................123

5.4. Development of research in multilingualism.............................................................126 5.5. Multiple language acquisition and third language research ....................................130

5.5.1. Crosslinguistic influence in L3 acquisition .........................................................133 5.5.2. Types of transfer among languages.....................................................................134

5.6. Studies of monolingual vs. multilingual language learning strategy use................136 5.7. Multilingualism with English as a third or additional language ..............................140 5.8. Multilingual education .................................................................................................141

5.8.1. Types of bi-/multilingual education ...................................................................141 5.8.2. Debates on bi-/multilingual education ...............................................................143 5.8.3. Multilingualism in the classroom ........................................................................146

5.9. Multilingualism in Greek society and education........................................................149 Summary.....................................................................................................................................152

6. Methodology of the present study ..............................................................................154 6.1. The research rationale and questions.........................................................................154 6.2. Hypotheses of the study...............................................................................................155 6.3. General design of the study .........................................................................................165 6.4. The sample.....................................................................................................................166

6.4.1. The participants’ profiles .....................................................................................167 6.5. Instrumentation............................................................................................................174

6.5.1. Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)..............................................175 6.5.2. Individual Background Questionnaires (IBQ) .....................................................177

6.6. The adaptation of the SILL ...........................................................................................178 6.6.1. The adaptation protocol .......................................................................................181 6.6.2. The translation process ........................................................................................182 6.6.3. Cross-cultural verification and adaptation.........................................................183 6.6.4. The pilot study.......................................................................................................189 6.6.5. Verification of the psychometric properties of the instrument..............................190

6.7. The conduct of the study..............................................................................................195 Summary.....................................................................................................................................197

7. The results of the study................................................................................................199 7.1. Data Analysis .................................................................................................................199 7.2. Answer to research question 1 ....................................................................................200

7.2.1. Multilingualism factor ..........................................................................................201 7.2.2. Gender factor.........................................................................................................209 7.2.3. Age factor...............................................................................................................210 7.2.4. Proficiency level factor.........................................................................................211 7.2.5. Motivation factor ..................................................................................................213 7.2.6. Interactions between factors ...............................................................................215


7.3. Answer to research question 2 ....................................................................................218 7.3.1. The SILL for English and the SILL for Greek .......................................................218 7.3.2. Gender by Questionnaire type (SILL for English and SILL for Greek)...............226

Summary.....................................................................................................................................227

8. Discussion of the findings ............................................................................................230 8.1. Discussion of research question 1 ...............................................................................230

8.1.1. Monolingual and multilingual EFL learners’ profiles.........................................231 8.1.2. Language learning strategy use by gender .........................................................239 8.1.3. Language learning strategy use by age ...............................................................241 8.1.4. Language learning strategy use by proficiency level.........................................242 8.1.5. Language learning strategy use by motivation ..................................................244 8.1.6. Interactions between factors ...............................................................................244

8.2. Discussion of research question 2 ...............................................................................245 8.2.1. Multilingual LLS transfer......................................................................................246 8.2.2. Gender effect in multilinguals .............................................................................251

8.3. Pedagogical implications..............................................................................................251 Summary.....................................................................................................................................256

9. Conclusion and suggestions for further research......................................................258 9.1. Limitations of the study ...............................................................................................259 9.2. Recommendations for future research .......................................................................261

Bibliography........................................................................................................................................263

Index....................................................................................................................................................291

Appendices..........................................................................................................................................296

Lydia Mitits 13


List of abbreviations

ACT Adaptive Control of Thought

BALLI Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory

BICS Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills

CALP Cognitive-Academic Language Proficiency

CEFR Common European Framework of Reference

CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning

DMM Dynamic Model of Multilingualism

EFL English as a Foreign Language

ESL English as a Second Language

FL Foreign language

GLL Good Language Learner

IBQ Individual Background Questionnaire

L1 Native language/mother tongue/first language/dominant language

L2 Second language/non-dominant language

L3 Third language

L4 Fourth language

LLS Language Learning Strategies

LSUI Language Strategy Use Inventory

MBTI Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

MSLQ Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

PLA Primary Language Acquisition

S2R Strategic Self-Regulation

SILL Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

SL Second language

SLA Second Language Acquisition

SRCvoc Self-regulatory Capacity in Vocabulary Learning

TBL Task-Based Learning

TENOR Teaching English for No Obvious Reasons

TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language

TPL Total Physical Response

UG Universal Grammar

ZPD Zone of Proximal Development

Lydia Mitits 15

List of tables and figures

Table 1 Strategic Self-Regulation (S2R) Model of L2 learning ______________________________________________________________ 49

Table 2 Definitions of language learning strategies ________________________________________________________________________ 56

Table 3 Classifications of language learning strategies_____________________________________________________________________ 59

Table 4 Oxford’s Language Learning Strategy System______________________________________________________________________ 62

Table 5 Types of bilingual education according to Baker and Prys Jones__________________________________________________142

Table 6 Demographic information-Gender________________________________________________________________________________167

Table 7 Demographic information-Age ___________________________________________________________________________________168

Table 8 Language profile __________________________________________________________________________________________________169

Table 9 Native language(s) ________________________________________________________________________________________________169

Table 10 Home language(s) _______________________________________________________________________________________________170

Table 11 Motivation to learn English-the whole sample __________________________________________________________________173

Table 12 Motivation to learn Greek-the multilingual sub-sample _________________________________________________________173

Table 13 English language proficiency level ______________________________________________________________________________174

Table 14 Greek language proficiency level ________________________________________________________________________________174

Table 15 Descriptive statistics: SILL for English (the whole sample) ______________________________________________________201

Table 16 Descriptive statistics: monolingual and multilingual means_____________________________________________________202

Table 17 MANOVA between-subjects effects ______________________________________________________________________________203

Table 18 SILL for English for monolingual cases (most frequently used items) ___________________________________________204

Table 19 SILL for English for multilingual cases (most frequently used items)____________________________________________205

Table 20 SILL for English for monolingual cases (least frequently used items)____________________________________________206

Table 21 SILL for English for multilingual cases (least frequently used items) ____________________________________________207

Table 22 Means for monolinguals and multilinguals on individual items _________________________________________________208

Table 23 Descriptive statistics: gender ____________________________________________________________________________________209

Table 24 One-way ANOVA: proficiency level by SILL for English___________________________________________________________211

Table 25 Motivation mean differences ____________________________________________________________________________________214

Table 26 Strategy categories and overall means on SILL for Greek________________________________________________________219

Table 27 Strategy categories and overall on SILL for English _____________________________________________________________220

Table 28 Strategy categories on SILL for English and SILL for Greek ______________________________________________________221

Table 29 SILL for Greek-the most frequently used items __________________________________________________________________222

Table 30 SILL for Greek-the least frequently used items __________________________________________________________________223

Table 31 Strategy items on SILL for English and SILL for Greek ___________________________________________________________224

Table 32 Gender by Questionnaire type ___________________________________________________________________________________226

Figure 1: Adaptation protocol............................................................................................................................................................ 181


List of appendices

Appendix 1 The English version of the SILL 7.0..................................................................................297 Appendix 2 The SILL for English (Greek adaptation) ..........................................................................299 Appendix 3 The SILL for Greek (Greek adaptation) ............................................................................301 Appendix 4 Individual background questionnaire (IBQ) 1 ..................................................................303 Appendix 5 Individual background questionnaire (IBQ) 2 ..................................................................303 Appendix 6 SILL reliability analysis ...................................................................................................305 Appendix 7 Frequency of use of individual items on SILL for English (all valid cases) ........................306 Appendix 8 Frequency of use of individual items on SILL for Greek (all valid multilingual cases) .......308 Appendix 9 Descriptive statistics for SILL for English........................................................................311 Appendix 10 Descriptive statistics for SILL for Greek .........................................................................318 Appendix 11 Independent samples t- test – Comparison of means for monolingual and

multilingual cases on SILL for English .........................................................................321 Appendix 12 Pearson r correlation coefficient for correlation of strategy use on SILL for English

and SILL for Greek.......................................................................................................324 Appendix 13 Paired-samples statistics – Comparison of means on individual items and strategy

categories on SILL for English and SILL for Greek.........................................................325 Appendix 14 Paired-Samples t- test - Comparison of means on individual items and strategy

categories for SILL for English and SILL for Greek ........................................................329

Lydia Mitits 17


Lydia Mitits 19

1. Introduction

Research into strategies that language learners use was originally aimed at

identifying what it is that they do to learn a language, followed by the studies that

recognized the relationship between language learning strategy use and success in

language learning (Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975). With the development of concepts of

learner-centeredness (Rogers, 1951), learner autonomy (Holec, 1980) and self-

regulated language learning (Pintrich, 2000), the role of language learning strategies

as a tool for successful learning and a crucial element in the learning process

became even more prominent as it was noted that language learning strategies

enabled learners to become more efficient in learning and using a language.

More recent studies of second/foreign language acquisition have recognized that

language learning happens under certain conditions which influence the choice of

strategies, such as various learner characteristics: gender (Politzer, 1983; Ehrman &

Oxford, 1989; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Oxford, 1993; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995;

Wharton, 2000; Papanis, 2008; Gavriilidou & Papanis, 2010; Vrettou, 2011), age

(Purdie & Oliver, 1999; Psaltou-Joycey & Sougari, 2010), language proficiency

(Bialystok, 1981; Chamot & Küpper, 1989; Phillips, 1991; Park, 1997; Kazamia, 2003),

motivation (Ramirez, 1986; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989), learning styles (Ehrman &

Oxford, 1989), and beliefs about language learning (Park, 1997; Yang, 1999). Other

factors, like cultural background (Politzer & McGroarty, 1985; Oxford & Burry-Stock,

1995; Oxford, 1996), social context (Parks & Raymond, 2004), and prior language

learning experience (Jessner, 1999; Bialystok, 2001; Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou,

2009a; Vrettou, 2009), among others, also affect the way in which a language is

learned. The factor of primary interest in this study is multilingualism and how the

fact that multilingual learners learn and/or use more than one language on a daily


basis affects the choice and frequency of language learning strategies at their

disposal.

In the last decade there has been a significant amount of research into

multilingualism and third language acquisition (e.g. De Angelis, 2007; Aronin &

Hufeisen, 2009; Cenoz, 2009). Although various models of multilingualism

acknowledge the importance of language learning strategy development and use

(e.g. Herdina & Jessner, 2002) there is very little evidence of how language learning

strategies influence third language learning and what their role in crosslinguistic

influence among L1, L2 and L3 is. There may be a long research tradition in

investigating language learning strategies as well as a significant body of research

into bi-/multilingualism, yet studies which compare monolinguals’ and

multilinguals’ language learning strategy use are few. There is very little literature

that brings together multilinguals, language learning strategies, and an additional

language learning (Grenfell & Harris, 2007).

Research has found that there are differences in the choice and frequency of

strategies that monolinguals and multilinguals use when learning an additional

language and those are generally in favor of multilinguals (e.g. Psaltou-Joycey &

Kantaridou, 2009a); the possible explanation being the multilinguals’ prior language

learning experience which helps them select more appropriate strategies. However,

the results of the limited number of comparative studies investigating this particular

aspect of language learning are still inconclusive (Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2007; Shabani

& Sarem, 2009; Tuncer, 2009).

Greek secondary education has witnessed some important changes in the last

couple of decades with a significant influx of immigrants whose children started

attending Greek mainstream education. Undoubtedly, those children brought with

them the culture and language(s) of their home countries. Apart from that, there is

Lydia Mitits 21

the Muslim minority in Thrace who are L1 speakers of Turkish, Pomak and the

language of Roma, a certain number of whom also attend secondary schools where

Greek is the medium of instruction. On the whole, the number of bi-/multilingual

students in junior high schools in Komotini, Thrace (throughout Greece as well) is

unidentified. While the situation is clearer with the Muslim minority students whose

cultural and linguistic identity is known, those students who come from versatile

cultural backgrounds and have a strong need to assimilate are very often reluctant to

reveal their knowledge of other languages. Moreover, the teachers in junior high

schools are generally unaware of the presence of such bi-/multilingual learners and

are not trained to take advantage of this asset in the learning/teaching process.

Language learning strategies have been recognized as having the potential to

enhance the process of learning a second/foreign language ever since the relevant

research started in 1970s. As there is a significant number of multilingual learners

attending Greek secondary education, there is a need for a comparative study

investigating potential differences in language learning strategy use between

monolingual (L1 Greek) and multilingual (L1 non-Greek) early adolescent learners

that would contribute to creating their language learning profiles1. By knowing what

1 Monolingual. Monolingual refers to individuals who speak or use one language in order to communicate their daily needs on a daily basis. For the purpose of this study, a monolingual is defined as a learner who exclusively speaks Greek for daily communication needs, although he/she studies foreign language(s) at school. In this study, Greek speaking junior high school students are described as monolinguals. Even though they have experiences in foreign language learning, they use Greek as their functional everyday language.

Bilingual. Bilingual generally refers to individuals who speak or use two languages to meet their daily needs for communication and are usually equally fluent in both those languages. The present researcher uses the term bilingual only to cite other studies in which the participants are described as bilingual.

Multilingual. Multilingual generally refers to individuals who speak or use more than two languages, although it has been used in the literature to cover both two and more languages (see 5.1.). In the current study the term multilingual is used as an umbrella term to include both bilingual learners and those who speak more than two languages. Thus, multilinguals are junior high school students who participated in the study and who reported speaking another language(s) besides Greek on a daily basis (native and/or home language) and also study English FL at school.


paths learners take towards achieving proficiency in a language, in our case FL

English and L2 Greek, we can use that knowledge to enhance their awareness of how

to be more successful language learners as well as provide strategic instruction in

teaching materials in order to raise teachers’ awareness of issues related to

multilingualism and language learning strategies in Greek schools. Moreover, the

rationale for comparing second vs. foreign language learning contexts and strategy

use stems from the premise that whether a language is a foreign or a second plays an

important role. The situation in Greek secondary education with respect to the

language learning strategy profile of its multilingual learners is still uninvestigated.

It is not clear how those learners approach learning L2 Greek and FL English and

whether they transfer the strategies they employ from one additional language to

the other.

The secondary aim of investigating the strategic behavior of early adolescents

was to probe into some of the factors that have an effect on the frequency and type

of strategies they may deploy, such as their gender, age, language proficiency level

and motivation. These, as well as other factors, have been the object of numerous

studies into language learning strategies, but again a possible difference in the way

these factors affect monolingual and multilingual approach to learning an additional

language has rarely been documented.

Thus, this study is one of a few comparative studies in general and probably the

first large-scale study of the particular learner population in the context of Greek

secondary education.

The book is divided into the following chapters:

Chapter 1 introduces the research rationale, states the problem and describes the

approach to investigating the relationship between language learning strategies and

how monolingual and multilingual EFL learners employ them.

Lydia Mitits 23

Chapter 2 offers a wide theoretical framework which paved the way for research

into language learning strategies, starting with theories of general learning and

second language learning and moving to the concepts such as autonomous learning

and self-regulation.

Chapter 3 provides an overview of the research into language learning strategies to

the present day with a particular emphasis on the issues concerning definitions,

classifications and terminology in the field as well as the methods employed in their

investigation.

Chapter 4 focuses on exploring the factors that influence language learning

strategy use and on overviewing studies into learner and context variables such as

gender, age, proficiency level and motivation, which are explored in the present

study. However, it also offers an exhaustive overview of factors which are not directly

investigated here but are referred to in the discussion of the findings as having a

possible effect on the strategies the participants in the study deploy.

Chapter 5 looks into issues related to multilingualism, linguistic, cognitive and

sociocultural implications of being multilingual and, since this is a comparative study

of monolinguals and multilinguals learning EFL and Greek L2, special attention is paid

to research into crosslinguistic influence among various languages and the type of

transfer from first and second languages to third or additional languages. The role of

English in multilingual education is outlined and practical implications of a

multilingual education are noted. It ends with a report of studies comparing

monolingual and multilingual strategy use.

Chapter 6 describes the methodological approach adopted in the present study

with the general design, the context, the instruments, the adaptation procedure, the

ways in which the compiled data were processed and analyzed, and the participants’

profiles.


Chapter 7 reports on the results of the study with respect to the types of statistical

analyses that were conducted in order to compare language learning strategy use by

monolingual and multilingual early adolescents, and the effect of the independent

variables (gender, age, language proficiency level and motivation) upon the frequency

and type of strategies employed.

Chapter 8 attempts to bring together the present findings with the theoretical

background of language learning strategy research and multilingualism with the aim

to discuss the particular results and offer pedagogical justification for the

learning/teaching of strategies in the Greek junior high school.

Chapter 9 offers concluding remarks, notes the limitation of this research and

proposes future research interest into comparative studies of monolingual and

multilingual language learners.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor and mentor, Dr. Zoe

Gavriilidou, whose patience, guidance, sharp critical eye and scholarship offered

constant support towards the completion of the dissertation on which this book is

based. I wish to extend special thanks to the members of my dissertation committee:

Dr. Penelope Kambakis Vougiouklis and Dr. Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey for their valuable

suggestions, commitment and belief in me along the way. Moreover, being a member

of the Thales project2, which received a scientific grant for the adaptation of the

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) in Greek and Turkish and the

strategic profiling of Greek-speaking and Turkish-speaking students and whose

scientific responsible has been Dr. Gavriilidou, has helped me participate in

international conferences, share my research and gain invaluable knowledge and

2 The Thales project MIS 379335 was conducted within the National Strategic Reference Frame (Ε.Σ.Π.Α) and was co-funded with resources from the European Union (European Social Fund) and national resources.

Lydia Mitits 25

experience in the field of applied linguistics. Next, I would like to thank the members

of the examination board for their participation in my PhD thesis defense.

I also wish to express my appreciation to the Ministry of Education, Lifelong

Learning, and Religious Affairs for granting me permission to conduct this study.

Many thanks go to my colleagues from the junior high schools in Komotini for their

unselfish cooperation. Thanks are also due to the junior high school students with

their willingness to respond to the demands of the study.

I am also indebted to my dear colleague Dr. Anna Sarafianou for offering advice

and pointing out errors and omissions, as well as to Miodrag Djordjevic for his

expertise with the statistical analysis employed for the purposes of the research.

Finally, I would not have been able to complete this book without the support of my

family and my husband in particular.


2. Theoretical background of language learning strategies

This chapter presents a review of the theories that have influenced research into

language learning strategies both indirectly and directly. The section on theories of

general learning shows how the role assigned to the learner during the process of

cognition and the level of their active involvement in the learning process have

helped establish the contribution of language learning strategies. Next, the most

influential theories of language acquisition are discussed with respect to how

conscious processes and language learning strategies have now been made implicit

in the use of language. The theoretical positions on the first language acquisition,

such as Behaviorist, Innatist and Interactionist are then compared to those on

second language acquisition and different models of cognitive processing which

have influenced the study of language learning strategies to varied degrees are

outlined. Finally, the most significant and relevant concepts of a good language

learner, learner autonomy and learner self-regulation are presented and critically

reviewed, and the relevance of investigating language learning strategies in the

present research context is established.

2.1. Theories of general learning

Learners of languages find themselves in diverse learning/teaching contexts, yet all of

them regularly use strategies to help them master the language they are learning.

Those strategies can be defined as: “the learner’s goal-directed actions for improving

language proficiency or achievement, completing a task, or making learning more

efficient, more effective, and easier.” (Oxford, 2011a)

Research and theory into language learning strategies find their beginnings in the

early 1970s; however, theories and models that influenced them come from various

Lydia Mitits 27

eras and fields of study and date back to Ancient Greece and to 17th-20th century

philosophy, according to Oxford (2011a). One of the concepts that has had an impact

on language learning strategies is that of an autonomous language learner (Holec, 1981),

which started to appear in the literature on language learning strategies in the last

couple of decades. It has its deepest foundations in the notions of what makes an

individual autonomous. Numerous philosophers and educators have tried to offer

answers to this question. In ancient Greek city-states autonomy was first used as a

capacity, both of the state and individuals, to make informed and un-coerced

decisions, and was highly regarded. In the same vein, western moral and political

philosophers’ and educators’ definitions of an individual often contained the element

of an autonomous being, by which they generally meant responsibility and

accountability for individuals’ actions (Oxford, 2011a: 167).

The 20th century saw Behaviorism as the most influential theory of learning until

Piaget’ research into cognitive development of a child took over Skinners’ stimulus-

response-reinforcement model (Wenden, 1987). According to the behaviorist theory

learning in general as well as the learning of languages happened as a result of habit

formation. Thus, language teaching should focus on drilling and repetition practice in

order to form good language habits (Skinner, 1957). This theory has little to offer to

language learning strategy background as it ignores the importance of mental

processes during learning.

The theoretical shift that took place in 1950s and 1960s towards cognition

challenged Behaviorism and paved a way for Cognitive psychology and cognitive

information-processing theories (Oxford, 2011a). Piaget (1954) was the first

psychologist to make a systematic study of cognitive development with his empirical

and theoretical work on cognition in children. He has been extremely influential in

developing educational policy and teaching. His concept of discovery learning-the idea


that children learn best through doing and actively exploring-was seen as central in

primary school curriculum. Learning should be student-centered and the role of the

teacher is to facilitate learning rather than offer direct tuition (McLeod, 2009). For

example, teachers should encourage their learners to use active methods that require

rediscovering or reconstructing the reality. Although Piaget did not explicitly talk

about language learning strategies, the cognitive processes he classified (ordering,

analyzing, problem-solving, etc.) belong to cognitive language learning strategies

(Oxford, 2011a).

The other chief exponent of Psychology of Cognitive Development, Bruner (1960)

stressed the importance of education in forming autonomous learners, or teaching

children how to learn. His main premise was that students are active learners who

construct their own knowledge through discovery learning, and they do this by

organizing and categorizing information using a coding system. Bruner believed that

the most effective way to develop a coding system is to help learners discover it

rather than explicitly teach it. The purpose of education is not to impart knowledge,

but instead to facilitate a child's thinking and problem solving skills which can then

be transferred to a range of situations (McLeod, 2008). It becomes apparent that,

although he did not refer to language learning strategies as such either, the idea of

facilitating autonomy of learning presupposes the development of language learning

strategies.

The next influence is found in the work of Vygotsky (1962), who laid the

foundation of much research and theory on cognitive development over the past

several decades, through what has become known as Social Development Theory

(McLeod, 2007). For him social interaction plays a crucial role in the development of

cognition of an individual. Such development cannot be understood without a

reference to the social and cultural context within which it is embedded.

Lydia Mitits 29

Both Piaget and Vygotsky believed in children being actively involved in their own

learning and the discovery and development of new understandings. However,

Vygotsky’s socio-cultural approach to cognitive development placed more emphasis

on social contributions to the process of development, whereas Piaget emphasized

self-initiated discovery (McLeod, 2007).

Vygotsky’s most relevant concept to language learning strategies is the Zone of

Proximal Development (ZPD) which lies between what is already known and the new

knowledge to be mastered (1978). In ZPD a knowledgeable person (a teacher, an adult

or a peer) can guide the child and encourage the development of skills and strategies

necessary in order to master new knowledge.

The role of language in cognitive development is twofold according to Vygotsky

(1962). It is the main means by which adults transmit information to children and it is

the crucial means of intellectual adaptation. Vygotsky (1978) believed that language

develops through social interactions (until it becomes internalized as thought) and

inner speech, at which point the learner achieves self-regulation. According to Oxford

(2011a) Vygotsky’s influence on language learning strategy research is even more

evident from his description of a method of teaching where the teacher and students

collaborate in learning and developing skills, such as analyzing, synthesizing,

planning, monitoring and evaluating. In other words, Vygotsky sees private speech as a

means for children to plan activities and strategies and therefore facilitate their

development.

This view that language helps to regulate thinking and understanding processes is

the one shared by Bruner. Moreover, Bruner, like Vygotsky, recognized the social

nature of learning, stating that a child should be assisted in developing skills through

the process called scaffolding. The concept of scaffolding is very similar to Vygotsky’s

notion of the Zone of Proximal Development, and, according to McLeod (2008), both


these terms are often used interchangeably. Scaffolding involves helpful, structured

interaction between an adult and a child with the aim of helping the child achieve a

specific goal. “It refers to the steps taken to reduce the degrees of freedom in carrying

out some task so that the child can concentrate on the difficult skill she is in the

process of acquiring” (Bruner, 1978:19).

2.2. Language Acquisition theories

Skinner’s Verbal Behavior published in 1957 offered one of the earliest scientific

explanations of language acquisition. As one of the pioneers of Developmental

Psychology, in particular Behaviorism, Skinner accounted for language development

by means of the influence the environment exerts on the child. He argued that a child

will learn a language by associating words with meanings, based on behaviorist

reinforcement principles. Correct utterances are positively reinforced when the child

perceives their communicative value (Ambridge & Lieven, 2011).

This view soon received a heavy criticism by Chomsky (1959) in his famous

review article on Verbal Behavior. He totally refuted the fundamental concepts of a

behaviorist approach to language arguing that language input alone could not

account for the fact that a child can process an infinite number of sentences. As a

result, Universal Grammar (UG) was the concept proposed by Chomsky (1965), by

which he means abstract knowledge of innate grammatical categories (nouns, verbs,

etc.) that facilitate language development and language processing in general.

According to the innatist theory, UG is supposed to accommodate all the necessary

grammatical information for a child to develop language.

However, in the following decades the concept of Universal Grammar started to

be questioned by some psycholinguists who argued that categories such as nouns

and verbs cannot be explained from a biological or psychological standpoint (see

Lydia Mitits 31

Sampson, 2005). They asked for an explanation of the language acquisition process

that would not rely on those innate categories and language specific mechanism,

but rather on general cognitive and learning processes. The Generativists, Chomsky

in particular, stated that for the UG to be activated, the individual must be exposed

to linguistic input, that is, natural language of the child’s environment.

Although the Generativists are still trying to convince that language is a task too

demanding to acquire without specific innate equipment, while the constructivists

are fiercely arguing for the importance of linguistic input, those attempts to

discover psychological correlates to language learning have yielded very interesting

interpretations of language comprehension and production according to Stern

(1983). He points out that conscious processes and language learning strategies have

now been made implicit in the use of language.

2.3. Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theories

Not surprisingly, the theoretical positions on the first language acquisition, such as

Behaviorist and Innatist share many similarities with those on second language

acquisition. The Creative Constructivist view of SLA (the proponents of which were

i.e. Dulay & Burt, 1974) reflects Chomsky’s concepts on first language learning.

According to Lightbown and Spada (1993) this view holds that learners ‘construct’

internal representations of the language they are learning, which can be described

as ‘mental pictures’ of the language. Those internal representations are believed to

systematically develop towards a full second language acquisition.

The most significant version of this theoretical approach to SLA has been that of

Krashen (1981; 1982). Although his work has been heavily criticized, its intuitive

appeal is probably what makes it as influential as O’Brien (2000) so aptly notices.

Krashen’s Monitor model comprises five central hypotheses: the acquisition-leaning


hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, the input hypothesis and

the affective filter hypothesis.

According to the acquisition-learning hypothesis, second language can be learned in

two ways: by acquisition and by learning, where acquisition means an

unintentional, natural way of engaging in meaningful interaction and, as a result,

acquiring language, while learning is a conscious process of study usually associated

with a formal classroom context. Krashen (1982) points out that learning cannot

become acquisition and that only acquired language can lead to fluency. The monitor

hypothesis means that the acquired system of language helps fluency and intuitive

knowledge of correctness, while the learned system only plays the role of an editor.

For the monitor to take place the following conditions must be met: the learner

must have sufficient time, should focus on form rather than meaning and should

have explicit knowledge of the rules of grammar. Krashen claims that the rules of

language are acquired in a predictable sequence and this forms the base of his

natural order hypothesis, in the wake of Brown’s investigation of the first language

acquisition, in which he followed the linguistic development of the same group of

children (1973). Moreover, language is acquired only if the learner receives

comprehensible input (like scaffolding), which according to Krashen is a level above

the current learner’s level of knowledge. And, finally, the affective filter hypothesis

refers to the affective state of a learner that is detrimental in the process of

acquisition. Unless the learner is relaxed and motivated, he cannot use the input

available in the environment (O’Brien, 2000).

The implications of Krashen’s Monitor theory on language learning strategy

research is indirect rather than direct, since he does not talk about LLS as such.

Psaltou-Joycey (2010) relates his terms of conscious-unconscious and implicit-

explicit to language learning strategies which help the learner to automate and

Lydia Mitits 33

acquire language after conscious, planned practice. Moreover, the idea of

monitoring is also relevant to LLS since it is at the base of a whole group of

strategies known as metacognitive strategies and other more specific strategies that

facilitate comprehension and language production (Psaltou-Joycey, 2010:26).

Probably, the most obvious implication is that of the affective filter hypothesis because

it can be related to the relationship between affective variables and language

learning strategies, as a result of which categories of affective strategies that

learners can use to lower their affective filter while learning a language have been

described (Psaltou-Joycey, 2010:27).

The second language acquisition viewed from an interactionist perspective is

once again related to the theories on first language learning. The position in which

equal weight is given to both the learner and the situation is known as

Interactionism. Cook (1981) stresses that neither the innatist views expressed by

Chomsky’s emphasis on internal properties of the learner’s mind nor the

behaviorists’ concentration on the environment totally dispense with properties of

the learner and the situation. They both recognize that there is a form of

interaction between the learner and the environment, although in their views it is

marginal. Cook further elaborates on a diverse range of contributions the learner

makes to learning, among which are: motivation to learn the language, level of

cognitive development, strategies for language learning and for communication,

etc. Long (1985), an important proponent of interactionist view, states that in order

for acquisition to take place, comprehensible input is required, which is in line with

Krashen’s input hypothesis. What interests the interactionists most is how this input

is made comprehensible, and their answer is that it is facilitated by modified speech

between the learner and a knowledgeable person. Since this interactional

modification makes input comprehensible and that input is then acquired, the


interactionists conclude that it is this interactional modification that promotes

acquisition. What is of particular interest as far as language learning strategies are

concerned is that this view recognizes the need for strategies such as noticing,

consciousness-raising, attention, etc., if interaction is to lead to acquisition (Psaltou-

Joycey, 2010).

The Cognitivist view of the second language acquisition is concerned with the

mental processes involved and how those processes can explain the nature of

learners' language knowledge. Again, this research has its roots in the more general

area of cognitive science, and relies on various concepts and models used in more

general cognitive theories of learning. According to cognitive theories, second

language acquisition is an aspect of more general learning mechanisms in the brain.

A model which has dominated the field of second language acquisition is known

as the Computational Model and involves the following three stages: during the first

stage, learners retain certain features of the language input (called intake) in short-

term memory; next, learners convert some of this intake into second-language

knowledge, which is stored in long-term memory; and, finally, learners use this

second-language knowledge to produce spoken output (Ellis, 1997).

Lightbown and Spada (1993) point out the two crucial phenomena that are of

interest to Cognitivists. The first one is automaticity and the second is restructuring. It

has been suggested that learners gradually build up systems of language knowledge

and that they are in a position to recall it automatically when they need to interact

in a second language (McLaughlin, 1987). However, some of the knowledge we

possess cannot be accounted for in terms of gradual build-up of automaticity. For

this reason, cognitive theorists suggest that the existing system of knowledge

restructures itself in order to accommodate the new knowledge.

Lydia Mitits 35

The cognitive approach to second language acquisition views language learning

as an inseparable part of general learning, to which all the principal cognitive

processes apply. It considers language learning as a complex cognitive skill. Ellis

(1994) observes that this view is in direct contrast with linguistic theories, which

posit that language acquisition is a unique process different from other types of

learning.

The most relevant advantages of viewing second language acquisition as a

complex cognitive skill for the purposes of this research is that, firstly, it provides a

mechanism for describing how language learning ability can be improved and,

secondly, it pertains to the development and use of learning strategies in second

language instruction (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990:19).

Another theory of second language acquisition that has contributed to research

into language learning strategies is that of Interlanguage. The term was coined by

Selinker (1972) and refers to the temporary grammars that learners construct

during the process of language learning. This linguistic system of a language learner

draws both from their L1 and L2 but at the same time it differs from both of them

and as a result it is unique. The basic notion of the Interlanguage theory is hypothesis

testing. According to this idea, learners make hypotheses about the rules of

language and then test them through use. Those hypotheses are either confirmed or

rejected, so the learner’s grammar is open to influences and is transitional (Corder,

1967). Ellis (1997:34) points out that one of the concepts of the Interlanguage theory

involves the following premise, which, it must be added, is of a particular

importance to the research on language learning strategies. It refers to the

employment of various learning strategies by learners in order to develop their

interlanguage. During the learning process, errors of omission, overgeneralization,

negative transfer or simplification occur, but those should be viewed as evidence of


learning strategy use. It becomes obvious that the role of strategies during second

language acquisition is not only recognized but also emphasized in the

Interlanguage theory.

2.4. Models of cognitive views of second/foreign language learning

In the early days of SLA research, Interlanguage was seen as its basic representation;

however, more recent research has taken a number of different approaches in

characterizing the mental representation of linguistic knowledge. Different models

of cognitive processing have influenced the study of language learning strategies to

varied degrees and are discussed here according to how explicit about the role of

language learning strategies they are.

Bialystok’s (1978) model, more than any other mentioned herein, is explicit about

the role of language learning strategies. The operation of her model is explained in

terms of learning processes and learning strategies. Learning processes are

universal and interdependent, while learning strategies are optional and

individualized. As far as language learning strategies are concerned, there are four

categories in the model: inferencing, monitoring, formal practicing, and functional

practicing. The type of strategy used by the learner is dependent upon the type of

knowledge required for a given task. Moreover, Bialystok discusses three types of

knowledge: explicit linguistic knowledge, implicit linguistic knowledge, and general

knowledge of the world, and proposes that inferencing may be used with implicit

linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the world while monitoring, formal

practicing and functional practicing enrich both explicit and implicit linguistic

knowledge.

Canale and Swain’s (1980) Model of Communicative Competence includes

grammatical, sociolinguistic, discoursal, and strategic knowledge. Cognitive

Lydia Mitits 37

components are also contingent in their model of language competence although

the role of learning strategies is not defined (O’Malley et al, 1985). The strategic

component is of particular interest to LLS research and in their theoretical

framework it refers to communication strategies, which can be differentiated from

learning strategies with respect to their purpose. As O’Malley and Chamot (1990)

explain, learning strategies are directed towards learning, while communication

strategies towards maintaining communication.

McLaughlin, Rossman and McLeod (1983), in their model of second language

acquisition, place even more emphasis on the cognitive role of the learner as an

active organizer of the linguistic information they receive, with processing

limitations and capabilities according to O’Malley and Chamot (1990). They look at

second language learning from a human information processing perspective, which

derives from cognitive psychology concerned with the processes of learning,

perception, memory, problem solving, and decision making. According to this

model, the learner stores and retrieves information based on how much of that

information has been processed. That processing is initially controlled, but practice

allows for automatization which is achieved through the restructuring of the

learner’s interlanguage (McLaughlin, 1987). The most relevant point is that, during

restructuring, language learning strategies facilitate the learner to become more

independent by moving from the controlled to the automatic phase (Psaltou-Joycey,

2010).

O’Malley et al (1985) acknowledge that theories of second language learning and

proficiency often include a cognitive component; yet, the role of learning strategies

in second language processing has remained vague. Cummins’s (1984) Model of

Language Proficiency, for example, does not explicitly articulate the role of

language learning strategies, although it allows for language learning strategies as a


part of the cognitive component. In other words, he positions tasks along a

continuum from cognitively demanding to cognitively undemanding and language

from context embedded to context-reduced, thus viewing language proficiency in

terms of those two continua: task difficulty and linguistic context.

Another model, however, places a more important emphasis on learning

strategies within its cognitive component. The Model of Second Language

Competence proposed by Wong Fillmore and Swain (1984) includes cognitive,

affective and social components. While first language learning occurs as a result of

inherent developmental and experiential factors, the authors maintain that

successful second language learning is mainly due to learning strategies. The role of

language learning strategies and their relation to the affective and social

components in the model are not specified by the authors.

A particularly useful framework of second language acquisition, as recognized by

O’Malley and Chamot (1990), is Anderson’s Adaptive Control of Thought (ACT)

Model (Anderson, 1983, 1985) which rests on the distinction between declarative and

procedural knowledge. The ACT model is extremely complex; however, the current

context of language learning strategy research will mostly benefit from the fact that

it helps identify, test and apply specific learning strategies according to the stage of

language learning (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990: 20). Anderson assumes three main dif-

ferences between declarative (what we know about) and procedural knowledge

(what we know how to do). The former is either possessed or not, while the latter

can be partially possessed; declarative knowledge is acquired instantly, whereas

procedural knowledge is acquired gradually. Finally, declarative knowledge can be

communicated verbally, but procedural knowledge cannot. Learning a language,

like any other type of skill learning, begins with declarative knowledge which

Lydia Mitits 39

slowly becomes proceduralized, and the mechanism which facilities this is practice

(Ellis, 1994:388).

This transition of declarative to procedural knowledge takes place in three

stages: the cognitive stage, the associative stage and the autonomous stage. In the

cognitive stage information is stored as facts for which there are no pre-constructed

activation procedures. During the second stage, the associative stage, as it is

difficult to use declarative knowledge, learners try to compose the information into

more efficient production sets, and use ‘proceduralization’ during which they apply

a general rule to particular situation. Anderson (1983) notes that it is during this

stage that errors are particularly likely to occur. In the autonomous stage

procedures become increasingly automated. According to Anderson (ibid.) first and

second language learning only differ with respect to the stage they reach. He

maintains that L1 learners almost invariably reach the autonomous stage while

second language learners generally reach the associative stage. As a result, full

autonomy is difficult to achieve during second language learning despite the fact

that learners reach a fair degree of proceduralization through practice and can use

rules of the language without awareness.

2.5. The ‘Good language learner’ studies

The ‘good language learner’ (GLL) studies is the name applied to a group of studies

in the field of second language acquisition which shared a common interest. They

all sought to establish what it is that successful language learners do that makes

them learn languages more efficiently and effectively. By discovering the qualities

of a good language learner, the proponents of the GLL studies believed that the

strategies of successful learners could be used to help those who were not so

successful.


The original studies were conducted in the 1970s; however, they continued in the

1980s with researchers focusing on identifying individual learning strategies and

concerning themselves with other issues. Some research on the topic has also been

carried out in more recent years as well. The first studies in the good language

learner tradition were those by Rubin (1975), Stern (1975), and Naiman, Fröhlich

and Todesco (1978) who all speculated about distinctive learning strategies of good

language learners.

In her seminal article Rubin (1975) developed a list of strategies which

characterize good language learners and those can be summarized as follows: good

language learners are willing and able to use clues in order to guess meaning; they

use a variety of techniques in order to communicate or learn from communication;

they also manage inhibitions; they pay attention to form; they find ways to practice

the language they are trying to learn; they monitor both their own and others’

speech; and, finally, they pay attention to meaning. Rubin pointed out that a

number of factors such as the task, the learning stage, the learner’s age, the learning

context, learning style, and cultural differences influence strategy use and she

concluded by suggesting that knowledge about good language learners will help

reduce the gap between a better and a poorer language learner (Griffiths, 2008),

thus recognizing that individual differences affect language learning strategy use

(Psaltou-Joycey, 2010).

In his article, besides identifying and classifying language learning strategies,

Stern (1975) also stressed the ability of a good language learner to deal with their

emotions related to the process of learning a language. Naiman, Fröhlich, and

Todesco (1975) made a list of strategies used by successful language learners, noting

that such learners learn to think in the target language. Their further contribution

is that they addressed the affective aspects of language acquisition as well. The

Lydia Mitits 41

descriptions of a good language learner offered by the above discussed researchers

significantly overlap in the approach they have towards strategic learning and a

focus on both structure and meaning (Oxford, 2011a: 170).

In 1978 Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern, and Todesco published The Good Language

Learner, which proved to become a particularly influential study on the

characteristics and learning strategies of successful language learners. They studied

language learning experiences of adults and children with the intent to discover

whether successful learners had particular personality traits, learning styles,

attitudes and beliefs, or past language learning experiences that differed from those

of less successful learners. They also concerned themselves with determining

learner strategies, techniques, and activities that correlated with success in

language learning.

Another significant contribution is that of Reiss (1985) who found that even less

effective learners often use as many strategies as GLLs. However, they apply

strategies randomly or desperately. She also discerned that many GLLs are neither

extroverted nor mistake-uninhibited as previously believed (Oxford, 2011a: 171).

According to Norton and Toohey’s (2001) account many subsequent SLA studies

of adults and children (Wong Fillmore, 1979; Dulay, Burt & Krashen, 1982; Ellis, 1989;

Bialystok, 1990; Chamot & O’Malley, 1994) were conducted on the basis of

assumptions that learners use particular language learning strategies and that

cognitive traits, affective orientations, motivation, past experiences, and other

individual characteristics also affect their second language learning.

Griffith’s edited book, Lessons from Good Language Learners (2008), in which she

honors Rubin’s pioneering work on GLLs (1975), revealed that GLLs use a range of

strategies for different language skill areas (listening, speaking, reading and

writing) and purposes (the target variables), and that language learning is highly


complex involving many different variables, such as motivation, age, style,

personality, gender, metacognition, autonomy, beliefs, culture, nationality and

aptitude as well as some situational factors. Griffiths (2008) reminds us, though, that

30 years after the publication of Rubin’s article there is still a lot of controversy on

the issue of GLLs and that some of the questions that still need a consensus are the

following:

• What is it that makes for a good language learner?

• Why are some learners more successful than others?

• How do learner characteristics such as motivation, beliefs, aptitude, age,

gender, style, personality and culture, and learner behavior such as strategy use,

metacognition, or autonomy relate to effective language learning?

• How can learners manage aspects of the learning situation such as

teaching/learning method, strategy instruction, error correction, or task, in order

to effectively reach learning goals such as building vocabulary, expanding

grammatical knowledge and functional competence, improving pronunciation, and

developing their listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills?

• What have we already found out and what do we still need to know?

• What can educators do to help? (Griffiths, 2008:1)

In the same book Rubin (2008:10-15) summarizes the contribution of the Good

language learner studies to the shift toward including the learner in both research and

teaching and the new trend towards learner-centered rather than teacher-centered

approach to learning/teaching languages as well as approaching learners as

individuals (Nunan, 1988; Brown, 2000; Cook & Cook, 2001). She also stresses that

GLL studies have contributed to the concept of autonomous learner and have led to

the publications which help teachers enable autonomous learning (Willing, 1989;

Oxford, 1990; Wenden, 1991; Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary & Robbins, 1999). Other

Lydia Mitits 43

publications have focused on offering self-guidance to learners of languages with

respect to the knowledge and skills they need in order to become autonomous (Ellis

& Sinclair, 1989; Rubin & Thompson, 1994; Paige, Cohen, Kappler, Chi & Lassegard,

2002). This focus on the learner is also present in the research on style (Reid, 1995;

Ehrman, 1996) and on individual differences (Skehan, 1989; Dörnyei, 2005).

By now the notion of a single prototypical good language learner has been rejected

by many researchers since numerous research studies have found that equally

successful language learners may have significantly different profiles; they do not

necessarily use the same language strategies and, even if they do, they may not use

them for the same purposes or in the same way (Macaro, 2001). It is generally

admitted that there are various ways that language learners can be successful. So,

limiting the description of the good language learner to the one that is prescriptive

or ignoring learner differences is acknowledged as insufficient. Yet, it is also

stressed by researchers that successful language learners are strategic in their

learning (Gavriilidou & Psaltou-Joycey, 2009).

This has become evident as many researchers have made a clear and critical

distinction between cognitive and metacognitive strategies (O’Malley & Chamot,

1990; Oxford, 1990; Wenden, 1991; Chamot, 1994). As Rubin (2008) reminds us,

Wenden (1998), based on the work of Flavell (1979), further clearly separated this

cognitive and metacognitive distinction into knowledge and self-management while

Rubin (2001), following the cognitive psychologist Butler (1997), named them

knowledge and procedures. According to her, knowledge (of strategies, self, or

background) will vary by learner. However procedures “…do not vary by learner but

are rather the overarching management process which all expert learners use to

regulate/manage their learning and which do not vary by learner but rather by

task, learner goal and learner purpose.” (Rubin cited in Griffiths, 2008:11)


2.6. The concept of autonomy

The concept of autonomy, largely focused on in the early 1980s, is one of the crucial

ideas in theory and research on language learning strategies. The term autonomy

was first used by Holec (1980) to refer to the language learners’ attitude of

responsibility, and self-direction towards the learning mode, situation, or

techniques/strategies in which the attitude is manifested (Oxford, 2011a). The

importance of autonomy in language learning is generally recognized by

researchers and educators (Dam, 1995; Dickinson & Wenden, 1995; Benson & Voller,

1997); however, as far as its meaning is concerned, it is difficult to describe

precisely.

Littlewood (1996) suggests that the term autonomy viewed from a general

perspective may refer to a capacity of thinking and acting independently in any

situation, or when viewed from a language learning prospective may be understood

to refer to learning autonomy. Benson (2006) defines autonomy in language

learning as the ability of the learner to take more control over the purposes for

which they learn languages and the ways in which they learn them. He also

describes it as a capacity to take charge of, or take responsibility for, or control over

your own learning. He concludes that autonomy involves abilities and attitudes that

people possess, and can develop to various degrees. Oxford (2011a) sees autonomy

as the quality or state of being self-governing; related to self-regulation, self-

direction, and self-determination.

Benson (2001) distinguishes between various ways and degrees of learning by

yourself (‘self-instruction', ‘myself-access', 'self-study', 'self-education', 'out-of-class

learning' or 'distance learning') and autonomy which refers to abilities and

attitudes. His point is that learning by yourself is not the same thing as having the

Lydia Mitits 45

capacity to learn by yourself. It becomes evident that terms such as autonomy,

individual learning, self-direction, self-access, etc. have been used as alternatives to

deal with the complexity of language learning. However, the present researcher’s

stand is that the underlying assumption that the various terms include can be

summed up by Holec's definition of autonomy as "the ability to take charge of one's

learning" (1980:3).

Despite the fact that there is a lot of vagueness about the term autonomy, there

is nevertheless a broad agreement about what autonomous learners are. They are

said to understand the purpose of their learning program, accept responsibility for

their learning, share in the setting of learning goals, take initiatives in planning and

executing learning activities, and regularly review their learning and evaluate its

effectiveness (Little, 2013). For Little, learner autonomy is “...a holistic view of the

learner that requires us to engage with the cognitive, metacognitive, affective and

social dimensions of language learning and to worry about how they interact with

one another”. (2013:1)

It becomes obvious from the above that leaner training is closely related to

strategy training, and that they are both methods used to help learners develop

necessary skills to become autonomous (Wenden, 1991; Dickinson, 1992; Cohen,

1998; Benson, 2006). Wenden (1987: 12) reminds us that research into language

learning strategies may tend to advocate only the importance of learning

techniques; nonetheless, what we should be doing is consider both dimensions of

autonomy: facility of the use of self-instructional techniques or strategies and an

internal change of consciousness. She concludes that the training in the use of

language learning strategies must not be an end in itself and that it would not be

effective unless it is accompanied by the fostering of learner autonomy, by which


she means critical reflection on behalf of the learner of the conceptual context of

learning.

Macaro (2001:20) also admits to a close link between the concept of learner

strategies and that of learner autonomy. He explains that the demands of the

modern world and the constantly changing global situation require autonomous

language learners who will be able to independently develop their language skills if

or when they find themselves in a new learning context. However, he notices that

autonomy is a learning concept that is difficult to grasp and has not become such a

solid part of education. While acknowledging that the link between learner

autonomy and language learning strategies exists, he points out that the concept of

learning strategies is more definable, accessible and operational.

2.7. The concept of self-regulation

The concept of strategy has been under criticism since the end of the 1990’s and the

trend has been to replace it by the concept of self-regulation, the term first used by

Pintrich in Boekaerts, Pintrich and Zeidner (2000) to focus on the process of

learning or self-regulation, rather than on its product or the use of strategies.

According to Zimmerman (2000) self-regulation in general learning refers to

“thoughts, feelings and actions that are planned and adapted to the attainment of

personal goals” and, according to Schunk and Ertmer (2000) self-regulated learning

includes: setting goals for learning, concentrating on instruction, using effective

strategies to organize ideas, using resources effectively, monitoring performance,

managing time effectively, and holding positive beliefs about one’s capabilities.

Duckworth, Akerman, MacGregor, Salter and Vorhaus (2009) define the concept of

self-regulation as “… the ability to concentrate, become involved in group activities,

restrain disruptive and impulsive behavior, and work autonomously”.

Lydia Mitits 47

When learner self-regulation is applied to second/foreign language learning, the

various proposed models reveal the problem of terminology. Dickinson (1987)

named it learner self-direction, Scarcella and Oxford (1992) based on Vygotsky (1978)

called it mediated learning, Oxford (1999) referred to it as self-regulated or autonomous

L2 learning, while Rubin (2001) used the term learner-self management.

The issue of self-management in language learning is a crucial characteristic of a

good language learner, who is now viewed as the one who can accept uncertainty

and is willing to test his hypotheses. This ability to self-manage can perhaps explain

why some learners are more successful than others. They seem to be able to

recognize that change is an integral part of the learning process and are more

comfortable with uncertainty (Rubin, 2008). It can also be concluded that effective

language learning does not happen as a result of possessing a particular strategy but

rather as a relationship between the way a strategy is employed and the tasks and

learner goals (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Vann & Abraham, 1990; Ehrman, Leaver &

Oxford, 2003).

Dörnyei (2005) pointed out the lack of consensus regarding the unit of analysis

and the construct of strategy itself and indicated that studies on strategies were

unable to explain the differences between an ordinary learning activity and a

strategic learning activity. Along the same line of thinking, a number of authors

have proposed replacing the notion of strategy with a more versatile notion of self-

regulation as being more useful for broader research purposes (Dörnyei, 2005; Tseng,

Dörnyei & Schmitt, 2006; Macaro, 2006; Tseng & Schmitt, 2008; Mizumoto, 2013).

Oxford referred to self-regulation as “…one of the most exciting developments in

second or foreign language (L2) learning” (2011b: 7) and presented the Strategic

Self-Regulation (S2R) Model of language learning according to which learners


actively and constructively use strategies to manage their own learning. In her S2R

Model:

…self-regulated L2 learning strategies are defined as deliberate, goal-directed

attempts to manage and control efforts to learn the L2 (based on Afflerbach,

Pearson, and Paris, 2008). These strategies are broad, teachable actions that

learners choose from among alternatives and employ for L2 learning purposes (e.g.,

constructing, internalizing, storing, retrieving, and using information; completing

short-term tasks; and/or developing L2 proficiency and self-efficacy in the long

term). (Oxford, 2011b: 12)

Oxford (2011b) also attempted to clarify the confusion between the terms learning

strategies and skills as they are used by researchers when referring to self-regulation

in second/foreign language learning. According to her, the points that distinguish

strategies and skills are their intention and learner awareness as opposed to

automaticity and lack of awareness. Thus, in order to classify an action as a strategy

or a skill, first, it must be established whether it is under the learner’s deliberate or

automatic control.

The Strategic Self-Regulation (S2R) Model of L2 learning put forward by Oxford

(2011b:16) builds upon the concept of metastrategies which are very general

strategies for organizing concrete solutions to specific problems and should be

expanded beyond the cognitive to the affective and social-interactive areas. They

guide and control the use of cognitive, affective and sociocultural-interactive

strategies at either the task level or the whole process level (Oxford, 2011b:289).

Lydia Mitits 49

Table 1 Strategic Self-Regulation (S2R) Model of L2 learning

Metastrategies and strategies Purpose

8 metastrategies (metacognitive, meta-affective, and metasociocultural-interactive): Paying Attention Planning Obtaining and Using Resources Organizing Implementing Plans Orchestrating Strategy Use Monitoring Evaluating

Managing and controlling L2 learning in a general sense, with a focus on understanding one’s own needs and using and adjusting the other strategies to meet those needs

6 strategies in the cognitive dimension: Using the Senses to Understand and Remember Activating Knowledge Reasoning Conceptualizing with Details Conceptualizing Broadly Going Beyond the Existing Data

Remembering and processing the L2 (constructing, transforming, and applying L2 knowledge)

2 strategies in the affective dimension: Activating Supportive Emotions, Beliefs, and Attitudes Generating and Maintaining Motivation

Handling emotions, beliefs, attitudes, and motivation in L2 learning

3 strategies in the sociocultural-interactive dimension: Interacting to Learn and Communicate Learning Despite Communicative Knowledge Gaps Dealing with Sociocultural Contexts and Identities

Dealing with issues of contexts, communication, and culture in L2 learning


Gu (2010), in the advanced review of Oxford’s book, sees this new model as a

starting point to renew interest in language learning strategy research by closely

integrating it into the mainstream of applied linguistics and educational psychology

since it allows more research on the self-regulated learner’s active involvement and

on how strategies influence learning ability, proficiency as well as the learner’s

identity as a self-initiating, reflective, responsible social agent. As its proponent, Gu

claims that it is the best attempt to face the existing challenges and issues that the

field of language learning strategy research has been facing.

On the other hand, McDonough (2012) questions the formulation according to

which each strategy dimension has its own controlling meta-strategies by saying

that one:

… may have a problem understanding how a meta-strategy on the analogy of

metacognition (‘cognitions about cognitions’) might be constituted. Although, of

course, we have emotions about emotions, a meta-affective strategy seems unlikely

to be itself an ‘affect about affects’, rather a more cognitive operation such as

recognizing an emotional or motivational problem with the language or the process

of learning and coming to terms with it somehow, or rethinking an attitude and

devising a plan of action. (McDonough, 2012: 254)

He concludes that the Strategic Self-Regulation (S2R) Model of L2 learning does

not appear to be an empirically testable proposal. Among other criticisms the one

that is particularly relevant to the present study is that the theoretical model

proposed by Oxford is not suitable for reinterpreting earlier discoveries. Yet,

McDonough (2012) condones that the use of term ‘model’ rather than ‘theory’

perhaps shows that Oxford’s formulation is not intended to do this.

Despite all the criticism, the concept of strategy is still relevant today and is the

object of numerous studies, as will be discussed in the next chapter. It has become

Lydia Mitits 51

evident that self-regulated learning is an umbrella term under which language

learning strategies still deserve attention and have gained significance throughout

the world. In Europe, The Common European Framework of Reference for

Languages (Council of Europe, 2001) promotes ‘learning how to learn’ and the use of

learning strategies. As Oxford (2011b) notes the importance of strategies in learners’

self-regulation in various fields, including second/foreign language learning, is

discussed by key researchers (Hinkel, 2005; Alexander & Winne, 2006; Flippo &

Caverly, 2008). Moreover, recent published edited volumes (Cohen & Macaro, 2007;

Griffiths, 2008) have focused wholly or largely on language learning strategies as

well as a plethora of articles on topics such as learning strategies, metacognitive

strategies, and strategies for various language learning areas (reading, writing,

speaking, listening, grammar, vocabulary, and translation).

Finally, language learning practitioners have been showing a keen interest in

helping their students become more strategic, self-regulated, and successful as a

result of what characterizes self-regulated language learning strategies. It can be

said that LLS are used consciously; they facilitate learning by making it easier,

faster, more enjoyable, and more effective; they are context and purpose specific;

they involve not only the learner’s cognitive or metacognitive side but the whole

person; they are often combined into strategy chains (groups of strategies

functioning together); they are transferable; and some strategies are not confided to

language learning only but can be used in general learning (Oxford, 2011b: 14).

On the whole, it is believed by the present researcher that investigating language

learning strategies can offer a clearer picture of how languages are learned as well

as help create the profile of a language learner, while allowing for the comparison

of strategies used among various groups of learners and different languages.


Summary

This chapter has offered an account of theories of how learning in general and

learning of languages in particular take place, as well as how various models of

cognition depict the learning process. The emphasis is placed on the role of

language learning strategies within various theoretical frameworks. The crucial

concepts relevant to the recognition of LLS (what makes a good language learner,

learner autonomy and self-regulation) have contributed significantly to the interest

to investigate their benefits to the success in learning a second/foreign language

and have paved the way for defining and classifying the numerous strategies

employed by language learners. The rationale for investigating language learning

strategies in order to depict the strategic profile is provided as well. The next

chapter presents an overview of definitions and taxonomies of LLS and the ways in

which they can be measured.

Lydia Mitits 53

3. Language learning strategies overview

Macaro (2001:71) divides the LLS studies into two broad categories: descriptive and

intervention studies. The purpose of the descriptive studies has been to define the

characteristics of a good language learner (already discussed in chapter 2), to

provide strategy taxonomies, and to compare strategy use between various learner

groups, (the last two are discussed in the present chapter). On the other hand, the

intervention studies have focused on finding out how strategy instruction could

improve strategy use and eventually learning. However, since the present research

is a descriptive comparative study of monolingual versus multilingual LLS use,

intervention studies will not be discussed in detail. Lastly, various methods and

procedures which have evolved around collecting data on language learning

strategies are outlined.

3.1. Definitions of language learning strategies

So far we have looked at language learning strategies from a theoretical perspective

and reviewed research that has contributed to the studies of language learning

strategies. It is crucial at this point to overview the various definitions and

classifications of language learning strategies and adapt a basic principle of what

they are and how they can be taxonomized. Since Rubin’s and Stern’s pioneering

work in 1975, a great number of important studies into language learning strategies

have been carried out and there has been an awareness that language learning

strategies have the potential to be ‘an extremely powerful learning tool’ (O’Malley,

Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Küpper & Russo, 1985: 43). Nonetheless, as Griffiths

(2004) reminds us, the language learning strategy field continues to be


characterized by ‘confusion’ and ‘no consensus’ (O’Malley et al, 1985: 22), ‘fuzziness’

(Ellis, 1994: 529) as well as its ‘elusive nature’ (Wenden & Rubin, 1987: 7).

According to Chamot (2004: 15) the issues that arise from this body of research

are: identification procedures of language learning strategies, strategy terminology

and classification, and the effects of learner characteristics, culture and language

learning context on strategy use. Though less extensive, strategy intervention

research has also raised important issues related to instruction such as: explicit and

integrated strategy instruction, language of instruction, transfer of strategies to

new tasks, and models for language learning strategy instruction.

Rubin’s definition, one of the earliest in the field, offers a broad description of

language learning strategies as “the techniques or devices which a learner may use

to acquire knowledge” (1975: 43). At about the same time as Rubin, Stern (1975)

produced a list of ten language learning strategies which in his view were the

characteristics of good language learners. Bialystok defined language learning

strategies as “…optional means for exploiting available information to improve

competence in a second language” (1978: 71). At the same time, she identified four

kinds of language learning strategies: formal practicing, functional practicing,

monitoring, and inferencing. In 1987, Rubin proposed that language learning

strategies “…are strategies which contribute to the development of the language

system which the learner constructs and affect learning directly” (1987: 23).

The next important definition is the one offered by O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-

Manzanares, Russo and Küpper according to which learning strategies are

“…operations or steps used by a learner that will facilitate the acquisition, storage,

retrieval or use of information” (1985:23). The authors had borrowed the definition

originally used by Rigney who defined learning strategies as “cognitive strategy”

which is “…used to signify operations and procedures that the student may use to

Lydia Mitits 55

acquire, retain, and retrieve different kinds of knowledge and performance” (1978:

165). The same researchers developed a taxonomy of language learning strategies,

identifying 26 strategies divided into three categories: metacognitive, cognitive and

social.

Language learning strategies according to Nisbet and Shucksmith (1986: 25) are

“…always purposeful and goal-oriented, but perhaps not always carried out at a

conscious or deliberate level. They can be lengthy or so rapid in execution that it is

impossible for the learner to recapture, recall or even be aware that one has used a

strategy”. In the same year Weinstein and Mayer proposed that learning strategies

are “…behaviors and thoughts that a learner engages in during learning and that are

intended to influence the learner’s encoding process” (1986: 315).

Chamot offered a definition of language learning strategies as “…techniques,

approaches or deliberate actions that students take in order to facilitate the

learning and recall of both linguistic and content area information” (1987: 71). She

suggested that some language learning strategies are observable while others may

not be. From a cognitive perspective, O’Malley and Chamot also described language

learning strategies as “…the special thoughts or behaviors of processing information

that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information”

(1990: 1).

Schmeck (1988:50) defined strategy in general as “…the implementation of a set

of procedures (tactics) for accomplishing something’ and learning strategy in

particular as ‘…a sequence of procedures for accomplishing learning”.

According to Oxford and Crookall (1989) language learning strategies are “…steps

taken by the learner to aid the acquisition, storage, and retrieval of information”

(ibid: 404). Moreover, they pointed out that strategies may be used consciously or

can become habitual and automatic through practice.


Oxford (1990: 8), like O’Malley et al (1985), used Rigney’s definition but she

specified learning strategies as “…specific actions taken by the learner to make

learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more

transferable to new situations”.

For Cohen language learning strategies are “…learning processes which are

consciously selected by the learner” (1990: 5). What distinguishes strategies from

other processes is that they are a conscious and willing behavior on the part of the

learner. He also made the very important and useful distinction between language

use and language learning strategies (1996: 2). The language use strategies include:

retrieval, rehearsal, cover and compensation strategies, while the language learning

strategies comprise cognitive, metacognitive, social and affective strategies.

Yet another approach to language learning strategy definition is the one offered

by MacIntyre (1994) who argued that the term strategy implied active planning in

pursuit of some goal, which should not be assumed to occur automatically. His

emphasis was on the learners’ deliberate action in applying language learning

strategies and he defined language learning strategies as “…the actions chosen by

language students that are intended to facilitate language acquisition and

communication” (1994: 190). This definition stresses the learner’s intention and

choice in the use of language learning strategies.

Table 2 Definitions of language learning strategies

Author(s) Definition

Rubin (1975: 43) Rubin (1987: 23)

‘the techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge’ ‘… are strategies which contribute to the development of the language system which the learner constructs and affect

Lydia Mitits 57

learning directly’

Bialystok (1978: 71) ‘…optional means for exploiting available information to improve competence in a second language’

Rigney (1978: 165). ‘…used to signify operations and procedures that the student may use to acquire, retain, and retrieve different kinds of knowledge and performance’

O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo and Küpper (1985: 23)

‘…operations or steps used by a learner that will facilitate the acquisition, storage, retrieval or use of information’

Nisbet and Shucksmith (1986: 25) ‘…always purposeful and goal-oriented, but perhaps not always carried out at a conscious or deliberate level. They can be lengthy or so rapid in execution that it is impossible for the learner to recapture, recall or even be aware that one has used a strategy’.

Weinstein and Mayer (1986: 315) ‘…behaviors and thoughts that a learner engages in during learning and that are intended to influence the learner’s encoding process’

Chamot (1987: 71) ‘…techniques, approaches or deliberate actions that students take in order to facilitate the learning and recall of both linguistic and content area information’

Schmeck (1988: 50)

‘…a sequence of procedures for accomplishing learning’

Oxford and Crookall (1989: 404) ‘…steps taken by the learner to aid the acquisition, storage, and retrieval of information’

O’Malley and Chamot (1990: 1)

‘…the special thoughts or behaviors of processing information that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information’

Oxford (1990: 8) ‘…specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more


effective, and more transferable to new situations’

Cohen (1990: 5) ‘…learning processes which are consciously selected by the learner’

3.2. Classifications of language learning strategies

Identification and definition of strategies employed by language learners has

inevitably led to researchers’ grouping and classifying LLS in an attempt to associate

them with various stages of cognitive linguistic processing, as well as to create

frameworks that would facilitate strategy instruction (Hong-Nam, 2006).

Bialystok’s (1978) classification reflected her information-processing model

which consists of three stages of learning: input, knowledge, and output, with each

stage involving learning strategies used by learners to exploit available information

in order to improve their language learning. As a result Bialystok identified four

categories of language-learning strategies: (1) formal language practicing

(knowledge about language related to grammatical and syntactical elements), (2)

functional practicing or using language for “authentic communication purposes”,

(3) monitoring for examining and modifying or correcting linguistic output, and (4)

inferencing used for guessing a previously unknown meaning or form in a second

language (1978:78-80).

Wong Fillmore’s (1979) findings of children learning languages resulted in

dividing strategies into two categories: cognitive and social. Cognitive strategies

referred to recognizing language patterns and using linguistic clues while social

strategies were those that children used to successfully interact with peers whose

L1 differed from theirs.

Lydia Mitits 59

Rubin (1981: 24-26) categorized language learning strategies into two groups:

direct and indirect ones. According to Rubin there are six types of direct strategies:

clarification/verification, monitoring, memorization, guessing/inductive

inferencing, deductive reasoning and practice. She divided the indirect strategies

into two types: creating opportunities for practice and production tricks.

Finally, O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo, and Küpper (1985), based

on observation and interviews that they used in their study, identified three main

categories of strategies: cognitive, metacognitive and socioaffective strategies.

Processing of information by using translation, note taking, repetition, etc. is

achieved by the direct employment of cognitive strategies. Metacognitive

strategies, such as planning, monitoring, self-evaluation, etc., help regulate

language learning. Cooperation and clarification seeking are examples of

socioaffective strategies which are related to interactions with others during the

learning process.

Table 3 Classifications of language learning strategies

Author Type of strategy Description

Bialystok (1978) Formal practicing Functional practicing Monitoring strategies Inferencing strategies

Gaining knowledge about language by practicing with language rules Using language for authentic communication purposes Examining and modifying or correcting linguistic output Guessing a previously unknown meaning or form


Wong Fillmore (1979) Cognitive strategies Social strategies

Assuming what people say, looking for patterns of the target language Interacting with peers when learning, asking for help

Rubin (1981) Direct strategies Indirect strategies

Clarifying, memorizing, guessing, inductive inferencing, deductive reasoning Creating opportunities for practice, using production tricks, using synonyms

O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo, and Küpper (1985) O’Malley and Chamot (1990)

Cognitive strategies Metacognitive strategies Socioaffective strategies

Performing information processing Regulating language learning and including high order executive skills or function Interacting with others in learning and using mental control to reduce learning anxiety

O’Malley and Chamot in Learning strategies in second language acquisition (1990)

applied Anderson’s (1983) cognitive information processing theory to language

learning strategies and investigated strategies used by the students of English as a

second and foreign language. Their findings led them to stress the roles of cognitive

and metacognitive strategies and they discovered that there was a correlation

between success in language learning and use of metacognitive strategies. They

further indicated that proficiency in certain language skills and among certain

ethnic groups was more significantly related to systematic strategy instruction.

Apart from cognitive and metacognitive strategies they also identified

Lydia Mitits 61

social/affective strategies that help successful learners lower their anxiety when

performing a learning task.

Oxford published Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know

(1990), which turned out to be one of the most often-cited books in the field. In it

she points out that language learning strategies serve to enhance communicative

competence and that they can be categorized into the following 6 categories:

memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective and social strategy

groups subdividing them into direct strategies (memory, cognitive, compensation)

and indirect strategies (metacognitive, affective, social). This taxonomy came as a

result of her attempt to offer an alternative to the many strategy inventories that

appeared to place emphasis on cognitive and metacognitive strategies and to

ascribe much less importance to affective and social strategies.

Oxford’s direct strategies refer to the ones that directly involve metal processing

of the language being learnt and the three groups approach this language

processing from a different perspective and for a different purpose. Memory

strategies help store and retrieve information; cognitive strategies help

understanding and language production; compensation strategies facilitate

language use despite gaps in knowledge. Indirect strategies play a supportive and

managerial role in language learning as they do not involve the use of target

language. Metacognitive strategies help control the learning process by making

learners aware of that process; affective strategies contribute to the regulation of

emotions, attitudes and motivation; social strategies enable learning through

interaction with others.

She also presented strategy instruction steps and a strategy-assessment self-

report questionnaire named the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)

which has become since then the most widely used tool for investigating language


learning strategies in second/foreign language learning and has been translated

into over 20 languages (Oxford, 2011b: 173).

Table 4 Oxford’s Language Learning Strategy System

Direct strategies Indirect strategies

1. Memory strategies A. Creating mental linkages B. Applying images and sounds C. Reviewing well D. Employing action

4. Metacognitive strategies A. Centering your learning B. Arranging and planning your learning C. Evaluating your learning

2. Cognitive strategies A. Practicing B. Receiving and sending messages C. Analyzing and reasoning D. Creating structure for input and output

5. Affective strategies A. Lowering your anxiety B. Encouraging yourself C. Taking your emotional temperature

3. Compensation strategies A. Guessing intelligently B. Overcoming limitations in speaking and writing

6. Social strategies A. Asking questions B. Cooperating with others C. Empathizing with others

The most influential taxonomies of language learning strategies are Rubin’s

(1981), O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) and Oxford’s (1990) and, as it is generally

admitted, Oxford’s classification system is probably the most exhaustive (Ellis, 1994;

Griffiths, 2004). A brief comparison of the three systems can help identify their

similarities and differences but also illustrate classification difficulties.

Both Rubin (1981) and Oxford (1990) divide strategies into direct and indirect, yet

they perceive this distinction differently. For Rubin, whether a strategy is direct or

indirect depends on the type of its involvement in the learning process, i.e. how

directly it facilities the learning of a language, while Oxford’s view of directness is

related to the level and type of the target language involvement (Hsiao & Oxford,

2002).

Lydia Mitits 63

On the other hand, a shared characteristic between O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990)

and Oxford’s (1990) taxonomies is that they both define strategy categories similarly

and include more or less the same strategies in those categories. However, their

principal views are those that account for the differences, as O’Malley and Chamot’s

base their taxonomy on a cognitive model of language learning, whereas Oxford

approaches her categorization from a holistic view. As a result, in the former

strategy system the focus is on the cognitive and metacognitive strategies, while in

the latter memory and cognitive strategies are separated; compensation strategies

are included; and social and affective strategies are both separated and their role

enhanced.

Although Oxford’s classification is such a comprehensive one, it does not include

all the strategies and those that are included sometimes overlap within the six

subcategories (Oxford, Lavine & Crookall, 1989; Oxford, 1990). Another difficulty

found in Oxford’s taxonomy is whether some strategies belong to learning

strategies or communication strategies. Oxford (1990) justified the inclusion of

compensation strategies into learning strategies on the grounds that they “help

learners become more fluent in what they already know [and] may lead learners to

gain new information about what is appropriate or permissible in the target

language” (ibid.: 49).

3.2.1. Language learning versus language use strategies controversy

Griffiths (2004) notes that since there is so much overlapping material and so many

conflicting opinions, establishing terminology, definitions and classification

systems for language learning strategies is a difficult process. One example is the

controversial inclusion of communication strategies into learning strategies

because they are seen by some authors as two quite separate manifestations of


language learner behavior. Rubin included communication strategies under

production tricks, but Brown (1980, 1994) distinguished between learning strategies

and communication strategies saying that communication is not a learning process

although he admitted that there is an overlap and that communication strategies

are sometimes used in learning.

Tarone (1980) suggested that communication strategies can help expand

language and should be viewed as learning strategies since during communication

learners are exposed to language input which may result in learning. However, for a

strategy to be considered a learning strategy rather than a communication strategy,

the basic motivation should be to learn and not to communicate (1980: 419). This is

a problematic premise since, as Tarone (1981) herself acknowledged, it is difficult to

determine what motivates a learner; learners may have a dual motivation to both

learn and communicate; or they may learn language even when the basic

motivation is to communicate.

Ellis (1986) began with learner strategies as the most general term under which

he divided strategies into strategies for learning and strategies for using, including

communication strategies as compensating tools. An interesting point he made was

that it is even possible that successful use of communication strategies may actually

prevent language learning on account of the fact that successful compensation for

lack of linguistic knowledge may prevent the need for learning. Ellis agreed with

Tarone, though, when he concluded that there is ‘no easy way of telling whether a

strategy is motivated by a desire to learn or a desire to communicate’ (1994: 530).

Other significant publications include Cohen’s (1990, 1996b, 1998) work in which

he distinguished between language learning and language use strategies under the

influence of Selinker (1972). According to him, second language learner strategies

encompass both second language learning and second language use strategies

Lydia Mitits 65

which both constitute the steps or actions selected by learners aiming to improve

the learning of a second language, the use of it, or both. The definition of language

learning and language use strategies is a broad one as is it entails both those actions

whose clear purpose is language learning, as well as those that may lead to learning

but do not ostensibly have learning as their primary goal. In other words language

learning strategies have an explicit goal of facilitating knowledge in a target

language whereas language use strategies aim primarily at employing the language

that learners have in their current interlanguage. Cohen divided language use

strategies into retrieval strategies (used to retrieve the forms when required),

rehearsal strategies (for rehearsing target language structures), cover strategies

(used by learners to create the impression that they have control over material

when they do not), and communication strategies (focusing on conveying

meaningful information).

3.2.2. LLS terminology issues

At this point it is apparent that the language learning strategy field is characterized

by conflicting and competing terms, definitions and classification systems. For

instance, some problems with terminology are exemplified by the following.

Griffiths (2004) offers examples of this lack of consensus by comparing the terms

used by Stern who places planning strategy (described as personal learning style) at

the top of his classification (1975:31). He later defined strategies as ‘…broadly

conceived intentional directions” (1992: 261), which is more similar to the definition

of the term styles as used by other writers such as Willing (1988) and Nunan (1991).

What Stern called techniques-“behavioral manifestations of the strategies” (1992:

261), Rubin (1975) called strategies.


Macaro (2006: 324) exemplified the same problem using Oxford’s and Rubin’s

definitions. Oxford (1990) noted that strategy like tactic implies “planning,

competition, conscious manipulation, and movement toward a goal” and she

proposed that strategies are “…a plan, step, or conscious action towards

achievement of an objective” (1990: 8). Rubin (1987) also described strategies as

“…any set of operations, plans, or routines used by learners to facilitate the

obtaining, retrieval, storage and use of information” (ibid: 19). This semantic

equivalence dilemma, with words like strategy, operation, routine, process, procedure,

action, tactic, technique, plan, and step, being interchangeable in the literature,

remains an unresolved problem (Macaro, 2006).

So it is evident that even the key researchers do not seem to agree on the basic

terminology. As a result, difficulties in defining and classifying strategies persist.

Oxford noted that there is no complete agreement on exactly what strategies are;

how many strategies exist; how they should be defined and categorized; and

whether it is possible to create a scientifically validated strategy taxonomy (1990:

17).

Oxford (1994) divided over 20 language learning strategy classification systems

into the following groups: (1) systems related to successful language learners

(Rubin, 1975), (2) systems based on psychological functions (O’Malley & Chamot,

1990), (3) linguistically based systems dealing with guessing, language monitoring,

formal and functional practice (Bialystok, 1981) or with communication strategies

like paraphrasing or borrowing (Tarone, 1983), (4) systems related to separate

language skills (Cohen, 1990), and (5) systems based on different styles or types of

learners (Sutter, 1989) and she acknowledged that this is one of the major problems

in the particular research area. The fact that there are so many distinct

Lydia Mitits 67

classifications shows that the field lacks a coherent system for describing these

strategies.

Chamot (2004: 17) classified various taxonomies of language learning strategies

according to the identification procedures used by researchers whose aim has been

to describe the information derived from descriptive studies: researchers used their

own observations to describe language learning strategies (Rubin, 1975; Stern,

1975), relied on categories derived from research in first language contexts

(O’Malley & Chamot, 1990), or developed a comprehensive list of learning strategies

derived from many sources (Oxford, 1990). Chamot added that, in more recent

studies, strategy identification and classification have been data-driven through

think-aloud protocol analysis (Chamot 1999; Chamot et al., 1996).

Anderson’s review of the classification literature offered seven major categories

(2005: 760): cognitive, metacognitive, mnemonic or memory-related, compensatory,

affective, social and self-motivating strategies. He noted that Oxford’s (1990)

classification contains the first six categories while other researchers such as

Chamot & O’Malley (1994), Chamot et al. (1999) and Cohen (1996) referred to fewer

categories. The one who focused on self-motivating strategies is Dörnyei (2001).

Hsiao and Oxford (2002) compared three classification systems used in the field

(O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1981) in an empirical data study and

their research findings supported that the Oxford’s (1990) system of six types of

language learning strategies (memory, cognitive, metacognitive, compensation,

social and affective) could better account for the variety of strategies reported by

language learners.

Macaro (2006) concludes that a number of unresolved issues and questions

undermine the theoretical basis of language learning strategy research:


The problems can be summarized as follows:

1. There is no apparent consensus about where learner strategies occur, inside

the brain or outside it.

2. There is no consensus about what learner strategies are. Do they consist of

knowledge, intention, action, or all three?

3. It is unclear how general or abstract learner strategies are and whether there

exist sub strategies as well as strategies and, as a consequence, if they can be

classified in a framework or a hierarchy.

4. A lack of clarity also exists about whether their integrity survives across

learning situations, tasks, and contexts.

5. There is no consensus about what they do, especially whether they are always

facilitative and effective.

6. It is unclear whether they are integral to language processing or if they are

some kind of extra facility that speeds up learning.

7. Strategy definition in the literature is arrived at through the use of equally

undefined terms.

8. There is a lack of consensus on a strategy’s relationship to skills and

processes.

9. A lack of consensus remains on how strategies lead to both language learning

and skill development over the long term. (ibid.: 325)

3.3. Methods of assessing language learning strategies

Language learning strategy research may have started as simple inventories of

strategies used by language learners but has developed into much more

sophisticated investigations as Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995) so aptly note. Various

methods and procedures have evolved around collecting data on language learning

Lydia Mitits 69

strategies. According to Oxford and Crookall (1989) those can be grouped as follows:

(1) lists based on observation and intuition, (2) interviews and think-aloud

procedures, (3) note taking, (4) diaries, (5) surveys, and (6) studies on language

learning strategy training. The main difference between the first five of sets of

procedures and those investigating the effect of strategic training is that the former

do not involve intervention into the learners’ instructional treatment or learning

behaviors.

Data collection procedures can broadly be divided into direct and indirect,

depending on the type of the learner involvement (Gavriilidou & Psaltou-Joycey,

2009; Psaltou-Joycey, 2010). More specifically, information concerning language

learning strategies can be gathered indirectly by classroom observation of the

learning processes or directly by interviewing learners, by asking them to complete

questionnaires or self-report surveys, by instructing learners to keep language

learning diaries or journals, and by employing think-aloud protocols where learners

verbalize their thought while performing a language learning task.

Each of these procedures has advantages and disadvantages. For instance,

informal and formal observations are easy to do in the classroom but cannot

provide information on unobservable, mental strategies such as reasoning or

analyzing. They are useful for certain types of observable strategies (cooperating

with classmates, asking questions for clarification or verification, gesturing to

convey meaning, etc.), but not for other strategies that are private or invisible

(associating, elaborating, using imagery, guessing intelligently, etc.) (Oxford &

Crookall, 1989). Interviews, during which learners report on the strategies they use

and the ways in which they employ them as well as on the preferences and their

justifications, provide personalized information on many types of strategies that

would not be available through observation, but they are time-consuming both for


the teacher and the students. Another form of interview, group discussions, can

help form a picture of the strategies used by the whole class; however, they do not

offer full information about the strategies used by individual students.

According to Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995) the main advantage of diaries or

journals is that they are useful for recording strategies and relevant thoughts,

feelings, achievements, problems, and impressions, thus making language learners

active observant of their own learning. On the negative side, although they can be

guided by teacher suggestions, diaries are usually subjective and presented in a free

form which does not allow for generalization of the findings.

The next method of data collection, a think-aloud protocol, has a similar

drawback as it is not summative for more general information and it does not offer

a complete picture of the individual’s strategy use in total. Yet it provides the most

detailed information of all because learners verbalize the strategies they use while

performing a language task although think-aloud is usually used only on a one-to-

one basis and is very time-consuming.

Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995) present the advantages and disadvantages of

using a strategy scale in comparison with other means of strategy assessment:

Compared with the other strategy assessment techniques, student-completed,

summative rating scales have a number of advantages. These self-report scales are

easy and quick to give, provide a general assessment of each student's typical

strategies across a variety of possible tasks, may be the most cost-effective mode of

strategy assessment, and are almost completely nonthreatening when

administered using paper and pencil (or computer) under conditions of

confidentiality. Moreover, many students discover a great deal about themselves

from taking a strategy scale, especially one like the SILL that is self-scoring and

that provides immediate learner feedback. However, a disadvantage of the SILL

Lydia Mitits 71

and other strategy scales is that they do not describe in detail the language

learning strategies a student uses in response to any specific language task …

(ibid.: 2)

Surveys or questionnaires have largely been used by researchers who investigate

language learning strategies and they generally include a range of strategies, are

structured and objective. Such self-report questionnaires are the Motivated

Strategies for Learning Questionnaire - MSLQ (Pintrich et al., 1991) which measures

motivation and LLS; Strategy Inventory for Language Learning- SILL (Oxford, 1990:

293-300) which will be discussed in detail in the next chapter; Language Strategy

Use Inventory – LSUI (Cohen, Oxford & Chi, 2006) which is organized around

strategies used in the four basic skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) and

translation strategies; Self-regulatory Capacity in Vocabulary Learning – SRCvoc

(Tseng, Dörnyei & Schmitt, 2006) which measures learners’ capacity for self-

regulatory vocabulary learning.

For instance, a few studies using the SILL (Nyikos & Oxford, 1993; Green &

Oxford, 1995; Yang, 1999; Robinson & Midorikawa, 2001; El-dib, 2004; Park, 2011)

have used a factor analysis, which involves collecting data from test-takers and

discovering the main factors that explain the greatest amount of the reported

variability among the test-takers, in order to determine the underlying structures

and relationships. Nonetheless, some researchers (Harlow, 1988; Oxford, 1990)

question self-report procedures on account of the fact that they contain "social

desirability" bias, are subjective and unless learners possess a high level of

metalinguistic awareness they are probably not able to verbalize the language

learning strategies they use. Furthermore, research on language learning strategies

greatly depends on the willingness and ability on the part of learners to describe

their cognitive and affective states and behaviors. Drawing from research findings


(see, e.g. Chamot & Küpper, 1989; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990), Oxford and Burry-Stock

(1995) maintain that the majority of language learners are capable of recollecting

and describing their strategies lucidly and in a relatively objective manner in cases

of studies which have been conducted repeatedly, with clear instructions and

without grades or sanctions involved with strategy use.

It is necessary that both qualitative and quantitative multiple methods are used

when gathering and validating LLS data, such as a combination of surveys,

interviews or think-aloud procedures. In this way more information will be

obtained about the psychometric quality of the instruments. It will, in turn, allow

for less reliable and valid instruments to be improved. In intervention studies

comparison groups should be carefully selected, and external variables should be

either controlled or at least well documented (Oxford & Crookall, 1989).

Summary

In this chapter the focus was on the overview of descriptive studies into language

learning strategies which have seen considerable growth in the last 30 years. On the

whole, it is a daunting prospect to try and classify the research on language learning

strategies as it consists of a vast body of studies that are either descriptive,

validative, interventionist or mixed in their approach. However, researchers seem

to agree that the success of L2 strategy research has been made possible by the

following developments in the field which Anderson (2005: 759) divides into five

categories: (1) the identification, classification and measurement of language

learning strategies, (2) language learning and language use strategy distinction (3)

the correlation between language learning strategies and proficiency, (4) the

transferability of strategies from first language tasks to second/foreign language

tasks, and (5) the need for explicit language learning strategy instruction. The first

Lydia Mitits 73

two categories have been the topic of discussion in this chapter, while the last three

will be examined in the following chapter. On the whole, the research into language

learning strategies presented here has demonstrated that language learners are

actively involved in the learning process and that they use strategies at all levels of

learning, although they may not always be aware of them and may not take

advantage of the full range of the strategies at their disposal.


4. Factors influencing language learning strategy use

It has by now become evident that language learning strategies have been defined

and systematized in various ways, thus making the relevant field of study rather a

complicated one. To make matters even more intricate, we must consider the fact

that language learning happens in situations that are characterized by certain

factors and not in scientifically controlled laboratories. Even foreign language

learners in a typical classroom, whose learning setting allows for little operation of

social functions and real life situations, are nonetheless influenced by a range of

inner and outer factors.

Research into strategies for effective language learning has focused on the

following: identification, description, and classification of strategies; the frequency

of strategy use and the learner’s success at using them; differences in variables such

as language proficiency level, age, gender, and cultural background that might

affect the successful use of strategies; and the impact of language learning strategy

training on student performance when learning and using the target language

(Oxford, 1989).

Whether a learner will successfully select and use strategies depends on many

factors, including: age, gender, learner’s language proficiency level, motivation to

learn a language, learners’ beliefs about language learning, characteristics of the

learner (such as learning-style preferences or personality characteristics), cultural

background, situational and social context, the language being learned, the nature

of the language task, career orientation and/or field of specialization, language

teaching methods, type of strategy training, degree of metacognitive awareness,

and prior language learning experience. Since one of the main objectives of the

present study is to investigate if the language learning strategy use by monolingual

Lydia Mitits 75

and multilingual early adolescent EFL learners is influenced by their gender, age,

proficiency level and motivation, these factors are discussed in detail. However,

studies focusing on various factors are reviewed as well and the rationale behind it

is that those factors are expected to help discuss and interpret the findings of the

study.

4.1. Age

The relationship between age, as a factor in learning a foreign/second language, and

L2 stage of development has been debated considerably. A number of studies

concerned with language learning strategies of young learners, adolescents, and

adults have investigated how LLS interact with age. A general conclusion drawn

from the literature is that students of different ages and different stages of L2

learning use different strategies and that more sophisticated strategies are often

employed by older or more advanced students (Bialystok, 1981; Politzer, 1983;

Tyacke & Mendelsohn, 1986; Chamot, O’Malley, Küpper & Impink-Hernandez, 1987;

Oxford & Crookall, 1989; O’Malley& Chamot, 1990; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Gavriilidou &

Psaltou-Joycey, 2009).

Although there exists some contention about the effects of age on the rate,

sequence and achievement of L2 learning, it is generally agreed that young children

often use simple strategies, while older learners tend to apply more sophisticated

strategies, which, it can be added, accounts for the fact that adults tend to learn

grammar and vocabulary faster and better than children (Ellis, 1994: 541).

Peacock & Ho (2003) studied adult English for Academic Purposes learners and

found that older students (aged 23-39) used more strategies overall, and memory,

metacognitive and affective strategies in particular, than younger students (aged

18-22). Griffiths (2003) investigated the effect of age on the frequency of strategy


use in ESL learners (aged 14-64) who came from various countries and found that

age, unlike linguistic background, did not affect language learning strategy

selection. The influence of age on language learning strategies was not only studied

with respect to the English language. In Greece, Gavriilidou (2004) reported on the

strategies that Turkish L1 primary school children (aged 8-12) used when they

learned their L2 Greek. She found that metacognitive and cognitive strategy use

increased with age while socioaffective ones decreased.

Psaltou-Joycey (2010: 63) points out that the effect of age on language learning

strategies interrelates with other factors in a rather complex manner. For this

reason a number of studies have investigated strategy use and age in relation to

other variables such as the level of proficiency, culture, beliefs and attitudes, etc.

She also notes that in order to establish how language learning strategy use changes

over time, one has to study learners of different ages cross-sectionally,

longitudinally or in case-studies.

Victori and Tragrant’s (2003) and Tragant and Victori’s (2006) studies, in which

they reported on both longitudinal and cross-sectional language learning strategy

use by EFL learners with respect to their school grades and age, found that there are

developmental changes in the use of language learning strategies; however, they

are neither systematic with respect to strategy category nor do they necessarily

increase in relation to age. The authors maintain that they follow various patterns,

with some showing a linear and others curvilinear pattern.

In another cross-sectional study, Psaltou-Joycey and Sougari (2010) compared 11

year-olds (6th grade primary students) and 14 year-olds (3rd grade secondary

students) and found statistically significant differences in all strategy categories of

the SILL, except compensation strategies in favor of the younger students. The

researchers suggested that possible explanations for the findings is higher

Lydia Mitits 77

proficiency by the older group of EFL learners which makes the strategy use more

automated and restricted to the ones that are efficient for the particular learners or

that other factors such as personality type or lower motivation, generally found in

adolescents, contributed to the limited strategy use.

The review of the studies which report on the effect of age on LLS leads to the

conclusion that other factors play a significant, if not a determining, role. The

reason for learning a language, the second versus foreign language context, the

linguistic background, the language being learnt are among those factors. Since the

present study is of adolescent monolingual and multilingual learners, aged 12-15, it

is important to bear in mind how strategies vary within this particular age group

and how other factors, such as multilingualism, interact with age in order to

successfully interpret the age-related findings.

4.2. Gender

In examining differences in strategy use between males and females, females report

greater strategy use than males in the majority of studies (Politzer, 1983; Oxford,

Nyikos & Ehrman, 1988; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Ehrman & Oxford 1989; Nyikos, 1990;

Oxford, Park-Oh, Ito & Sumrall, 1993; Green & Oxford, 1995; Kaylani, 1996;

Mochizuki, 1999; Sheorey, 1999; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Lee, 2003; Peacock & Ho, 2003).

The differences in favor of women concern both frequency and range of strategies

used and are found in various age groups and cultures. However, a number of

studies have found that males used more strategies than females (Tran, 1988;

Wharton, 2000; Tercanlioglu, 2004), while other studies have failed to discover any

evidence of different language learning strategy use by gender (Ehrman & Oxford,

1990; Vandergrift, 1997; Griffiths, 2003; Kojima & Yoshikawa, 2004; Psaltou-Joycey


2008). Finally, El-Dib’s study (2004) documented differences in strategy use by

gender related to the type of strategy rather than an overall difference.

In Greece, Vrettou (2009, 2011) reported that females exceeded males in the use of

cognitive, metacognitive, affective and social and attributed the finding to earlier

biological, affective and social maturity of girls. Gavriilidou and Papanis’ (2010) study

of university students found no significant effect of gender. These diverse results in

gender differences can be put down to the complex interaction of various factors

involved in the use of language learning strategies as well as diverse educational and

cultural contexts.

An interesting point is that even though females tend to use more strategies

more frequently, they do not necessarily reach higher levels of proficiency

compared to male learners (Kaylani 1996, Phakiti, 2003). Griffiths (2004) concludes

that, although men and women do not always demonstrate differences in language

learning strategy use, where differences are found, women tend to use more

language learning strategies than men, while Chamot (2004) wonders who is really

in need of language learning strategies-males or females-when viewed from an

instructional perspective.

The present study also investigates the effect of gender on the frequency and

type of strategies in the general learner population aged 12-15, but it also looks into

how gender interacts with multilingualism, i.e. it compares monolingual and

multilingual learners with respect to gender differences. There are no similar

comparative studies, thus studies of a particular interest to the present research are

those that have investigated gender differences of bilingual learners without

comparing them to monolingual learners.

In one such study Wharton (2000) investigated strategy use by bilingual (mostly

Chinese L1 speakers with various L2) FL learners in Singapore and did not find any

Lydia Mitits 79

statistically significant gender differences as far as the frequency of strategy use is

concerned, although male and female participants in his study showed different

preferences with respect to individual items. Papanis (2008) reported higher

frequency of metacognitive and cognitive strategy use by bilingual (L1 Turkish and

L2 Greek) Muslim minority girls in primary schools. The above diverse findings

could be attributed to learning style differences, culture and the roles of males and

females in the society and should be considered in the interpretation of the results

of our study because it appears that bilingualism/multilingualism affects gender

differences to a certain degree.

4.3. Learner’s language proficiency level

Descriptive research on language learning strategies has made an important point

by relating self-reported strategy use to learner variables such as level of language

proficiency. Researchers have used various methods to decide on the level of

proficiency of the participants in their studies, such as: self-rating by the

participants (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Wharton, 2000), the course level/years of

learning a language (Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffiths, 2003), time spent in the

country where the examined language is spoken (Purdie & Oliver, 1999), language

certificates (Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou, 2009a), entrance and placement tests

(Mullins, 1992; Ku, 1995; Chou, 2002), standardized proficiency and achievement

tests (Phillips, 1991; Green & Oxford, 1995; Park, 1997; Bremner, 1998; Griffiths,

2003). The findings on the relationship between language proficiency and strategy

use are here presented based on the way in which language proficiency is measured.

In a study involving university students, the students’ level of proficiency was

estimated according to self-rating of proficiency and the years of studying a foreign

language (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). The authors reported that the students’


perceptions of their proficiency in the skills of speaking, reading and listening were

positively related to greater strategy use. Moreover, those students who learned

English for a longer period of time and were considered more experienced language

learners showed a greater use of strategies for ‘functional practice’ and

‘conversational input elicitation’. Wharton (2000) investigated the relationship

between strategy use and self-rated proficiency of 678 bilingual university students

and also found a linear relationship between self-rated proficiency level and the use

of language learning strategies. In other words, the students who thought they were

proficient reported more frequent use of strategies. He noted that the relationship

between level of proficiency and frequency of strategy use is mutual and affecting

each other.

Some researchers used the level of the course the students were attending at the

time of the study (Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffiths, 2003) and found that there was a

positive linear correlation between the level of the course and the frequency of

strategies used and, according to Griffiths (2003) students attending higher level

courses used strategies that differed from the students in lower level courses both

qualitatively and quantitatively. She examined the relationship between course

level and learning strategy use by 348 ESL learners (aged 14-64). The students’ level

was determined according to their score on the Oxford Placement Test. The study

found a significant positive correlation between strategy use and course level. On

the other hand, Hong-Nam and Leavell’s study (2007) found a negative correlation

between English proficiency level and a language learning strategy choice. They

conducted their study with a limited number of participants (55 ESL college-level

students), whose English proficiency level was reflected by class levels (Beginning,

Intermediate, and Advanced).

Lydia Mitits 81

Purdie and Oliver (1999) adopted the time the learners had spent in Australia

coupled with the tuition they had received in English as the level of proficiency in

English, when they studied bilingual children from different cultures and linguistic

backgrounds. While the time variable showed that cognitive and memory strategies

were more frequently employed by children who were in Australia for more than 4

years, previous language tuition did not reveal any significant correlation.

The rest of the review of studies is concerned with those that measured language

proficiency with a test.

Phillips (1991) used a standardized English proficiency test TOEFL as the

instrument for measuring English proficiency in a study involving 141 ESL

university students. She divided the sample into three groups, determined by TOEFL

scores (low, middle, and high) and found a curvilinear relationship between the use

of language learning strategies and proficiency - a higher use of strategies by

students in the middle group, with intermediate language proficiency, than the

other two groups. The researcher’s interpretation of this finding was that there is a

probability that lower level students are less aware of the available strategies, while

higher level students do not need to use so many strategies. In a study of 332 Korean

university students Park (1997) also measured the level of proficiency with TOEFL

and reported a positive linear relationship between strategy use and proficiency in

English. The findings revealed that all six categories of strategies on the SILL were

significantly correlated with the participants’ TOEFL scores, with cognitive and

social strategies being more predictive of the TOEFL scores than compensation,

metacognitive, memory, and affective strategies.

In order to measure the English language proficiency of 110 Thai students,

Mullins (1992) used the university entrance examination and an English placement

test and found a negative correlation between language proficiency and affective


strategies and no strong correlation with overall strategy use. The researcher

attributed these results to the complex relationship between strategy use and

proficiency, as well as a possible incompatibility between the university entrance

exams and placement exams and the SILL (the first two are grammar-based while

the last measures LLS globally).

Bremner (1998) used three tasks to measure the English proficiency of 149

university students: spoken tasks, written tasks, and discrete-item language tests

and found significant differences in the use of cognitive, comprehensive, and

affective strategies by proficiency level. A positive correlation was between

cognitive and compensation strategies and more proficient learners whereas in the

use of affective strategies there was a negative correlation, indicating a higher use

of these strategies among learners with lower levels of proficiency. The researcher

concluded that successful learners may have less need of affective strategies than

less successful learners.

Psaltou-Joycey and Kantaridou (2009b) studied the relationship between

proficiency and language learning strategies of university students using the

foreign language certificates they held as a measurement of their proficiency level

and found statistically significant differences in favor of higher level students. The

level of their proficiency was established according to Common European

Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) by the Council of Europe (2001),

according to which there are 6 proficiency levels – the basic user (A1, A2), the

independent user (B1, B2) and the proficient user (C1, C2).

Vrettou (2011) determined her participants’ level of proficiency by administering

the Quick Placement Test (UCLES 2001) as measurement of proficiency and reported

that the responses by the young EFL learners in her study showed a positive

Lydia Mitits 83

correlation between the proficiency level and about half of the strategy items on

the SILL.

In general, language learning level has shown a strong correlation with language

learners' choice of strategies according to Oxford and Nyikos (1989). Chamot (2004)

also describes this relationship between language learning strategies and the

students’ proficiency level as quite evident. Research has shown that more

proficient language learners use a greater variety and often a greater number of

learning strategies (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Green & Oxford, 1995; Chamot & El-

Dinary, 1999; Wharton, 2000; Bruen, 2001; Anderson, 2005). Takeuchi (2003) reported

that the learners participating in the study reported shifting their strategy use as

they advanced to higher proficiency levels in their learner journals and, based on

the self-report, were considered good language learners. It has been documented

that more and less proficient language learners differ with regard to the number

and range of strategies used, how they apply strategies to the task, and how

appropriate those strategies are to the given task (Chamot, 2004).

Yet, some studies have produced different results showing curvilinear (Kazamia,

2003; Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006), low (Erhman & Oxford, 1995) and even negative

correlations (Gardner, Trembley & Masgoret, 1997) between those two variables: the

learner’s proficiency level and the number and selection of strategies used. These

diverse findings can be attributed to the interrelation of proficiency level with

other factors influencing language learning strategy use, such as different learning

contexts, research methodology, the number of participants, and the way in which

proficiency level is measured. In addition, the fact that the results of a number of

studies have revealed that students at lower levels of proficiency use more

strategies more frequently than their higher proficiency level counterparts can be

given a different explanation. Namely, it is possible that more proficient learners


have already established what strategies are more successful for them and are

content with the way they learn, while less proficient learners are still in the

process of discovering how to learn more efficiently and, as a result, use more

strategies more often (Psaltou-Joycey, 2010: 91).

For the purposes of the present study, the EFL achievement, expressed through

the school grade in English, has been selected as a proficiency measure. It is argued

that it is a valid measurement since it is based on a cumulative grade (written tests,

oral exams and school work) and is expected to reflect the language proficiency

level despite an element of subjectivity by the teachers’ marking systems. Also,

given that the participants in the study were administered two versions of the SILL

questionnaire, it was deemed infeasible to administer a further test in order to

measure their proficiency in English.

4.4. Motivation to learn a language

There may not be a general agreement on what constitutes motivation; however, a

great amount of research into the relationship between motivation and language

learning has found that there is a strong correlation and that high motivation is a

significant factor in successful learning of languages. More specifically, motivation

affects the use of language learning strategies, with highly motivated learners

generally employing more strategies more frequently than less motivated ones

(Wharton, 2000).

Oxford and Nyikos (1989) state that more motivated students tend to use more

strategies than less motivated students, and that the particular reason for studying

a language is important in the choice of strategies. It was in their survey of 1200

students studying various languages at university, with the aim to examine the

kinds of language learning strategies they reported using, that motivation as a

Lydia Mitits 85

factor influencing language learning strategy use was highlighted since it was found

to be the most significant variable in the choice of strategies. Another relevant

study by Ehrman and Oxford (1989) discovered that career choice had a major effect

on reported language learning strategy use, a finding which they interpreted as a

possible result of underlying motivation.

Dörnyei (2006) defines learning strategies as examples of motivated learning

behavior and draws a conclusion that meaningful links between learning strategies

and motivation are expected to exist. According to him the interrelationship

between L2 motivation and language learning strategy use was first systematically

studied in the mid-1990s by Richard Schmidt, Peter MacIntyre, and their colleagues

(e.g., MacIntyre, 1994; MacIntyre & Noels, 1996; Schmidt, Boraie & Kassabgy, 1996).

Considering those results, Schmidt and Watanabe (2001) further investigated

motivation by collecting data from over 2000 university students in Hawaii. They

found evidence that motivation affects strategy use; in particular cognitive and

metacognitive strategies were most affected while the least affected strategy type

was social strategies.

One study investigated a particular aspect of motivation, the attitude towards the

effort required to learn a language (the ‘will to learn English’), among adolescent

Japanese learners of English (Yamamori et al., 2003). The findings showed that the

will to learn a language, seen as high motivation, could not be a determining factor

in successful learning and that, as Psaltou-Joycey (2010: 79) so aptly puts it,

differential motivation requires careful treatment and strategy selection which

must be considered when planning strategy instruction. At the same time, Lan and

Oxford (2003) investigated how ‘liking English’, as an aspect of motivation,

influenced language learning strategy use among primary school children in Taiwan

and found that it was positively correlated with the overall LLS frequency.


As far as the Greek context is concerned, the relevant research (Psaltou-Joycey,

2003) has shown that motivation, related to high aspirations with respect to

proficiency level as well as the enjoyment at learning English, is higher in university

students majoring in English. Another study (Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou, 2009a)

involving bilingual and trilingual university students investigated types and levels

of motivation with respect to proficiency level and the number of languages and

found that motivation is correlated with plurilingual knowledge. At the same time

Vrettou (2009) studied the overall frequency of strategy use by early adolescents

and found that there is a correlation between motivation and frequency of language

learning strategies reported by the participants. In order to collect relevant data she

studies the following issues: ‘liking English’, ‘will to learn the language’ and ‘effort

made for learning’ (based on Oxford’s background questionnaire for the SILL).

This leads us to the realization that various researchers have used different

methods of collecting findings relevant to the issue of motivation to learn a

language. Nonetheless, a vast majority of studies have reported positive correlation

between strategy use and what they define as motivation. The instrument most

commonly used to measure motivation as a part of learners’ beliefs about language

learning has been the BALLI (Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory) developed

by Horwitz (1987). Among issues such as: difficulty of learning a language, foreign

language aptitude, nature of language learning, language learning strategies is a

group of questions related to motivation and learner expectation. It can be argued

that motivation is an aspect of learners’ beliefs about language learning to be

discussed in the following section.

One of the secondary aims of the present study was also to establish the

relationship between motivation and the frequency of strategy use when

monolinguals and multilinguals learn English and to examine its interaction with

Lydia Mitits 87

other relevant factors. For this reason, ‘liking a language’ and ‘considering it

important to be fluent in a language’ were the aspects of motivation that were

examined. It is evident that by observing the motivation levels in the particular

learner population, the language teachers can help raise those levels for more

effective use of strategies and learning of a language in general.

4.5. Learners’ beliefs about language learning

Learner beliefs are an expression of conscious strategy use because learners

obviously select the most appropriate strategies for themselves on the basis of what

they believe is the most appropriate approach toward mastering a language,

according to Dörnyei (2006). Although he initially argues about including beliefs

into individual learner differences by saying that wrong beliefs are just examples of

false cognition that can be changed by rational explanation, he eventually accepts

that there is no doubt that learner beliefs greatly affect behavior.

Among the studies that have helped recognize language learner beliefs as learner

characteristics which influence learning outcomes is the one conducted by Wenden

(1987) where she made an important distinction between two general groups of

learners and their beliefs about language learning: those who believe ‘learning’

language is very important and, as a result, often resort to cognitive strategies, and

those who regard ‘using’ language as significant and pay more attention to

communicative strategies. Horwitz (1999) presented empirical data obtained from

Americans learning German, French, and Spanish that confirmed that certain belief

systems are quite common among learners and are consistent across different

language groups. In the same year, Wenden (1999) established an important

connection between learner beliefs and metacognitive knowledge arguing that the

two terms are in a way interchangeable, although beliefs are related to values,


which are held more tenaciously. Thus, Dörnyei (2006) concludes that there is a

certain amount of stability about beliefs that would justify their classification as

variables belonging to individual differences.

The effect of variables such as beliefs and self-efficacy in relation to language

learning strategy use has been the subject of investigation in a number of studies,

all of which have found a positive correlation. Beliefs affect motivation for learning

a language which, in turn, influences choice of strategies (Nyikos & Oxford, 1993)

while self-efficacy beliefs or learner attitude have a significant relation to cognitive

and metacognitive strategies (Purdie & Oliver, 1999). By studying self-directed

language learning attitudes with respect to strategies Gan (2004) found that a

positive attitude and beliefs towards learning a language depend on the

teaching/learning context.

Confidence as an aspect of learners’ beliefs about language learning in

association with communication strategies has been investigated in the Greek

context by Kambakis Vougiouklis (1990, 1992a, 1992b) who claims that successful

reading does not simply involve use of processing strategies but it might need to be

reinforced by readers’ confidence in the results of their strategy use. She stresses

the importance of confidence in one’s strategic competence, both during the

guessing process and the actual learning from his/her own guesses and experience.

The results of her studies showed a lot of inconsistencies between accuracy and

confidence as well as differences concerning gender, with males being

overconfident and females more balanced in most cases. Kambakis Vougiouklis

concludes that learners do not have confidence in their guessing strategies and that

they should be given systematic strategic instruction in order to raise their

confidence levels. Her investigation of young Greek L2 learners from the former

Soviet republics produced similar results (1995, 2001, 2002).

Lydia Mitits 89

On the whole, learners’ beliefs about language learning are closely linked to

motivation, attitude, proficiency, teaching and learning situations and other

variables. Thus, they inevitably affect the choice and frequency of language learning

strategies and, while they are not directly observed in the present study, their

influence is recognized and discussed in the findings.

4.6. Characteristics of the learner

A language learning style or ‘a profile of the individual’s approach to learning’

(Dörnyei, 2005) is a variable that has been gaining increasing attention as another

essential parameter of language learning strategy choice. It is evident from the

literature that students' learning styles may often determine the choice of language

learning strategies.

Ehrman and Oxford (1989) focused on the effects of psychological type when they

investigated the role of learner variables in adult language learning strategy use and

concluded that the relationship between language learning strategies and

personality type (which they measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator MBTI) is

rather complex. In a further study, they concluded that psychological type appears

to have a strong influence on the way adult learners use language learning

strategies. According to Ehrman and Oxford (1990), differences in the psychological

type play a crucial role in the strategy category that learners prefer. Thus, being an

extrovert or an introvert, a sensing learner or an intuitive learner, a thinker or a

feeler, a judger or a perceiver will influence the strategies one uses. Moreover, for

example, analytic-style students prefer strategies such as contrastive analysis, rule

learning, and analyzing words and phrases while globally-oriented students use

strategies such as guessing, scanning, predicting as well as paraphrasing and


gesturing. Visual students use visually-based strategies like taking notes and writing

word groups while auditory students like to work with tapes and practice aloud.

What is also important to state is that students are sometimes able to stretch

beyond their learning style boundaries to use new strategies unrelated to their style

and that learners can overcome their weakness in some learning styles with

appropriate strategy training according to research done by Scarcella and Oxford

(1992).

Griffiths (2004) points out an interesting contrast to the findings of all of the

previous studies when she refers to the research conducted by Willing (1988) who

administered questionnaires on learning style preference and strategy use to adult

immigrant speakers of other languages in Australia. The results were examined for

style preference and strategy use in relation to various demographic variables such

as ethnicity, age, gender, proficiency and length of residence in Australia. Willing

concluded that style preference and strategy use remained virtually constant across

all of these variables.

Griffiths (ibid.) uses this fact to remind us that, once again, such conflicting

research findings underscore the difficulties of reaching consensus in the area of

language learning strategies. What we should bear in mind, though, is that a

possible explanation for different research results could be that not everybody

learns in the same way, and that teachers may not be sensitive to and/or cater for

their learners’ individual learning styles, which, in turn, does not allow the learners

to improve their language learning strategies.

In the Greek context, learning style preferences have been studied within

tertiary education by Psaltou-Joycey and Kantaridou (2011) with the Style Analysis

Survey to investigate 1616 university students learning foreign languages for

academic purposes across eight fields of study. Their results revealed that the

Lydia Mitits 91

visual, intuitive-random and global styles were major preferences in all eight fields,

the closure-oriented, extroverted, and concrete-sequential styles varied between

major and minor preferences, the hands-on, open, and analytic styles showed a

variation between minor and negative preferences, and the auditory and

introverted styles were negative in all fields. The authors proposed a list of learning

strategies and teaching activities that match the learning styles and would help

students become more effective language learners, thus suggesting practical

implications of relating individual learning styles to language learning strategies.

4.7. Cultural background

Cultural background, as a factor influencing language learning strategy use, is very

broad and complex since it contains a lot of aspects which could lead to a variety in

strategy use. Chamot (2005) notes that the cultural values of the learner’s society

can be expected to have a strong influence on choice and acceptability of language

learning strategies and exemplifies her point by saying that cultures which value

individual competition and whose educational systems are organized around

competitive tasks are likely to promote strategies that allow learners to work alone

rather than social strategies that call for collaboration with others.

Research has found that there appears to be a difference between strategies used

by some Asian students and those of students from other cultural backgrounds,

such as students from a Hispanic background (Politzer & McGroarty, 1985; Reid

1987). For instance, studies concerning Asian cultural backgrounds such as the one

of Chinese ESL university students (Chang, 1990) and Japanese EFL university

students (Mochizuki, 1999) reported that the most frequently used strategies

belonged to the compensation category while the least favored ones were the

affective strategies. Usuki (2000) suggested that, since Japanese students are


typically regarded as passive learners, teachers and students should cooperate more

in order to adopt more effective language learning strategies. The Taiwanese

students in Yang’s (1999) study reported that, although they were aware of various

language learning strategies, few of them actually reported using them. Wharton

(2000) found that the students in his study (ethnic Chinese, bilingual Singaporean

university students studying French or Japanese as a foreign language) reported a

preference for social strategies as well as a disinclination to use affective strategies.

Other SILL studies also showed different language learning strategy preferences

being reported by students in different cultural contexts. One such study was

conducted by Griffiths and Parr (2000) who reported finding that European students

used language learning strategies significantly more frequently than students of

other nationalities, especially those strategies which refer to vocabulary, reading,

interaction with others and tolerance of ambiguity. They also reported that

European students were also studying at significantly higher level than students of

other national origins. The influence of the cultural factor was associated with the

findings in Tercanlioglu’s study (2004) as the researcher attributed the difference

between gender and strategy use to the roles genders play in the Turkish society.

Finally, in the Greek context Psaltou-Joycey (2008) investigated culture as a factor

influencing strategy use among EFL university students who came from five

different geographical regions of Europe and found that cultural background

produced the most statistically significant differences. Her results confirmed the

postulation that cultural background strongly influences the choice of strategies

used.

This variable is of a particular importance in the context of the present study in

which monolinguals’ and multilinguals’ strategies are compared. Moreover, the

multilingual participants do not come from a homogenous cultural background but

Lydia Mitits 93

belong to various linguistic, geographical and cultural groups. The differences in

language learning strategies among those groups are not directly observed here for

practical reasons but the background information about their linguistic experiences

will contribute to a better interpretation of the findings.

4.8. Situational and social context

Concurrent and in connection with the factors discussed so far, some situational

factors may also cause a variation in strategy use. An obvious example are studies of

classroom learners which indicate that social strategies are rarely practiced

(Chamot et al., 1987), as opposed to cognitive and metacognitive strategies which

both teachers and learners are generally aware of and focused on to a larger degree.

It is believed by the present author that the crucial social factor is the classroom

context. However, insufficient attention has been paid to the particular variable

because there is a tendency to regard learning strategies as a quality of individual

learners which they employ to improve their L2 ability. For example, a possible

interracial tension and affiliation among foreign language learners in the classroom

can influence the way some cognitive strategies are used by the learners as a study

of recently immigrated Korean ESL students has shown (Jang, 2008).

Eun-Young and Jiménez (2011) argue that the genesis of L2 learner strategies is

mediated by multiple contextual factors that are embedded in institutional,

interactional, and instructional practices. By this they mean that the institutional

education policy and approach to second/foreign language learning, the

teaching/learning methodology (see 4.12) and the role assigned to language

learning strategic instruction will be of great importance to how far the learners

will develop their language learning strategies.


Another relevant social factor is the wider socioeconomic background of

language learners, their families’ aspirations and ambitions and the importance

they attach to being successful language learners and, in general, well educated.

Eun-Young and Jiménez (2011) contend that there is more involved in a student’s

success in learning second/foreign language than simply individual effort and

learning styles. They stress that especially in the multicultural and multilingual

language classrooms, broader social factors such as race and ethnicity can influence

students’ choice and use of certain strategies.

Although the situational and social context is not an objective of our study, it is

highly influential in the attempt to define the monolingual and multilingual

learners who participate in the research. Their socioeconomic background is noted

and included in the description of the context within which the SILL is administered

and its results interpreted.

4.9. Language being learned

When discussing the influence of the language being learnt on the frequency and

choice of strategies that learners are more likely to employ, two aspects should be

considered. First of all, it seems that whether the language is a foreign or a second

language plays an important role. Secondly, how close the learners’ L1 and the FL or

SL are typologically may have an impact on the choice of strategies.

Wharton (2000) notes that differences in strategy use are apparent between a

foreign language and a second language context since a number of studies have

shown that second language learners’ strategy use is of higher frequency compared

to foreign language learners’ (Oh, 1992; Green & Oxford, 1995). A likely explanation

is that the learners learning a second language are immersed into the culture of that

language, which is generally the dominant language of the host country, and are

Lydia Mitits 95

exposed to far more linguistic input than learners of a foreign language in an

artificial classroom setting.

Politzer (1983) came to a similar conclusion when examining the language

learning strategies of students of French, Spanish, and German. He discovered that

students of Spanish engaged in fewer strategies than students of the other

languages. Chamot et al. (1987) found that students of Russian reported greater

strategy use than students of Spanish. A point of interest, though, according to

Wharton is that almost all studies of strategy use in second language settings have

been of English as a second language.

Wharton (2000:208) sees the degree of cognateness (real and psychotypological)

between the native language and the first foreign language versus second foreign

language as having impact on the preference for particular strategies at the expense

of other strategies. Research suggests that the language being learnt determines the

use of learning strategies to a certain degree. For example, Olivares-Cuhat (2002)

examined the language learning strategies of university students studying Spanish

and compared those students speaking Spanish as a first or heritage language and

those learning Spanish as a foreign language with respect to writing strategies they

used and found that Spanish first or heritage language speakers were more

proficient in writing. Language learning strategies used by university students of

less commonly taught languages was the focus of the study conducted by Keatley,

Chamot, Spokane and Greenstreet (2004) and its findings indicated that both

heritage speakers of Arabic and students of Arabic as a foreign language share many

learning strategies when learning Modern Standard Arabic, but it also recorded

differences.

However, Oxford (1989) reminds us that it is likely that the language of study

interacts with a host of other variables such as different teaching methods, varied


levels of motivation, reasons for selecting a language to learn (more challenging,

career choice, etc.). The particular variable, second vs. foreign language, is directly

studied here and must be considered when the findings concerning Greek as L2 and

English as FL are discussed. Moreover, the second aspect of the language being

learnt factor-the language itself-is also relevant in that the participants come from

various linguistic backgrounds and speak languages that are typologically very

diverse.

4.10. Type of the language learning task

Another situational factor that should be considered when analyzing the frequency

and choice of strategy use is the task that learners are required to complete during

the learning process because the immediate requirements of a language task can

influence the use of language learning strategies. Tasks can vary immensely, from

an informal conversation to formal letter writing, from reading for details to

listening for the main idea. It is then obvious, as well as supported by the literature,

that the task will help determine the strategies students naturally employ

(Bialystok, 1981; Chamot et al. 1987; Ellis, 1994). Chamot (2005) notes that learning

strategies are directly linked to particular tasks which differ depending on the

context and the learning goal. The context can be a second language or foreign

language setting while the learner’s goal can be to acquire social or academic

language or both; or, it must be added, the learners can find themselves in a typical

TENOR (Teaching English for No Obvious Reasons) situation as English is just

another school subject in the curriculum.

Bialystok (1981) found that learners responded to different task requirements

using different strategies. The type of the task determined the choice of strategies

since some strategies were useful only for certain kinds of tasks; for instance,

Lydia Mitits 97

monitoring one’s errors was not very useful for reading or speaking tasks as it was

for writing tasks. Oxford et al. (2004) reported on a recent reading study which

found that perceived difficulty of the task affected the use of learning strategies.

The implications for teaching are that language teachers need to map out what

learning strategies students use for different tasks followed by an open discussion of

reasons why students employ those particular strategies. This can help teachers

understand cultural and contextual factors that may be influencing their students’

strategy choice and, as a result, help them clarify the task demands. By

understanding the task more clearly, learners are more likely to try out new

strategies in order to accomplish a task (Chamot, 2005: 124).

4.11. Career orientation and/or field of specialization

There have been a significant number of studies investigating the influence of

career orientation on the selection of language learning strategies pointing to the

existence of such an influence (Politzer & McGroarty, 1985; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989;

Ehrman & Oxford, 1989). This particular variable is closely linked to variables such

as educational and cultural background (Psaltou-Joycey, 2010:93) as well as to

language learning goals which, in turn, reflect motivational orientation of language

learners (Oxford, 1989).

Some studies have shown that career orientation, for example

engineering/science vs. social science/humanities (Politzer & McGroarty, 1985) or

in case of Humanities, Social science or Education majors vs. students majoring in

other areas (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989), influences the choice of language learning

strategies. As far as current career position is concerned, Ehrman and Oxford (1989)

found that it also influenced the selection of strategies. Professional linguists used a


wider variety of strategies than adult language learners and native-speaking

language teachers not trained in linguistics.

Using a version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) the

following, more recent studies, also found that university major influenced the

selection of strategies for learning English as a foreign language (Mochizuki, 1999;

Peacock, 2001; Peacock & Ho, 2003; Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou, 2009b). However,

the learners in the present study are not influenced by this particular variable and,

as a result it will not be further investigated.

4.12. Language teaching methods

The teaching methods their teachers employ are expected to influence the strategy

frequency and the type of strategy the learners will use in the second/foreign

language classroom. Language teaching methods, along with the type of strategy

training, are two variables that will not be discussed in detail as they are not an

object of the present study; however, their relevance and importance is recognized.

In order to teach and learn language, researchers and practitioners have

developed and applied a wide range of methods over the years. Starting with

grammar-translation method, the approaches have varied from audio-lingual to

communicative, but also from the natural method to TPL (Total Physical Response)

and suggestopedia as well as the TBL (Task-based learning), etc. Nowadays, instead

of insisting on a particular method, teachers tend to use the so-called eclectic

approach including grammar, drilling, communication, task completion among

others.

McGroarty’s study (1987) found that even when communicative language

teaching is used in the classroom, language learners sometimes ignore it and

continue to use traditional, analytic language learning strategies. On the other

Lydia Mitits 99

hand, Oxford (1989) believes that language teaching methods, as well as unspoken

expectations in the given educational context, tend to influence language learning

strategy use and reports on a number of findings that support this view (Gunderson

& Johnson, 1980; Politzer, 1983; Bejarano, 1987; Jacob & Mattson, 1987; Oxford &

Nyikos, 1989; Ehrman & Oxford, 1989). Leaver in Oxford (1989) found that the

methods used to develop language skills (formal analytical classroom work vs.

naturalistic acquisition) influenced students’ preferred language learning strategies.

In an attempt to investigate how teaching/ learning methods relate to successful

language learning.

Griffiths (2008) conducted a small scale study of 37 adult students of English who

came from a variety of backgrounds (China, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Russia, Hong

Kong, Saudi Arabia, and India) with the aim to explore students’ preferences

regarding teaching/learning method. The results indicated that higher-level

language learners tend to be very eclectic in their preferences regarding learning

method, suggesting that good language learners seem to flexibly employ the

methods which best suit them and/or their situations in order to achieve their

learning goal. As a result, Griffiths (2008) concludes that since research suggests

that good learners use a wide variety of learning methods, rather than keeping

rigidly to a single method, teachers need to find methods which best suit the needs

of their particular learners in a given classroom situation.

4.13. Type of strategy training

Whether language learners receive strategy training or not and, if they do, what

kind of training they are given will influence the frequency and choice of strategies

they use in the second/foreign language classroom. The belief that language

learning strategies are teachable and that learners can improve by training in


learning strategies underlies much of the research in the field (Oxford, 1990; Larsen-

Freeman, 1991; Cook, 1991).

Language learning strategy instruction has mainly been investigated with

respect to how strategy training benefits the improvement of language learning

skills, namely listening, speaking, reading, writing and vocabulary. A number of

studies have found that such training had a positive effect on the learning skills and

increased the frequency of strategies used (Cohen et al., 1996; Robbins & Dadour,

1996; Ayaduray & Jacobs, 1997; Takeuchi & Wakamoto, 2001).

Nunan (1997) points out that teachers’ goal in a language learning classroom

should not only be the teaching of the content but also the development of

awareness of the processes involved in learning. It must be added that this

awareness of what strategies there are at their disposal and the knowledge of how

to employ them, should equip learners with the necessary tools towards becoming

self-regulated and more autonomous language learners.

Approaches to strategy instruction can be divided into explicit and implicit.

Explicit learning strategy instruction basically involves the development of

students’ awareness of the strategies they use, the modeling of strategic thinking by

the teacher, student practice with new strategies and self-evaluation of the

strategies used; as well as learning how to transfer strategies to new tasks (Chamot,

2004). There is a general agreement among researchers in second language contexts

on the importance of explicitness in strategy instruction (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990;

Oxford & Leaver, 1996; Cohen, 1998; Nunan, 1997; Chamot et al., 1999; Shen, 2003).

Critics of explicit instruction maintain that, since the results available from various

studies are mixed (O’Malley, 1987), teachers should be careful about implementing

strategic training without taking into consideration various factors that influence

the teaching/learning process in the classroom (Rees-Miller, 1993, 1994) and that

Lydia Mitits 101

learners may tend to improve in strategy use in a more natural way without explicit

instruction (Eslinger, 2000).

Strategy training can furthermore be viewed as integrated or taught separately

from the linguistic content. Chamot (2004) observes that there is not much

agreement on this issue as proponents of integrated instruction argue that it

provides learners with opportunities to practice strategies with authentic language

learning tasks (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Oxford & Leaver, 1996; Nunan, 1997;

Cohen, 1998; Chamot et al., 1999; Grenfell & Harris, 1999) while the opponents

maintain that strategies learned within a language class are less likely to transfer to

tasks outside the classroom (Gu, 1996), and that, practically speaking, planning a

separate strategy course rather than preparing all teachers to teach strategies is

more time and cost efficient (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986; Vance, 1999).

In Greece Gavriilidou and Papanis (2009) investigated the effect of integrated

strategy instruction by implementing a direct strategy instruction program on

primary school children who belong to the Muslim minority in Thrace and found

that the experimental group improved the language learning strategies required for

the development of the four skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing when

compared to the control group to a statistically significant degree. Also, Sarafianou

(2013) assessed the effectiveness of an intervention program on a group of upper

secondary school students which was based on the application of explicit and

integrated strategy instruction. The findings indicated that after strategy training

the students of the experimental group showed significant improvement in strategy

use as a whole as well as in all strategy groups, with the exception of compensation

strategies. Finally, Manoli (2013) investigated the effect of implementing

metacognitive multiple-strategy instruction (predicting text content, using

semantic maps prior to text reading, skimming, scanning, and contextual guessing)


on elementary EFL learners’ reading performance and found that the EFL students

who received strategy training improved their performance in both the posttest

and follow-up measurements in relation to the students in the control group.

Griffiths (2004) concludes that although results regarding the effectiveness of

strategy training are rather mixed, the hypothesis that language learning strategies

are teachable has led to their increasingly attracting the attention of both educators

and researchers who are interested in exploiting the potential of language learning

strategies in order to enhance an individual’s ability to learn language. A different

perspective is offered by Tseng, Dörnyei and Schmitt (2006) according to whom the

learner’s self-regulatory capacity is what should be developed, which in turn would

help individualized strategic learning. Lastly, in an attempt to bring together self-

regulation and explicit strategy training, Oxford (2011) highlights direct strategy

instruction as one of the types of strategic assistance when discussing her Strategic

Self-regulation Model.

4.14. Degree of metacognitive awareness

Since degree of metacognitive awareness and prior language learning experience

(see 4.15.) are discussed in detail in chapter 5, they will only be stated briefly with

respect to language learning strategy use factors. Oxford (1989) defines

metacognitive awareness as a complex cluster of factors. According to Wenden cited

in Oxford (1989: 237) those factors are: “what learners know about themselves and

about their own learning process-for instance, kinds of language used, proficiency

level, the outcomes of learning, and learners’ own proficiency, feelings, aptitude,

physical state, age, learning style, social role, character, and personal theory of

language…”

Lydia Mitits 103

Studies investigating how aware learners are of the language learning strategies

they used or, in other words, of their metacognitive awareness with respect to LLS,

have produced conflicting results. For example, Tyacke and Mendelsohn (1986)

reported that only one of the learners they studied using the language learning

diary as their observation method demonstrated increasing awareness of strategies

as they became more advanced. In the same vein, Nyikos (1987) discovered that the

learners in her study used only a limited range of strategies and were generally

unaware of the strategies they used. On the other hand, Chamot et al. (1987) found

that ineffective learners were also aware of and used a number of strategies and

that they only differed from the effective students in the frequency and range of

strategy use. Oxford (1989) puts down these conflicting results to the use of

different research methods in the above reported studies.

As far as the teaching of metalinguistic awareness is concerned, O’Malley et al.

(1985b) reported on a study in which more proficient learners were more able than

less proficient ones to exercise metacognitive control over their learning. This

finding was further confirmed by the study conducted by Tang and Moore (1992) in

which they researched the effects of the teaching of cognitive and metacognitive

strategies on reading comprehension in the classroom. They concluded that, while

cognitive strategy instruction improved comprehension scores, the performance

gains were not maintained upon the withdrawal of the intervention program while

metacognitive strategy instruction, involving the teaching of self-monitoring

strategies, seemed to lead to improvements in comprehension ability, which were

retained after the end of the intervention program.


4.15. Prior language learning experience

This factor is considered with respect to what is understood as prior language

learning experience in the present study. On the one hand there is the experience of

learning a foreign language, generally in the context of the foreign language

classroom, while on the other, of greater importance to the present research, is

whether or not learners are monolingual or multilingual when they learn a foreign

language.

It can be assumed that the more experienced the learners get, the easier it will be

for them to learn another language and the more language learning strategies they

will use. However, the question of whether bilinguals acquire an L3 more easily and

become more proficient than monolinguals who acquire an L2 and/or whether their

language learning strategy use differs has been investigated without conclusive

results. Earlier research suggested that bilinguals have an advantage, particularly in

terms of employing advanced metalinguistic and cognitive skills, lexical knowledge,

and a less conservative learning procedure (Wharton, 2000). Studies such as the

ones by Thomas (1988), Zobl (1992) and Klein (1995) suggest so. On the other hand,

other studies have reported little or no difference between bilinguals and

monolinguals (Magiste, 1984).

More recent research into language learning has documented bilinguals’

metalinguistic abilities which help them learn a further language more easily.

Bialystok (2001) examined differences in metalinguistic development between

monolingual and bilingual children with respect to word, syntactic, and

phonological awareness. She noted the fact that some studies have reported

advantages for bilinguals, other studies have shown no difference between the two,

while some have found advantages for monolinguals. In her study, according to an

alternate conception of metalinguistic ability which is proposed, analysis and

Lydia Mitits 105

control are two cognitive processes directly responsible for task performance. The

results revealed that bilinguals had the advantage on tasks that made high demands

on control but not on tasks that made high demands on analysis.

Another study that provided evidence for the increased metalinguistic awareness

by multilinguals was conducted by Jessner (1999) who investigated how previous

linguistic knowledge can guide learners while developing a third linguistic system.

She argued that language learners with previous language learning experience

develop language learning strategies that differ from those used by the

inexperienced learners. In addition, Jessner (2008) later recognized that cross-

linguistic influence among L1, L2 and L3 is complex regarding the route and rate of

third-language acquisition and that it is characterized by non-linearity, reversibility

and language attrition. This view is in line with other studies on multilingualism

(e.g. Dewaele, 1998; Cenoz, 2001; De Angelis, 2007).

Rivers (2001) investigated self-directed language learning behaviors of adult

third-language learners based on the claim that metacognition is separate from

cognition and consists of two types of behavior: self-assessment and self-

management. She found that all the experienced language learners in her study

exhibited three common types of behaviors: self-assessment of progress and learner

style/learning strategy preference issues, learner autonomy, and self-directed

language learning and, as a result, concluded that:

The accurate use of metacognitive, affective, and social strategies to control the

language learning process and the learning environment is the hallmark of self-

directed language learning. In order for such learning to occur, learners must be

able to determine accurately what their needs are, and they must have the freedom

to take action to meet those needs. In the absence of either accurate self-


assessment or genuine autonomy, self-directed language learning will not occur.

(ibid.: 287)

A further evidence of how competence in two languages, and especially language

awareness, is a resource for learning a third language is found in Moore’s (2006)

study of bi/plurilingual children. The participants were asked to discover meaning

in a text written in a language unknown to them as they collaborated on a task. She

found that the children used strategies based on previous language learning

experience to access information about the unknown language. The strategies they

employed helped them to reduce the linguistic distance between languages and to

hypothesize about the new language system. Teaching implications of the above are

significant in that this wide range of metalinguistic abilities shown by young

plurilingual children are potential resources for learning, according to Moore (2006:

139). She maintains that practicing teachers often remain unaware of children’s

knowledge and abilities in different languages and fail to see them and she also

argues for further investigation of how to develop plurilingual competences in the

classroom. Moreover, Moore questions current educational practices as far as a

strict separation between languages in school is concerned.

Next, Kemp (2007) studied the use of grammar learning strategies by adult

plurilinguals who had learnt or were learning from 2 to 12 languages (indigenous,

foreign, heritage or dead languages) and found that the more languages the

participants knew, the greater the number and frequency of grammar strategies they

used, as well as the number of grammar learning strategies that they themselves

reported using. Moreover, this tendency increased when knowledge of languages

exceeded to a third language and beyond.

Finally, Psaltou-Joycey and Kantaridou (2009a) investigated the possible relations

between degrees of plurilingualism and strategy use. The subjects were 1555 Greek

Lydia Mitits 107

university students learning foreign languages in an academic context. The results of

the study indicated that the trilingual students used more strategies more frequently

than bilinguals, especially those strategies that promote metalinguistic awareness and

that more advanced trilinguals made more frequent use of strategies, which mainly

belonged to the cognitive and metacognitive categories. Another recent study

involving foreign language learners and their strategy use was conducted by Sung

(2011) who investigated the influence of the number of foreign languages studied on

the frequency of the strategy categories used and found that there is a positive

correlation between the two factors. The participants who had previously studied one

foreign language used cognitive, metacognitive, affective and social strategies less

frequently than those who had studied two or more languages.

Summary

There is growing evidence of the influence of gender, motivation and cultural

background on language learning strategy use. Next, the relationship between

strategy use and proficiency level is complex, although more proficient learners

appear to use a wider range of strategies more frequently. Moreover, learners with

different learning styles or different personalities often use different types of

strategies while cultural values and social settings also play a part in the frequency

and choice of strategies. The typological closeness of the language being learnt, the

nature of the learning task as well as the teaching methodology and the place of

strategic training in the classroom all exert their influence on the choice of

strategies used.

The practical classroom implications of the research discussed here is that since

different language learners use different strategies in response to various factors

and since different kinds of strategies often work together for optimal results, it is


both possible and advisable to teach learning strategies and ensure that during

language learning strategy training the above discussed factors are taken into

account.

Metacognitive awareness and prior language learning experience are the two

factors closely linked with the concept of multilingualism and particularly relevant

to the present research context where monolingual and multilingual language

learning strategies are compared. In the next chapter they are further exploited

along with other important findings from research into multilingualism in order to

create a clearer picture of the particular multilingual learner population under

investigation.

On the whole, the present study directly investigates the following variables

discussed here: gender, age, English and Greek proficiency level, motivation to learn

English and Greek, and the effect of being a monolingual or a multilingual language

learner, while it also relates its findings to the other factors that exert influence

upon the choice of language learning strategies. For this reason it was deemed

necessary to offer a wide review of such factors.

Lydia Mitits 109

5. Multilingualism

The review of the literature on theory and research into language learning

strategies has clearly shown that it is an important and established field. Its

importance becomes even more prominent in a context involving more than two

languages. The reason for this is that factors such as prior language learning and

metacognitive linguistic awareness based on the experience of learning languages

have shown to produce the positive change in quality and quantity of the strategies

in language learning in multilinguals. Herdina and Jessner (2002) call for further

investigation into multilingual language learning strategies to be of use in a world

of growing multilingualism.

This chapter looks into issues related to multilingualism, the various definitions

and key terminology of this relatively new field of study, and what constitutes a

multilingual speaker and their proficiency. Next, linguistic, cognitive and

sociocultural implications of being multilingual are discussed while drawbacks and

benefits are presented. Since our study is of monolinguals (Greek L1 speakers

learning FL English) and multilinguals (L1 other than Greek speakers learning L2

Greek and FL English, with possible additional languages) special attention is given

to research into crosslinguistic influence among various languages at the learner’s

disposal and the type of transfer from first and second languages to third or

additional languages. The role of English in multilingual education is then

overviewed on account of the fact that English as a FL is investigated in the present

study. Following this, practical implications of a multilingual education and

experiences from different education systems, including Greece, are noted. Finally,

a rather limited number of studies comparing monolingual and multilingual


strategy use is reported. They will be used to compare the findings of the present

study.

5.1. Definitions and terminology

Multilingualism has slowly been developing into a new field of study and is

becoming a new discipline. There has been a significant amount of research in the

last two decades, although agreement on terms, methods, specifications, etc. has not

yet been reached (Jessner, 2008). It is a very complex research area covering

psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, neurolinguistics, education, second language

acquisition research and all these fields have contributed to the collection of

numerous research findings. It is not a new area of scientific interest, though. It

dates back to the 50s and 60s when Weinreich (1953), Haugen (1956), and Vildomec

(1963) studied social aspects of multilingualism. However, since then various

definitions of multilingualism have been put forward and as Kemp (2009: 12)

proposes there appear to be two sets of reasons for this: the ones based on the

complexity of a situation in which different languages are used and the others based

on the researchers’ complex standpoint.

The contexts in which people use different languages are very diverse and may be

founded on historical, cultural, economic, social, ethnic and other bases. People may

live in multilingual communities as a result of population shifts or immigration or as

ethnic minorities; they may be individual multilinguals who need numerous

languages in their careers; they may have various levels of proficiencies in those

languages; they may study them as a part of school curriculum, and the list goes on.

Which of these multilingual contexts is a starting point in research determines the

methodology and subsequently the findings, thus making the field of multilingual

research even more complex.

Lydia Mitits 111

Another determining factor is researchers with their views and approaches to the

study of multilingualism. Their approaches, methodologies and interpretations

depend on their ideologies and scientific background and inevitably lead to more

complex data collection (Kemp, 2009).

In the literature the term monolingual refers to an individual who uses one

language as well as the possible varieties and registers of that language (Kemp, 2009)

while the term bilingual generally refers to an individual who uses two languages.

Subsequently, a multilingual is an individual who can use three or more languages.

Both bilinguals and multilinguals can use the languages either separately or in

various degrees of code-mixing, with various levels of proficiency and control. Most

researchers in language research use the term bilingual for a user of two languages

and multilingual for three or more, but this is not universal. Saville-Troike (2006), for

example, distinguishes between monolinguals, who know one language, and

multilinguals, who know more than one language, the stance that is adopted by the

present researcher. In addition, in certain cases a bilingual is defined as a person

knowing two or more languages (Mackey, 1962; Baker & Prys Jones, 1998). De Angelis

(2007) also points out that in definitions of bilingualism and multilingualism found

in the literature the number of languages the individual is familiar with is not

central to the definition itself (e.g. Grosjean, 1992; Myers-Scotton, 2002).

Consequently, she proposes the term third or additional language acquisition when

referring to all languages beyond the L2 without giving preference to any particular

language.

Another term offered by Cook (2002) is second language users instead of bilinguals,

where the construct of a L2 user refers to a person who is engaged in real-life use of

the L2 in contrast to a L2 learner who acquires the L2 for later use. Jessner (2006)

argues that this terminology is inadequate on the ground that using and learning


can together form part of bilingual development and provides the example of

bilingual children whose parents speak two languages or of immigrants who need

both to learn a new language and to use it to survive simultaneously.

An important distinction that should be noted is between individual and societal

use of two or more languages which has given rise to different terms at different

times according to Kemp (2009). For instance, Hamers and Blanc (1989) are known

for distinguishing between the term bilinguality to refer to the psychological state of

an individual who knows two languages and bilingualism, which includes bilinguality

but also refers to societies whose communities use two languages. In the same vein

multilingualism refers to societal use of three or more languages and the term

multilinguality is used to indicate the state of knowing three or more languages

(Aronin & Ó Laoire, 2004). It does not exist on its own but is shaped by the

sociolinguistic and cultural settings in which a multilingual lives and plays a decisive

role in its structure and specifications (ibid.: 24).

According to the Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe

(2007) linguistic diversity is viewed as two concepts: multilingualism and

plurilingualism. Namely, multilingualism is used in geographical terms, referring to an

area where more than one variety of language is spoken, regardless of whether it is

formally recognized as a language or not. Plurilingualism, on the other hand, refers

to varieties of language which many individuals use (‘mother tongue’/‘first

language’ and any number of other languages or varieties). The Common European

Framework of Reference for Languages defines plurilingualism as…

the ability to use languages for the purposes of communication and to take part in

intercultural interaction, where a person, viewed as a social agent, has proficiency

of varying degrees, in several languages, and experience of several cultures. This is

not seen as the superposition or juxtaposition of distinct competences, but rather

Lydia Mitits 113

as the existence of a complex or even composite competence on which the user may

draw. (Council of Europe, 2001: 168)

The confusion of the terms in the field of bi-/multilingualism is evident after this

short review. The present researcher has adapted the position according to which a

monolingual language learner is the one who is linguistically fully functional by

using one language, in our case Greek as the official dominant language in Greece,

and at the same time is developing competence in at least another language which

has a status of a foreign language (in the present study it is English). On the other

hand, the term multilingual is used to cover all the participants in the study who use

more than one language on a daily basis. They use Greek as the language of

schooling but also speak and/or write languages related to their status in the Greek

society (minority, immigrants, heritage languages, regional languages/dialects, etc.),

or may come from families where their parents speak different languages for other

reasons (population shift, personal reasons, etc.). As the situation in Thrace is rather

complex and uninvestigated, it is believed that referring to the above described

early adolescent learners in junior high schools as multilinguals is appropriate with

respect to what a multilingual language learner/user is based on the criteria that are

discussed next.

5.1.1. Criteria for defining a multilingual speaker

There is still a heated debate on what constitutes a multilingual user among

linguists. Skutnabb-Kangas (1984: 8) identified four types of definitions based on the

criteria used by researchers. Those are the criteria relevant to the origin of the

multilingual speaker, their competence in the languages they use, how functional

they are within these languages, as well as social, psychological and sociological

criteria. For instance, research has shown that multilinguals that differ in whether


they are non-literate, monoliterate (literate, to some degree, in one of their languages),

biliterate (in two languages) or multiliterate (in a number of their languages) may

produce different test results (Scribner & Cole, 1981).

In her discussion of what defines the multilingual user, Jessner (2006) reminds us

of the common misconceptions held by many people according to which a

multilingual individual cannot be distinguished from a native speaker and does not

mix her or his languages. Baker and Prys Jones (1998: 19) point out that individual

multilingualism is “possible, non-problematic and potentially valuable”; however, it

must be recognized that multilinguals generally use different languages for

different purposes and do not possess the same level of proficiency in all their

languages.

Kemp (2009: 18) raises the question of when an individual can be regarded as

multilingual and how the languages they know can be counted, and offers six

criteria to measure the number of languages. Those are: the required degree of

proficiency and functional capability, the linguistic criterion of mutual

intelligibility, cultural and political criteria, other affective criteria, and literacy.

The first criterion refers to the level of proficiency in each of the languages in order

to consider a person multilingual. As multilinguals’ proficiencies in these languages

develop and attrite over time there is the issue of current proficiency or general

proficiency. Next, functional capability includes the ability to communicate using a

language across a number of domains. Mutual intelligibility is concerned with the

fact that individuals can use non-standard varieties if their L1 or one of their

languages is not a standard language which may have consequences for how

researchers count the languages participants use. With respect to cultural and

political criteria, Smeets (2005) notes that a shared culture, a world view, or a

writing system, are examples of what generally determine a speech community. As

Lydia Mitits 115

for affect, Kemp (2009) warns researchers to be careful when counting

multilinguals’ languages based on self-report because learners may tend to give

unrealistic answers about their knowledge of languages dependent on how

optimistic or pessimistic they feel about their capabilities.

A way of minimizing confusion over inconstant terminology is proposed by De

Angelis (2009) who lists information on learners’ linguistic and educational

background which affects cognitive and psycholinguistic processes found in

multilinguals and is required in order to determine the number of languages they

know. It is the following:

• Age of acquisition of each non-native language;

• Sequence of acquisition of all languages;

• Proficiency level in all non-native languages, and how proficiency level was

measured;

• Exposure to native and non-native language environments;

• Classroom language of instruction for each non-native language (if learned in

a formal setting);

• Amount of formal instruction in each non-native language (years and hours

per week);

• Manner of acquisition (formal/instructed acquisition versus natural

acquisition);

• Context in which each language is or was used (for example at home, at school,

with peers and so on);

• Active or passive use of all languages;

• Number of languages known to the speaker;

• Productive and receptive skills for each language and how these were

measured. (2009:12)


The particular list has served as a starting point for the development of the

Individual Background Questionnaire 2 (IBQ2) (see 6.5.2.) as its main purpose was to

delineate the profile of the multilingual participants in the present study in order to

use that information in the interpretation of the possible findings which may relate

to the multilingualism factor in the use of language learning strategies. It is also

believed that the results of the present study will be more reliable and valid if the

multilinguals’ linguistic and educational background is clearly stated, as proposed by

De Angelis.

5.1.2. Multilingual proficiency

Multilingualism can generally be defined as: “the command and/or use of two or

more languages by the respective speaker” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002: 52). Since the

largest body of research has been conducted on bilingualism, as a form of

multilingualism, the findings obtained in bilingualism research are believed to be

generalizable to third or additional languages. Thus, bilinguals’ language

proficiency may be described in terms of their listening, speaking, reading and

writing abilities, but also with respect to subskills for each of the four skills, making

the language proficiency a multidimensional field (Baker & Prys Jones, 1998).

However, Herdina and Jessner (2002) point out that, although the study of

multilingualism is based on results of bilingualism and second language acquisition

(SLA) research, it also shows differences to psycholinguistic systems containing only

two languages. Furthermore, they note that terminology in the field of

multilingualism is still not standardized. Like in the field of language learning

strategy research, it is important to discuss some of the concepts of language

learning from various perspectives in order to construct a clearer picture of

multilingualism.

Lydia Mitits 117

When describing individual multilingualism Cook (1991, 1993), for example,

employs terms such as multilingual competence or multicompetence while Herdina and

Jessner (2002) prefer the term multilingual proficiency and distinguish between

multilingual proficiency and monolingual competence. The Council of Europe uses

the term plurilingual competence because this concept refers to the standard

distinction between plurilingualism and multilingualism (see 5.1.). It is based on the

plurilingual approach which reflects the current European approach to language

teaching as it centers on learners and on developing their individual plurilingual

repertoire, and not on the specific languages they are supposed to acquire,

according to the Guide for the Development and Implementation of Curricula for

Plurilingual and Intercultural Education (2010).

Traditional research has used the term linguistic competence to refer both to the

second and foreign language contexts without differentiating between competence

in a monolingual and competence(s) in a multilingual speaker. The general language

proficiency concept was influenced by the communicative approach (Canale &

Swain, 1980; Bachman and Palmer, 1982; Bachman, 1990) and Bachman and Palmer’s

model of language ability according to which language proficiency as

multicomponential, comprising mutually related specific abilities as well as a

general ability or set of general strategies or procedures.

According to Herdina and Jessner (2002), the assumption that ‘knowing a

language’ includes knowledge of a language and knowledge of how to use the

language is particularly important in the understanding of multilingual proficiency.

The authors use the term competence to refer to the knowledge of a language and

proficiency to refer to the knowledge of how to use a language. They use this

terminological classification to explain their Dynamic Model of Multilingualism

(DMM) which claims:


… that multilingual proficiency is not reducible to monolingual competence, it

does see multilingual proficiency as derivable from individual language

competence. Otherwise multilingual competence would probably have to be

taken to derive from an innate multilingual competence ability in analogy to

the language acquisition device. On the other hand we must note that

proficiency is also a derived quantity in a second sense in so far as it is

necessarily a hypothetical construct deduced from actual performance

measured. (Herdina & Jessner, 2002: 57)

The authors assume that multilingual proficiency observes its own unique

principles as a result of the factors unique to multilingualism, which require a lot of

further research.

In line with this view is the position held by the Council of Europe (2009) with

respect to what constitutes plurilingual competence. Plurilingual individuals generally

use the languages at their disposal for particular communication needs. Thus,

expecting an individual to develop competences in all the languages they use

equally is not very common and may not be necessary either and, as a result,

plurilinguals develop different competences in each language. An important point

here is that partial knowledge in one language should not be confused with lack of

or reduced competence (ibid.: 18). Another distinction that should be noted is the

one made between linguistic knowledge and language knowledge. The document

states that the latter is knowledge about language in general and can be acquired

through the medium of different languages, and is transferrable from one language

to the other.

Lydia Mitits 119

5.2. Views of bi-/multilingualism

Research into bi-/multilingualism as a distinguished phenomenon rather than an

exception from the monolingual norm has raised some very important issues.

Sociolinguistics investigating bilingualism, psycholinguistics researching second

language acquisition, and language learning pedagogy have all contributed to

research in multilingualism, although generally neglecting each other’s cross-

influence.

The monolingual norm assumption, according to which only an ambilingual (a

person fully fluent in both languages) may be called a real bilingual, has strongly

influenced our conception of bilingualism. As a result, research into bilingualism

has long been based on studies only on ambilinguals. For the rest of the people

around the world who use more than one language in their everyday life various

terms are used.

For example, dominant bilinguals is a term used for those who only master their L2

partially but who have native competence in their first language (Baker, 1996), or,

those who have superior competence in one of their two languages (Hamers &

Blanc, 1989); balanced bilinguals are those who are approximately equally fluent in

two languages; semilinguals are those who have not developed their language

abilities in either language (Cummins, 2000). It must be stated that the term

semilingualism has been extensively criticized as a concept, particularly in relation to

its deficit connotations, since its focus is the limitations of a particular bilingual

person rather than his/her language skills, and has generally been discarded (see

Payne, 1997).

Two concepts closely related to the causes of one’s undeveloped language are

additive and subtractive bilingual contexts which reflect the attitudes held by people

in the wider society to the languages of the individual bilingual (Lambert, 1977). If


being bilingual is viewed as positive and if both languages are valued and

encouraged, an additive bilingual context will develop. In such cases bilingual

individuals have the ability to use both their languages extensively and therefore

are likely to develop high proficiency in both languages, which leads to balanced

bilingualism. On the other hand, if the wider society generally regards one language

as the only one worth knowing, then the ability to use, or even maintain, the other

language is inevitably diminished and this is when a subtractive bilingual context

develops, in which bilingualism is seen as a disadvantage and should be avoided or

discouraged. Skutnabb-Kangas (1981) also distinguishes between elite bilingualism in

which bilingual children from families with a high socio-economic status do better

at school and popular bilingualism in which children from families with a low socio-

economic status underachieve, reminding us that socio-economic differences are a

crucial factor because linguistic minority students in the westernized industrial

world generally belong to low-prestige, low-income families. Baker and Prys Jones

(1998) use the term elite bilingualism as a form of a wider term that they name

prestigious bilingualism, which generally refers to those speakers who speak two

high status languages and usually come from middle or upper class families and, as

a result, prestigious bilingualism is often paralleled to social, cultural and economic

prestige.

A view which has significantly influenced research into bilingualism is a holistic

view first put forward by Grosjean (1982, 1985) who focused on the bilingual as a

competent but specific speaker-hearer. Nonetheless, as Herdina and Jessner (2002)

remind us, a lot of research is still being conducted having as a starting point a

monolingual norm assumption, interpreting bi-/ multilingualism as a kind of double

or multiple monolingualism. In the last two decades researchers have started to

regard second language acquisition and bilingualism as related issues and, as a

Lydia Mitits 121

result, a number of studies have combined these two areas into one field of interest

(Harley et al., 1990; Reynolds, 1991; Baker, 1996). Another important indication of

this view is that it acknowledges that both formal and informal second language

acquisition can lead to bilingualism.

Studies and debates on multilingualism have understandably been influenced by

Grosjean’s attempt to present the bilingual speaker in a bilingual or holistic

approach. Consequently, a bilingual individual is now recognized as a person who

has developed a communicative competence in two languages sufficient for

everyday life and is no longer viewed as the sum of two complete or incomplete

monolinguals. It is generally accepted that the bilingual’s specific linguistic

configuration is characterized by the constant interaction and co-existence of the

two languages involved and, as a result, the bilingual’s competence cannot be

evaluated using language testing methods developed for monolinguals (Grosjean,

1985: 471).

5.3. Linguistic, cognitive and sociocultural implications of multilingualism

Being multilingual has consequences on language, cognition and social background

of an individual and this crosslinguistic interaction has been viewed in the

literature as a drawback and/or a benefit (Herdina & Jessner, 2002).

5.3.1. Crosslinguistic influence as a drawback in multilinguals

Crosslinguistic influence is a term coined by Sharwood Smith (1983), according to

which linguistic performance and/or linguistic development are affected by the

interaction of different language systems in the mind of a bi-/multilingual

individual. The earlier research into bilingualism recognized the importance of

learning two languages, but it generally attributed limited linguistic and cognitive


knowledge of a bilingual child to this phenomenon (Jespersen, 1922). Hamers and

Blanc (1989) studied the stress related language performance of multilinguals and

their findings were confirmed by the evidence for deficit found by Cook (1993),

according to whom second language learners underperform compared to equivalent

native speakers in all cognitive areas. Moreover, multilingual underachievement in

schools has frequently been reported. Although the above mentioned drawbacks are

linked with negative transfer and crosslinguistic influence, the explanation is not

that simple. Herdina and Jessner (2002:61) point out that the interference effects are

rather multidimensional and that:

the interpretation of crosslinguistic effects as primarily negative in terms of

reducing the respective language achievements of the multilingual speaker

represents not only a very one-sided view of the effects to be expected but

also constitutes a misunderstanding of the nature of the multilingual’s

language system.

They suggest the extension of the term crosslinguistic influence to crosslinguistic

interaction to cover for the complexity and mutuality of transfer phenomena found

in multilinguals.

Lambert’s (1977) distinction between additive and subtractive bilingualism has

contributed to the explanation of linguistic deficit and underachievement in certain

groups of bilinguals. With this distinction, the sociolinguistic aspect began to play

an important role in the development of research into bilingualism. Jessner

(1995:175) notes that this distinction between additive and subtractive bilingualism

is crucial in explaining individual and societal bilingualism which are mutually

connected. Additive bilingualism refers to the positive results of being bilingual as it

includes the acquisition of two socially prestigious languages while subtractive

bilingualism includes negative affective and cognitive effects of bilingualism. It

Lydia Mitits 123

occurs in a situation where, for example, the first language of a bilingual is not the

dominant language in the society or a prestigious one (e.g. in members of ethnic

minority groups where both languages may be underdeveloped).

Another explanation as to why second language learners and bilinguals tend to

be linguistically deficient monolinguals is offered by the lack-of-exposure argument,

according to which insufficient exposure to either of the two languages inhibits the

acquisition of full competence that is attributed to general cognitive effort required

to master a language. In other words, this cognitive effort is split between two

languages and is likely to result in a limited mastery of both (Jessner, 2002).

Furthermore, a very frequent explanation is the phenomenon of interference

which happens when the two language systems “interact with each other leading to

largely unpredictable results or deviant structures not related to the structures of

either language” (Herdina & Jessner, 2002) and should be distinguished from the

term (negative) transfer. This form of transfer refers to the transfer of structures

characteristic of L1 to L2 or code mixing (the mixing of two languages within a

sentence or across sentences) and differs from conscious bilingual transfer

procedures, such as borrowing and code switching (moving from one language to

another, inside a sentence or across sentences) according to Baker and Prys Jones

(1998).

5.3.2. Benefits from being multilingual

Historically, research into bi-/multilingualism has moved from early studies

presenting bilinguals as greatly disadvantaged compared to monolinguals, to an

optimistic view of bilingualism as a result of the findings showing multilinguals’

cognitive advantages to, finally, a more moderate stance depicting the results of


research according to which multilinguals can have significant linguistic, cognitive

and sociolinguistic advantages over monolinguals under certain conditions.

One widely reported benefit of being multilingual is that such learners appear to

have developed new skills, such as metacognitive strategies, as a result of their prior

language learning experience and an enhanced level of metalinguistic awareness. A

large number of studies have reported a bi-/multilingual superiority in various

cognitive skills as well as positive crosslinguistic relationships for conversationally-

oriented and literacy-related language abilities (e.g. Cummins, 1991; Kskes & Papp,

2000). Hakuta (1990) reported that even primary school bilingual students are

capable of translation in both directions and maintained that the ability to translate

is related to a variety of metalinguistic skills, which can serve as an effective

method of developing their metalinguistic skills as well as literacy skills. He

proposed additive bilingualism and the holistic development of the native language

early on in the child's education as means to achieving that goal. Malakoff (1992)

also found that translation skills in bilinguals are related to their metalinguistic

behavior, while other studies have shown bilinguals’ advantages on measures of

metalinguistic awareness, cognitive flexibility and creativity (e.g. Baker, 1996).

It becomes apparent from the review of the literature that one of the most

significant advantages or benefits of being bi-/multilingual is the metalinguistic

awareness of such language learners. Bialystok (1991: 114) defines this

metalinguistic awareness as the ability of a language learner to think about

language in abstract terms, to see it in an objective light and from a distance. She

puts forward evidence from studies of bilingual children who were better at solving

problems in three language domains than their monolingual counterparts and

attributes the findings to different levels of mastery of analysis and control

processes due to the children’s bilingual linguistic experience. Titone (1994), who

Lydia Mitits 125

has worked on the development of metalinguistic knowledge in multilinguals,

distinguishes between language awareness and metalinguistic consciousness,

supporting that the former is found in young children while the latter develops

after the age of twelve years and in children growing up in a bilingual family.

Cognitive flexibility is another feature of bi-/multilingual learners recorded in a

number of investigations comparing monolinguals with bilinguals and according to

it bilinguals are more divergent, creative, original and flexible learners who are

more fluent and elaborate. In one such study on the cognitive development of

Italian-English bilinguals and Italian monolinguals, Ricciardelli (1992) found that

bilinguals who were more proficient in both Italian and English performed

significantly better on creativity, metalinguistic awareness and reading than their

monolingual controls. It should be noted, though, that in order for bi-/multilinguals

to be able to do that they need high proficiency in both languages.

Lastly, it appears that, besides language and cognition, bi-/multilinguals

outperform monolinguals in social skills by exhibiting higher pragmatic

competence or communicative sensitivity. This sensitivity to interpersonal

communication by bilinguals has been reported in some studies, such as Genesee,

Tucker and Lambert’s (1975) investigation of children explaining the rules of a

game. The bilingual children appeared to be more sensitive to the listeners’ needs

and gave more efficient explanations than the monolinguals. In Spain, Safont Jordà

(2005) investigated whether bilingual learners of English as a third language show a

higher degree of pragmatic competence and awareness than monolinguals and

indicated that knowing more than two languages benefits both (ibid.: 168).


5.4. Development of research in multilingualism

A hypothesis that has strongly influenced research in bi-/multilingualism is the

Double Monolingualism Hypothesis which is based on the view of the bilingual as the

sum of two monolinguals in one person with two separate language competences

and whose proficiency in the two languages is generally measured against

monolingual proficiency. As a result, as Baker (1996) notes, bilinguals have appeared

to be significantly disadvantaged both in linguistic and cognitive terms in a number

of earlier studies.

By now it has become obvious that, although the double monolingualism

hypothesis prevailed as a concept in studies on bilingualism and second language

acquisition, there have been several theories attempting to explain contradictory

research results. Namely, research in the field of psycholinguistics on the effects of

bilingualism on intelligence and on mental organization of the two languages has

increased greatly in the last decades. In turn, second language acquisition and

bilingualism from the point of view of linguistics have changed considerably

bringing along psychological and educational implications.

The first studies on bilingualism were mainly case studies in which researchers

reported on the linguistic development of bilingual systems by their own children.

The most influential bilingual representation was the Compound-coordinate Model of

bilingualism (Weinreich, 1953; Ervin & Osgood, 1954) which was the first to state the

shared and separate store hypothesis of bilingual memory. Although this model was

later abandoned, it has influenced subsequent research with its distinction between

coordinate and compound bilingualism. According to this model a coordinate bilingual

learns the two languages in separate cultural environments, which implies that the

vocabularies of the two languages are kept separate while a compound bilingual

learns both languages in the same context, meaning that conceptual systems are

Lydia Mitits 127

fused in the brain. Weinreich (1953) also described the sub-coordinate bilingual as a

person who primarily establishes meanings through the first dominant language in

order to interpret new meanings in the weaker language.

When referring to influential work in the field of bilingualism, Peal and

Lambert’s (1962) seminal study must be cited as one that has definitely had an

enormous impact. They found a positive correlation between bilingualism and

intelligence in ten-year-old French-Canadian bilinguals since the bilingual group

performed significantly better than French monolinguals on both verbal and non-

verbal measures in either language. The researchers attributed this finding to a

positive transfer between the bilinguals’ two languages which not only influenced

linguistic competence but also cognition. The Peal and Lambert study was the first

in the field to use a methodology (rigorous criteria for sampling and control, a

battery of tests, etc.) in their experiments which ensured the validity and reliability

of their results and it also incited research interest in factors other than

intelligence.

Theories from the field of second language acquisition have understandably had

a strong influence on theoretical constructs used in research of bilingualism. Such a

theory is Selinker’s (1972) concept of Interlanguage already discussed in chapter 2.

He used this term to describe the transitional stages in the second language

acquisition process by learners of a second/foreign language. He also introduced the

phenomenon of fossilization that refers to:

… linguistic items, rules, and subsystems which speakers of a particular native

language will tend to keep in their interlanguage relative to a particular target

language, no matter what the age of the learner or amount of explanation or

instruction he receives in the target language. (1972: 215).


When this phenomenon is applied to the study of bilingualism it can be referred

to as partial achievement (Herdina & Jessner, 2002) in the case of bi-/multilinguals

and be used as an explanation for their linguistic deficit.

Another theoretical view from the second language acquisition research has

contributed to the explanation of cross linguistic influence in bilinguals and it is the

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. The claim of the contrastive analysis hypothesis

(Lado, 1957) was that the difficulty to master a language (L2) was dependent on the

typological closeness of L1 and L2. In other words, the more similar the languages

are, the easier it is to learn them, and vice versa. Although the contrastive analysis

hypothesis has generally been rejected as a part of a behaviorist interpretation of

language learning as a habit formation (also because it emphasized the ability to

predict errors) and since its claims could not be sustained by empirical evidence

that was accumulated by the psycholinguistic studies, researchers in bilingualism

have started to assess or apply it in a different theoretical context (Hoffmann, 1991;

Selinker, 1992; James, 1992, 1998; Herdina & Jessner, 2002). What the contrastive

analysis hypothesis has offered is the phenomenon of positive and negative transfer

from one language to the other. However, it would have to be complemented by a

psychological theory explaining what leads language learners to resort to transfer

and that errors are a result of a complex phenomenon, not simply depending on L1

and L2 differences (Herdina & Jessner, 2002).

The next highly influential yet controversial hypothesis aiming at explaining the

cognitive effects of bilingualism is Cummins’ Threshold Hypothesis (1976, 1979).

Influenced by Skutnabb-Kangas (1976), Cummins developed a theoretical framework

according to which the development of and competence in L1 and L2 are

interrelated. In order to avoid cognitive deficit and to benefit from the two

languages that a child is developing, threshold levels of linguistic proficiency must

Lydia Mitits 129

be attained. He proposed two thresholds in the levels of a bilingual’s competence. A

low level of competence is characterized by the negative cognitive effects of

bilingualism. The second level, which is located between the two thresholds and

represents dominant bilingualism (with age-appropriate level of proficiency in one

language), is likely to produce neither positive nor negative effects. The third level

is found beyond the second threshold where positive cognitive effects are likely to

result since the bilingual is now balanced in both languages. However, this

hypothesis has been criticized on the grounds that these thresholds are not

sufficiently defined (Wiley 1996) and for its practical limitations (Baker & Prys-

Jones, 1998).

Another of Cummins’ (1979) hypotheses with implications for the study of bi-

/multilingualism is his distinction between two types of linguistic competence or

proficiency. The first he named ‘basic interpersonal communicative skills’ (BICS)

while the other type is known as ‘cognitive-academic language proficiency’ (CALP).

BICS involves the linguistic competence required to engage in everyday

conversational language use and CALP refers to the linguistic competence necessary

to successfully participate in and benefit from school practices, particularly through

literacy. Like the threshold hypothesis, this distinction between the two types of

competences has also been attacked. For example, Edelsky (1986, 1990) criticizes the

concept of CALP in particular and Cummins’ hypotheses in general for being deficit

hypotheses whereas Martin-Jones and Romaine (1986) object to how they view

education, where children are perceived as containers who could be more or less

filled.


5.5. Multiple language acquisition and third language research

Researchers investigating third language acquisition and multilingualism warn that

there may be terminological difficulties in connection to foreign/second language

learning terminology (e.g. De Angelis, 2007). For example, L1 may mean first

language, native language, mother tongue, dominant language, etc. and L2 second

language, foreign language, the prevailing language, formal/ official language, etc.

It becomes apparent that it can lead to even more confusion when L1 seizes to be

the dominant language any longer and when due to changes in communicative

needs L2 becomes the dominant language. As a result Herdina and Jessner (2002)

suggest that the term primary language acquisition (PLA) be used instead of first

language acquisition when referring to the language learning process of learning

the first language (in a monolingual environment).

Another important point the above mentioned researchers make is that, when

describing the languages used by a multilingual speaker, we have to make the

distinction between the onset of learning the languages and the dominance of the

languages involved and to reflect it in the terminology used. Moreover, Hufeisen

(2000) points out that chronological terminology with respect to the order of the

languages used by a multilingual does not describe the user’s competency in those

languages. In other words, just because a speaker has started learning one language

first does not automatically mean that he/she is more proficient in it.

As already mentioned, research into multilingualism (third, fourth, etc. language

acquisition) is still very limited. It has, however, established that there is a

difference between second language acquisition research and third or subsequent

language acquisition and that psycholinguistic models developed to explain the

process of second language acquisition should accommodate L3, L4, etc. The model

proposed by Herdina and Jessner (2002) is a dynamic model of multilingualism

Lydia Mitits 131

which is based on the notion that languages change over time on an individual level

depending on the social context in which they are used. This change is the result of

one’s communicative needs. Moreover, the authors maintain that their

psycholinguistic model of multilingualism is learner-oriented and its aim is to

explain individual learner differences in language acquisition as well as various

factors affecting language performance (attitude, motivation, anxiety, language

aptitude, etc.)

Research into third language acquisition has been grouped by Cenoz (2009) into

studies on third language acquisition in bilingual education programs and those in

regular programs and her conclusion is that the studies carried out in immersion

programs and in other bilingual programs indicate that bilinguals have advantages

over monolinguals in the acquisition of an additional language while the results of

studies on third language acquisition in regular programs are not as conclusive.

In Canada, Bild and Swain (1989) compared the level of French proficiency

attained by English-speaking monolingual children, bilingual children who could

speak English and a Romance language and bilingual children who could speak

English and a non-Romance language and found that both groups of bilingual

children produced better results than monolinguals. Typological closeness of other

languages did not produce significant differences while the years of instruction in

the heritage language had a positive significant influence. Swain et al. (1990)

investigated the relationships between literacy skills and typology and the influence

of bilingualism in the acquisition of French and found that literacy in the heritage

language had a positive effect on third language learning whereas typological

closeness did not. In a Canadian double immersion program Genesee (1998)

compared the development of English by children in a double immersion program

and a regular program and reported that double immersion in French and Hebrew


did not have any negative effect. Next, in Spain, Sanz (2000) examined the influence

of bilingualism on third language acquisition in Catalan-Spanish bilinguals and

Spanish monolinguals learning English at school and reported the results which

clearly indicated that bilingualism had a significant positive effect on English

proficiency.

However, studies on the influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition

carried out in regular programs have produced more mixed results. In some

contexts, bilinguals obtain better results as was the case with the study conducted

by Magiste (1984). She compared monolingual Swedish speakers, passive bilinguals

(who only use Swedish in everyday life) and active bilinguals (who use Swedish and

another language in everyday life) with respect to their proficiency in L3 English

and found that the best results were obtained by the passive bilinguals, followed by

the monolinguals and the active bilinguals. Another comparative study of

immigrant learners of French in the USA indicated that bilingual English-Spanish

speakers had better results than monolingual English-speakers (Thomas, 1988).

Among the bilinguals in the study those with literacy skills in their L1 obtained

better results than those who did not. Also, Wagner et al. (1989) reported that in

their study in Morocco instruction in a second language without literacy did not

show any significant difference in the acquisition of a third language.

On the other hand, some studies, particularly those involving immigrant

students, reported no differences between monolingual and bilingual groups in

third language acquisition. One such study was conducted by Balke-Aurell and

Lindblad’s (1982) with monolingual Swedish speakers and bilingual immigrant

speakers learning English. Sanders and Meijers (1995) also found no differences

between monolinguals and bilinguals when they compared immigrant Turkish-

Dutch and Arabic-Dutch bilingual speakers to monolingual Dutch speakers learning

Lydia Mitits 133

English. A possible explanation is the socioeconomic factor and the subtractive form

of bilingualism often found in immigrants.

5.5.1. Crosslinguistic influence in L3 acquisition

A unique feature of multilingual language acquisition is the form that

crosslinguistic influence takes in language learners. It is obvious that L1, L2, L3, as

well as and any added language system, can influence each other because the

contact between more than two language systems in a multilingual speaker can be

not only bidirectional (between L1 and L2) but also L3 can influence L1 and vice

versa and also L2 and L3 can influence each other (Clyne, 1997; Cenoz, Hufeisen &

Jessner, 2001; Herdina & Jessner, 2002).

According to Williams and Hammarberg (1998) the following criteria are

influential in the relationship between multiple languages acquisition and

production: typological similarity, cultural similarity, proficiency, recency of use,

and the status of the non-dominant language (generally marked as L2). De Angelis

and Selinker (2001) point out the importance of interlanguage transfer and, in

particular, the influence from a non-native language to another non-native

language in the multilingualism discussion. Ringbom (2007) ascertains that

crosslinguistic similarities and differences may cause difficulties to language

learners that can be overcome more through perception rather than

comprehension.

Cenoz (2009) maintains that bilinguals who are in the process of acquiring an

additional language are mainly at an advantage compared with monolinguals on

account of their previous language learning experience (except probably early

bilinguals who may lack that metacognitive awareness). She also postulates that it

could also be possible that bilinguals learn languages in different ways by following


a different route from that followed by second language learners and establishes as

key points on the issue of language interaction and the effect of the L3 on the L1 and

the L2 the following:

In general, bilingualism has a positive influence on the acquisition of a

third language.

Language acquisition is a complex process and bilingualism is only one of

the factors involved, there are other factors, such as motivation or learning

aptitude, that can be more influential.

It is necessary to identify the specific conditions for bilingualism to have a

more positive effect on the acquisition of additional languages so as to have

a maximum benefit from bilingualism.

The interaction between languages is multidirectional so that the influence

is not only from the L1 or L2 to the L3 but also from the L3 to the other

language known or form the L2 to L1.

A holistic approach to the study of multilingualism is necessary to take

this whole constellation into account. (2009: 169)

5.5.2. Types of transfer among languages

De Angelis (2007) reports on the studies whose focus has been the possible transfer

from one or more non-native languages to another and finds evidence for such

transferability in the areas of lexis, phonetics and phonology, morphology and

syntax. Ringbom (2007) also discusses transfer from L1 to L2 with respect to

phonologic, pragmatic, grammatical, and lexical production. What, however, is of

primary concern in the present study is the transferability of language learning

strategies among languages of a multilingual individual language learner.

Lydia Mitits 135

One such study is reported in Jessner (2006). It was carried out at Innsbruck

University with bilingual students from South Tyrol studying English as their third

language. Its aim was to explore the nature of linguistic awareness in multilingual

learners and it was based on the assumption that learners would choose

compensation strategies in order to overcome their lexical inadequacies or deficits.

By compensation strategies the researchers mean strategies such as language

switch, foreignization, literal translation, approximation, description, word coinage,

etc. (Poulisse et al.,1987: 211).

According to Jessner (2006) and Herdina and Jessner (2002) multilinguals have

the ability, when learning a third or further language, to rely on prior language

knowledge and language use experience gained from their contact with a second

language. What they have at their disposal is what the above authors call a

‘metasystem’-or what Griggs (1997: 403) calls a ‘metamode’-which multilingual

learners resort to when linguistic problems arise. The authors base their

assumption on the data from their study showing that, while searching for words

using compensation strategies, the multilingual speakers simultaneously activated

their various language systems. This finding is in line with Kellerman and Bialystok

(1997: 37) who maintain that multilinguals use communication strategies which are

related to the metalinguistic dimensions of the processes of analysis and control.

These processes include monitoring functions such as error detection and

correction and when there is a linguistic deficit, the balance between the two

processes is disturbed. As a result multilingual users resort to strategic behavior to

restore communication. Such strategies can be conscious or unconscious (Faerch &

Kasper, 1983: 36), automatic or non-automatic switches (Vogel, 1992), intentional or

non-intentional (Poulisse & Bongaerts, 1994), etc.


The findings of the Tyrol study revealed that there is a relationship between

crosslinguistic interaction and linguistic awareness in the use of multilingual

compensatory strategies. With respect to strategy form, distinctions were made

between German-based strategies, Italian-based strategies and combined strategies

in which learners made use of both languages to retrieve an expression in English.

As for the functions of strategies, three types of functions of the various strategies

were identified: strategies which served to compensate for lexical insecurity, for a

total lack of target language knowledge, or strategies that were employed in the

search for alternatives. Finally, the data analysis also showed that the multilingual

students made use of facilitation, simplification and/or avoidance as part of their

strategic behavior.

5.6. Studies of monolingual vs. multilingual language learning strategy use

Although there is a long research tradition in investigating language learning

strategies and an increasing body of research in bi-/multilingualism, studies which

compare monolinguals’ and multilinguals’ language learning strategy use are few

and far between. There is very little literature that brings together multilinguals,

language learning strategies and an additional language learning.

One of the earliest comparative study involving 10 multilingual and 10

monolingual participants was conducted by Ramsey (1980) who found that the

multilinguals predominated in the group of ‘successful learners’. What

characterized her successful learners was that they experimented with more

informational sources and found effective learning techniques sooner than less

successful learners. Multilinguals, as successful learners, approached the task

differently. The strategies they seemed to use were, for example, practicing aloud,

Lydia Mitits 137

and verbalizing freely on the mental processes they were going through, as well as

their lack of inhibition to use the target language and make mistakes.

In another comparative study in which participants learnt a miniature linguistic

system, Nation and McLaughlin (1986) came to the conclusion that multilinguals

employed strategies to help them find resources to process linguistic information

more efficiently in a situation when they were not given explicit instructions to

learn.

The most often cited early study comparing monolingual and bilingual strategy

use by Nayak at al. (1990) investigated the language learning skills of 48

monolinguals and multilinguals (aged 16-42) when learning an artificial language

and concluded that multilinguals could adjust their learning strategies to the

requirements of an implicit learning task more effectively than monolinguals while

no differences were found between multilingual and monolingual on an explicit

learning task in which participants were told to find the rules. The authors

suggested that the multilinguals were more capable of structuring their strategies

to the requirements of the task which leads to the conclusion that one reason for

the superior performance of the multilingual participants is their greater flexibility

in switching strategies.

In more recent studies Hong-Nam (2006) and Hong-Nam and Leavell (2007)

compared strategy use and beliefs about language learning reported by 428

monolingual Korean and 420 bilingual Korean-Chinese university students. The

influence of background variables such as gender, self-rated proficiency level in

English and academic major, on learners’ beliefs and strategy use were also

examined. The SILL was the principal instrument for data collection, coupled by the

Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) and the Individual Background

Questionnaire (IBQ). The findings showed that the monolinguals reported using


compensation strategies most frequently, followed by cognitive, metacognitive,

memory, social and affective strategies while the bilinguals preferred cognitive

strategies most, followed by metacognitive, affective, compensation, memory and

social strategies. Social and memory strategies were the least frequently used by

both groups. The authors noted that despite a less favorable formal English

education environment in the Korean-Chinese community and fewer English

learning experiences, the bilingual Korean-Chinese reported higher use of learning

strategies (but not social strategies which is indicative of their formal English

learning environment) suggesting a superior language learning abilities by the

bilinguals. As far as motivation is concerned, both groups had strong instrumental

motivation for learning English. However, the bilinguals held stronger beliefs about

the importance of formal learning and were less apprehensive of speaking English

with native English speakers. Other variables under investigation revealed that

there were significant correlations between strategy and belief variables indicating

differences in the impact of beliefs on strategy use for both groups; proficiency level

was positively correlated with strategy use for both groups; no gender effect on

strategy use and beliefs was found.

Another investigation of monolingual and bilingual EFL learners involving 246

university students in Turkey found a positive correlation between strategy use and

bilingualism (Tuncer, 2009). The frequency of strategy use was measured with the

SILL. The study also reports on the use of the language learning strategies according

to the languages the students have acquired, gender, and proficiency variables. The

results indicated that contrary to gender and proficiency, bilingualism had a

significant difference on the use of strategies. Overall, the bilinguals showed a

greater use of language learning strategies compared to monolinguals. The author

infers that the bilinguals are more advantageous than monolinguals in the process

Lydia Mitits 139

of language learning because they are intrinsically motivated and that the source of

this motivation may be the previous success at acquiring or learning other

languages.

On the other hand, a smaller-scale research conducted by Shabani and Sarem

(2009) in which they investigated the learning strategy use of monolinguals and

bilinguals learning English as a foreign language indicated that there was not any

significant difference in the strategy use overall and for individual items between

the two groups except for three items. For the purpose of the study, 30 Persian-

speaking monolinguals and 30 Kurdish-Persian speaking bilinguals were selected

from among Iranian EFL learners studying English Literature at university and were

asked to complete the SILL.

Kostic-Bobanovic and Bobanovic (2011) conducted a similar study, this time

among 42 monolingual Croatian and 42 bilingual EFL students at a university in

Croatia. They compared the use of language learning strategies for oral

communication and the results of the research suggested that the bilingual students

reported higher usage of learning strategies than the monolinguals, with memory

and metacognitive strategies reaching statistically significant level.

Finally, another relevant study is a longitudinal case study involving three

successful language learners, (1 bilingual boy, 1 bilingual girl and 1 monolingual

girl) conducted by Mitits and Sarafianou (2012) in order to observe how language

learning strategies develop across languages and whether bilingual learners’ use of

strategies differs quantitatively and qualitatively from that of monolinguals when

learning English L3. The study also investigated the effect of the bilingual learners’

gender on strategy use. The data was collected through combined research

methods: the SILL questionnaire, the LSUI inventory (Cohen, Oxford & Chi, 2006),

semi-structured interviews, verbal reports (Cohen, 1996) and task product analysis


(Bialystok, 1990; Abraham & Vann, 1996). From the results of the study it can be

stated that the bilingual learners used more strategies more frequently than the

monolingual one. Differences were also observed in strategy use between the male

and female bilingual learners with the female using overall more strategies. As for

the quality of strategy use, the findings suggest that the bilinguals showed

willingness to take risks and practice naturalistically and have the necessary tools

to foster and promote autonomy beyond the classroom and the teacher’s control.

5.7. Multilingualism with English as a third or additional language

According to Jessner (2006) the three most important reasons for the creation of

multilingual settings are, first of all, population migration, secondly, the role of

English as a lingua franca and, finally, former colonies and their dominant

languages. The factor which is of a particular interest and relevance to the present

study is the spread of English and its role as a third language. It is an obvious fact

that the place of English in Europe has changed with its sociolinguistic,

psycholinguistic and educational implications. It is learnt as a foreign language with

no official status and is increasingly used as the language of wider communication

with native speakers of English and as a lingua franca for people who do not share

the same language. As Johnson (1990: 303) observes English is not only used as the

lingua franca but also as a third language since International English or English as a

Lingua Franca has become a variety which is learned through formal education

without reinforcement outside the classroom. The number of individuals and

nations learning and using English is rapidly growing. They are characterized by the

fact that for them English is not needed as a community or national language but it

is a necessity in order to gain access to education, politics, administration,

commerce and technology.

Lydia Mitits 141

The use of the English language in the European context can be divided into

societal and individual multilingualism (Hoffmann, 2000). From the point of view of

sociolinguistics it should be noted that, for example in Greece, English is an

additional language for the schoolchildren who are speakers of minority group

languages (Turkish, Pomaki, Romani, etc.); for a large number of immigrants who

have established themselves in Greece; as well as for repatriated Greeks from the

former Soviet republics who already speak Greek and another language before they

start school. Moreover, at the psycholinguistic level, it should be stated that the

spread of English and its contact with other languages has had implications for

those individuals for whom it is not only a second language but also a third or

fourth language, which is very often the case in Greece. Hoffmann (2000:13) also

states that it is important to view the presence of English in European countries

from both the macro- and micro-level of analysis of its societal presence because it

is the individual speakers with their potential to use English in various micro-

contexts who are responsible for the wide spread of English as a lingua franca

throughout Europe. As for the relationship between the role of English and

education, an observation very often made is that European nation states are rarely

reluctant to provide teaching of (and through) English and teaching through

English (Content and Language Integrated Learning-CLIL) for their students, while

at the same time express very little and spasmodic support for the teaching of L1 of

linguistic minority students (ibid.).

5.8. Multilingual education

5.8.1. Types of bi-/multilingual education

Baker and Prys Jones (1998: 469) describe ten different types of bilingual education.

It is believed by the present researcher that their division can be expanded in


principle to accommodate education with three or more languages, as well. They

also present a ‘weak’ and a ‘strong’ form of bilingual education, where the ‘weak’

form generally refers to school programs in which there are bilingual children while

the ‘strong’ form aims at bilingualism and biliteracy (see table 5). In practice the

weak form leads to producing monolingualism or limited bilingualism rather than

full bilingualism opposed to the strong form of bilingual education which leads to

educating students proficient in two languages. The main point made by Baker and

Prys Jones is that a weak form of bilingual education often seeks to assimilate

language minority children within the language majority society. In contrast,

various forms of bilingual education tend towards creating bilingual and biliterate

children while maintaining cultural pluralism and multiculturalism.

Table 5 Types of bilingual education according to Baker and Prys Jones

WEAK FORMS OF EDUCATION FOR BILINGUALISM

Type of program Typical type of child

Language of the classroom

Societal and educational

aims

Aim in language outcome

1. SUBMERSION (structured immersion)

Language Minority

Majority Language

Assimilation Monolingualism

2. SUBMERSION (withdrawal

classes/ sheltered English

Language Minority

Majority Language with

‘pull-out’ lessons

Assimilation Monolingualism

3. SEGREGATIONIST

Language Minority

Minority Language

(forced, no choice)

Apartheid Monolingualism

4. TRANSITIONAL Language Minority

Moves from Minority to

Majority Language

Assimilation Relative Monolingualism

5. MAINSTREAM Language Majority Limited Limited

Lydia Mitits 143

with foreign language teaching

Majority Language with L2/FL lessons

Enrichment Bilingualism

6. SEPARATIST Language Minority

Minority Language (out

of choice)

Detachment/ Autonomy

Limited Bilingualism

STRONG FORMS OF EDUCATION FOR BILINGUALISM AND BILITERACY

7. IMMERSION Language Majority

Bilingual with initial

emphasis on L2

Pluralism & Enrichment

Bilingualism & Biliteracy

8. MAINTENANCE/ HERITAGE LANGUAGE

Language Minority

Bilingual with emphasis on L1

Maintenance, Pluralism & Enrichment


9. TWO-WAY/ DUAL LANGUAGE

Mixed Language Minority

& Majority

Minority & Majority



10. MAINSTREAM BILINGUAL

Language Majority

Two Majority Languages


Bilingualism & biliteracy

5.8.2. Debates on bi-/multilingual education

When it comes to multilingual education there appear to be two debates, with the

first focusing on pedagogical issues and the second on political, according to

Jorgensen and Quist (2007). The authors also stress the fact that neither of the

debates places emphasis on language nor recognizes the importance of minority

language learning for linguistic and cognitive development as well as academic

success of multilingual learners.

In order to overcome the problem of school underachievement by linguistic

minority students in the countries belonging to the European Union, the Council of

Europe has issued a number of resolutions. For example, the European Community

Commission issued the directive 77/486, article 2 (1977) which states that the official


languages must be taught, and teachers should be specially trained for it. It was

followed by educational experiments in member countries with general

recommendation that such experiments be continued (Reid & Reich, 1992). The

European Parliament resolution which ensued stressed the necessity to integrate

languages into the school curriculum.

According to Reich et al. (2002), problems with the bi-/multilingualism of an

individual stem from social circumstances, one of which is the relationship between

school and a linguistic minority student. The authors note that the best indicators of

school success seem to be the students’ socioeconomic status and command of the

school language and they report that there are a number of factors which influence

the chances of minority learners’ school success. Those are (among others): the

general atmosphere at the school, the curriculum and its meaningfulness to

minorities, teacher education and the involvement of minority students’ mother

tongue (2002: 41).

Under the influence of Cummins’ threshold hypothesis Jorgensen and Quist (2007)

advocate that good educational planning means that schools should teach both in

and of linguistic minority children’s L1 until it has reached the lower threshold

before introducing their L2. They maintain that:

… the level of L1 development of a minority student predicts the chances of

an L2-medium teaching to succeed in helping the student become an

“additive” bilingual. If the child in question has not developed her or his

mother tongue to the lower threshold, teaching in L2 will have negative

effects on the child’s bilingualism and cognitive development. According to

this line of thinking linguistic minority children should be taught through

their mother tongue, at least until they have reached the lower threshold.

(2007: 156)

Lydia Mitits 145

Although practical implementations have not always been successful as in the

example of Finland (Paulston, 1982), some educational systems such as Canadian

and Swedish have been planning and implementing this approach (Pedersen &

Skutnabb-Kangas, 1983; Cline & Frederickson, 1996) or experimenting with how to

organize the education of linguistic minority students, including, for instance,

special teaching materials and teacher education. In other educational systems, as is

the case in Denmark, there is a tendency to support the involvement of minority

languages (Hetmar, 1991; Hyltenstam et al., 1996).

In one of the latest documents the Council of Europe (2010) outlines the aims of

plurilingual and intercultural education, which is recommended to its member

states in the light of the increasingly plural character of the European Union

societies. One of the aims particularly relevant to our study is the integration of

foreign languages themselves, and between foreign languages and the majority

language of each particular educational system, regional/minority and possibly

migration languages taught in the school, and other subjects in the curriculum. If

such a curriculum is implemented it should, among others, enable learners to:

- expand and maintain their language repertoires;

- instruct themselves in their primary language (language of the home);

- learn a regional, minority or migration language, if this is what they and/or

their parents desire;

- acquire the language competences needed for life in the community

(particularly written production and reception competences)… (Council of

Europe, 2010: 19)


5.8.3. Multilingualism in the classroom

In order to take advantage of the positive aspects of multilingualism in teaching,

Jessner (2006) proposes creating links among languages and exploiting the

resources that multilingual learners bring into the classroom. This can be achieved

by using cross-language approaches and strategy training. Research into

multilingualism has repeatedly shown that the individual language systems in the

multilingual mind are activated together during third language production, yet this

fact is ignored or considered an obstacle in the language classroom. The reason for

this generally lies in the belief that simultaneous use of the languages by a

multilingual (including their L1) will cause confusion in the student’s mind and

inhibit learning. In the ordinary language classroom contact with another language

is still regarded as a hindrance to learning. Early contrastive analysis approach to

language teaching has influenced this view as it considered the L1 influence on a

second language or a foreign language only as an interference to be avoided (Braun,

1937; Hombitzer, 1971).

Although not referring to multilinguals in particular, James (1998) and Hawkins

(1999) stressed the importance and usefulness of contrastive analysis as part of

language learning and teaching in the classroom as they concerned themselves with

the process of learning to learn a language and cross-language comparisons with

special emphasis on the role of the L1 in second language learning. Studies into

metalinguistic awareness of multilinguals report on the benefits of using teaching

methods that allow contact and cooperation among languages (Yelland et al.,1993;

Jessner, 1999; Cummins, 2001; Clyne, 2003; Ó Laoire, 2004).

Based on the evidence from numerous studies (Kellerman 1995; Schweers 1996;

Lewis, 1997; Jessner 1999, 2003) and on the claim that various languages

simultaneously interact, compete and support each other during language

Lydia Mitits 147

production and reception, Jessner (2006) advocates a crosslinguistic approach to

language learning/teaching of multilinguals as one of the main goals in future

language teaching. She adds that with this approach the development of linguistic

awareness in multilinguals will include the activation of any prior language

knowledge, not only the L1 to L2.

McCarthy (1997) points out that learners’ various language learning experiences

can be beneficial to language awareness as long as linkages and pathways among

the languages are established. He proposes a cross-curricular approach to

curriculum development as a way to achieve this goal. Harris and Grenfell (2004)

address the case for collaboration between teachers who teach L1 English and those

who teach modern languages, as well as the researchers in the field, in order to

facilitate cross-curricular cooperation which would lead to the development of

language learning strategies and raise learners’ literacy skills. The authors stress the

need to make explicit links between the languages taught since their research

indicates that those links enable learners to transfer knowledge of their L1 to other

languages learnt and vice versa.

An emerging classroom practice including contrastive analysis and translation

for consciousness-raising and language awareness purposes has been suggested (e.g.

James, 1996; Kupferberg & Olshtain, 1996; Kupferberg, 1999). Cummins (2007)

maintains that conceptual knowledge in L1 and L2 (or, it can be added, in any

additional language) is interdependent, meaning that concepts, academic content

and learning strategies transfer across languages. He argues that neither the ‘direct

method’ (instruction exclusively through the target language) nor the ‘two

solitudes’ (strict separation of languages in an immersion program) assumptions

have research basis. According to the ‘interdependence hypothesis’ posed by

Cummins (2005) monolingual instructional orientation should be complemented by


bilingual/multilingual instructions as they are more efficient and consistent with

the interdependence that exists among languages.

By now it is evident that research has shown the benefits of moving between

languages, or ‘translanguaging’, which is a term used by Garcia (2009: 140) meaning:

… the act performed by bilinguals of accessing different linguistic features or

various modes of what are described as autonomous language, in order to

maximize communicative potential.

Creese and Blackledge (2010) summarize the advantages of ‘translanguaging’ found

in their research: learners need both languages; they draw across languages; they

are more confident and accomplish lesson goals better. It is believed by the

researcher that multilingual education should strive to develop a kind of

multilingualism consistent with what Garcia (2009: 144) calls ‘dynamic

multilingualism’ that refers to “the varying degrees of abilities and uses of multiple

language practices needed for people to cross physical or virtual borders”. Garcia

points out the obvious but neglected fact that it is impossible to live in a multilingual

community without ‘translanguaging’, so it is equally inefficient to try to do so in a

multilingual classroom. There are pedagogical benefits of ‘translanguaging’ as a

scaffolding technique among languages, as a way to develop learners’ metalinguistic

understanding and metacognitive awareness. It can also be used among students

without having to wait for the teacher to assume a direct teaching role.

Research concerned with raising and teaching linguistic awareness in the form of

strategies in inferencing studies (guessability of words) among multilingual

language learners has recorded the usefulness of strategy training in making

informed guesses as to the meaning of a word (Haastrup, 1997; Meißner & Reinfried,

1998). Other studies have also shown the positive effects of strategy training in

multilingual context (Schmid, 1993, 1995; Spöttl, 2001). Mißler (1999) and Ó Laoire

Lydia Mitits 149

(2001) found that the number of language learning strategies available to a learner

was dependent on prior linguistic experience and the proficiency levels in each of

the languages at the learner’s disposal.

Finally, Jessner (2006) concludes by citing Zapp (1983: 199) that this cross-

language approach to teaching should be accompanied and supported by language

learning strategy training as a crucial tool in helping learners structure prior

language knowledge in order to develop their languages and become more

autonomous learners. She points out the need for further research in

multilingualism to reveal the language learning strategies that students bring to

learning in order to enhance strategy transfer.

5.9. Multilingualism in Greek society and education

A paradox found in the attitudes of the Greek state and individuals is that they seem

to value greatly and invest into the learning of prestigious foreign languages such as

English, German and French, while, at the same time, ignore or neglect the fact that

Greece is a multilingual country with many people who bring into it different

languages and cultures (Damanakis, 1997; Gogonas, 2010).

The reason for the presence of a large number of multilinguals living in Greece is

the influx of migrants with the mass immigration into Greece starting in the early

1990s. That was the time when Greece was a destination for people seeking work

from countries such as Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Pakistan, African countries, etc.

and for repatriated Greeks from the former Soviet Republics. Tsokalidou (2005)

notes that even before the recent influx of migrants the linguistic profile of Greece

was characterized by diversity. The Turkish-speaking population of Thrace became

Greek citizens in May 1920 when western Thrace became part of Greece and Turkish

became the only officially recognized minority language. According to the 1923


Treaty of Lausanne the education of the Muslim minorities in Greece is provided in

segregated schools (Sella-Mazi, 1997). Moreover, there are the Pomaks, a Muslim,

Slavic-speaking community who live in the area around Xanthi, Western Thrace

(Trudgill, 2001; Lytra in Rampton et al., 2003) and Muslim Roma who also live in

Thrace and speak Turkish and Roma who speak Romany (the language of the Rom)

(see Tzitzilis, 2006; Χατζησαββίδης, 2007). There is also the Armenian community

who speak Armenian, as well as communities throughout Greece that speak

Vlachika (related to Rumanian), Arvanitika (related to Albanian) and Slavika

(related to Macedonian) (see Tsokalidou, 2005).

Triandafyllidou and Veikou (2002) point out that, despite this change in the

population profile, until the late 1980s Greece was viewed as a relatively

homogeneous country with respect to languages and only then did research into

issues of language maintenance and intercultural education began. The presence of

linguistic minority students was reflected in the school population which resulted

in the organization of special reception classes for immigrated linguistic minority

children. According to the Institute of Intercultural Education of the Greek

Education Ministry (IPODE, 2006), during the school year 2004-05, about 140,000

migrant and repatriated Greek pupils were enrolled in Greek schools, accounting for

almost 10% of the overall school population (Gogonas, 2010).

As already mentioned, Thrace is characterized by a separate education for the

Muslim minorities who are predominantly Turkish-speaking, but there are also the

Roma communities speaking the Romani language as well as the Pomak

communities who speak a Slavic dialect related to Bulgarian (both groups are

nonetheless considered to have Turkish as their L1). The curriculum in the primary

schools for the Muslim minority children is divided in two: half of the subjects are

taught in Greek by teachers with L1 Greek and half in Turkish by L1 Turkish-

Lydia Mitits 151

speaking teachers. English is taught as a foreign language. In secondary education

there are both segregated schools for the Muslim minority students and general

junior high schools for students aged 12 to 15. The latter have a large number of

multilingual students since many of the Turkish-speaking students choose to attend

general high schools along with children from immigrant and repatriated families

who speak at least another language besides Greek. Immigrant pupils’ languages

and the languages spoken by the Muslim minority in Thrace are absent from the

school curricula and completely neglected in teaching practice except for Turkish

which was for a short time offered as an elective school subject (a second foreign

language alongside French and German).

There is some research into multilingualism in Greece which generally addresses

immigrant pupils’ bilingualism mainly as an educational problem that results in

linguistic deficit and general underachievement by multilingual students,

particularly with respect to their proficiency in Greek (Damanakis, 1997; Nikolaou,

2000; Skourtou, 2000; Tressou & Mitakidou, 2003; Georgoyannis, 2006; Govaris, Kaldi

& Lolakas, 2010). Other researchers such as Tsokalidou (2005) have, however,

focused on the importance of language maintenance of the linguistic minority

students for the benefit of their cognitive and linguistic development. According to

Tsokalidou (2005) teachers in Greece have not been trained and lack experience in

intercultural educational approaches. They are generally not aware of the potential

benefits of multilingualism and need to learn how to take advantage of the diverse

linguistic and cultural background of their students. The author suggests ways of

raising bilingual awareness both among teachers and students in Greek primary

schools. This view is in line with the research findings by Skourtou (2008) as well as

Gkaintartzi and Tsokalidou (2011) who argue that teacher training concerning

bilingualism should include the clarification of what bilingualism and linguistic


diversity entail and how bilingualism can mediate and facilitate language learning

both in theory and in practice.

Another important issue that is a feature of the Greek educational system is the

assimilation pressure that is exerted on linguistic minority students because

according to Paleologou and Evangelou (2003) the state has not taken any measures

that foster the maintenance of ethnic identity and learners’ L1. As a result of these

assimilation pressures, there are difficulties in the smooth and balanced integration

of those learners (Gogonas, 2010) leading to signs of low self-esteem, school failure

and other school-related problems (Nikolaou, 2000).

Summary

This chapter has outlined the theory and research into multilingualism with the

implications for education in general and language learning in particular. It is

evident that multilingualism is now recognized as a norm rather than an exception

in the majority of language classrooms and the advantages of being multilingual

have been reported in a large body of research. While most studies on language

learning strategies have focused on monolingual learners in various learning

contexts (ESL, EFL, or FL), a limited number of studies have compared strategy use

of monolinguals and multilinguals and factors influencing that use, and it has been

suggested that language learning by multilinguals may differ from that of

monolinguals due to their multiple language acquisition, positing that multilingual

may use strategies differently and approach the process of language learning more

effectively than monolinguals. The need to conduct more studies to verify the

influence of multilingualism on language learning is generally recognized. Although

studies of language learning strategy use within the Greek educational context have

been reported, no study has been conducted to compare differences in the strategy

Lydia Mitits 153

use between monolingual Greek L1 and multilingual L1 other than Greek learners all

of whom are learning English as FL. Therefore, there is a clear need for further

research addressing how multilingualism may affect strategies and effective

language learning.

The next chapter provides the methodology of the current study, which contains

the information about how the study was designed, what instruments were used,

the demographic facts about the participants, how data were analyzed and the

research conducted.


6. Methodology of the present study

The previous chapters looked into various issues concerning the theory and studies

into the concepts central to the present study, namely how learning of languages

takes place, the role of language learning strategies in that process, as well as the

numerous factors that influence LLS. Multilingualism, as the crucial factor here, was

also presented. The following chapters will be dealing with the empirical issues

directly linked to the present study. In this chapter the research rationale, research

questions and hypotheses are stated. The instruments and a detailed adaptation

protocol are presented. The context is described, followed by the delineation of the

participants’ profiles. Next, the data collection and analysis procedure are outlined

and, finally, the conduct of the study is shown.

6.1. The research rationale and questions

Although there is a long research tradition in investigating bi-/multilingualism as

well as language learning strategies, there are few studies which compare

monolinguals’ and multilinguals’ language learning strategy use and the factors

influencing it. Since there is a significant number of multilingual learners attending

Greek secondary education, there is a need for a comparative study investigating

potential differences in language learning strategy use between monolingual (L1

Greek) and multilingual (L1 non-Greek) early adolescent learners in order to provide

strategic instruction in teaching materials and raise teachers’ awareness of issues

related to multilingualism in Greek schools. The term monolingual in our context

refers to L1 Greek speakers who are in the process of learning EFL and are probably

learning other foreign languages, but do not speak any of them on a daily basis

outside the classroom. By the term multilinguals we refer to EFL learners whose L1 is

Lydia Mitits 155

a language other than Greek, who attend public schools where Greek is the medium

of education (so it can be assumed that Greek is their L2), and may speak other

languages at home as well.

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the language learning strategy

use of monolingual and multilingual students currently engaged in learning English

as a foreign language. The second goal was to explore whether any similarities and

differences between monolinguals and multilinguals exist with respect to gender,

age, English language proficiency, and motivation variables. The third goal was to

establish if multilingual learners transfer their language strategies from their

second language, in our case Greek, to the foreign language-English. This study

addressed the following research questions:

Research question 1: Do factors such as multilingualism, gender, age, proficiency level and

motivation influence language learning strategy use of early

adolescent EFL learners?

Research question 2: Do multilingual early adolescent language learners transfer language

learning strategies from their L2 Greek to FL English?

6.2. Hypotheses of the study

Thirty six (36) null and alternative research hypotheses were assumed for the first

research question and ten (10) for the second. They served as research objectives

and were the following:

Hypothesis no. 1

H0: There are no statistically significant differences between monolingual and

multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to the overall frequency

of language learning strategy use.


H1: There are statistically significant differences between monolingual and

multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to the overall frequency

of language learning strategy use.

Hypothesis no. 2


multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to memory strategies.


multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to memory strategies.

Hypothesis no. 3


multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to cognitive strategies.


multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to cognitive strategies.

Hypothesis no. 4


multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to compensation strategies.


multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to compensation

strategies.

Hypothesis no. 5


multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to metacognitive

strategies.


multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to metacognitive

strategies.

Lydia Mitits 157

Hypothesis no. 6


multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to affective strategies.


multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to affective strategies.

Hypothesis no. 7


multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to social strategies.


multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to social strategies.

Hypothesis no. 8


multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to individual strategy

items.


multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to individual strategy

items.

Hypothesis no. 9

H0: There is no significant effect for gender on overall strategy use in early adolescent

EFL learners.

H1: There is a significant effect for gender on overall strategy use in early adolescent

EFL learners.

Hypothesis no. 10

H0: There is no significant effect for gender on memory strategies in early adolescent

EFL learners.


H1: There is a significant effect for gender on memory strategies in early adolescent EFL

learners.

Hypothesis no. 11

H0: There is no significant effect for gender on cognitive strategies in early adolescent

EFL learners.

H1: There is a significant effect for gender on cognitive strategies in early adolescent

EFL learners.

Hypothesis no. 12

H0: There is no significant effect for gender on compensation strategies in early

adolescent EFL learners.

H1: There is a significant effect for gender on compensation strategies in early


Hypothesis no. 13

H0: There is no significant effect for gender on metacognitive strategies in early


H1: There is a significant effect for gender on metacognitive strategies in early


Hypothesis no. 14

H0: There is no significant effect for gender on affective strategies in early adolescent

EFL learners.

H1: There is a significant effect for gender on affective strategies in early adolescent EFL

learners.

Hypothesis no. 15

H0: There is no significant effect for gender on social strategies in early adolescent EFL

learners.

Lydia Mitits 159

H1: There is a significant effect for gender on social strategies in early adolescent EFL

learners.

Hypothesis no. 16

H0: There is no significant effect for age on overall strategy use in early adolescent EFL

learners.

H1: There is a significant effect for age on overall strategy use in early adolescent EFL

learners.

Hypothesis no. 17

H0: There is no significant effect for age on memory strategies in early adolescent EFL

learners.

H1: There is a significant effect for age on memory strategies in early adolescent EFL

learners.

Hypothesis no. 18

H0: There is no significant effect for age on cognitive strategies in early adolescent EFL

learners.

H1: There is a significant effect for age on o cognitive strategies in early adolescent EFL

learners.

Hypothesis no. 19

H0: There is no significant effect for age on compensation strategies in early adolescent

EFL learners.

H1: There is a significant effect for age on compensation strategies in early adolescent

EFL learners.

Hypothesis no. 20

H0: There is no significant effect for age on metacognitive strategies in early adolescent

EFL learners.


H1: There is a significant effect for age on metacognitive strategies in early adolescent

EFL learners.

Hypothesis no. 21

H0: There is no significant effect for age on affective strategies in early adolescent EFL

learners.

H1: There is a significant effect for age on affective strategies in early adolescent EFL

learners.

Hypothesis no. 22

H0: There is no significant effect for age on social strategies in early adolescent EFL

learners.

H1: There is a significant effect for age on social strategies in early adolescent EFL

learners.

Hypothesis no. 23

H0: There is no significant effect for proficiency level on overall strategy use in early


H1: There is a significant effect for proficiency level on overall strategy use in early


Hypothesis no. 24

H0: There is no significant effect for proficiency level on memory strategies in early


H1: There is a significant effect for proficiency level on memory strategies in early


Hypothesis no. 25

H0: There is no significant effect for proficiency level on cognitive strategies in early


Lydia Mitits 161

H1: There is a significant effect for proficiency level on cognitive strategies in early


Hypothesis no. 26

H0: There is no significant effect for proficiency level on compensation strategies in early


H1: There is a significant effect for proficiency level on compensation strategies in early


Hypothesis no. 27

H0: There is no significant effect for proficiency level on metacognitive strategies in early


H1: There is a significant effect for proficiency level on metacognitive strategies in early


Hypothesis no. 28

H0: There is no significant effect for proficiency level on affective strategies in early


H1: There is a significant effect for proficiency level on affective strategies in early


Hypothesis no. 29

H0: There is no significant effect for proficiency level on social strategies in early


H1: There is a significant effect for proficiency level on social strategies in early


Hypothesis no. 30

H0: There is no significant effect for motivation on overall strategy use in early



H1: There is a significant effect for motivation on overall strategy use in early


Hypothesis no. 31

H0: There is no significant effect for motivation on memory strategies in early


H1: There is a significant effect for motivation on memory strategies in early adolescent

EFL learners.

Hypothesis no. 32

H0: There is no significant effect for motivation on cognitive strategies in early


H1: There is a significant effect for motivation on cognitive strategies in early adolescent

EFL learners.

Hypothesis no. 33

H0: There is no significant effect for motivation on compensation strategies in early


H1: There is a significant effect for motivation on compensation strategies in early


Hypothesis no. 34

H0: There is no significant effect for motivation on metacognitive strategies in early


H1: There is a significant effect for motivation on metacognitive strategies in early


Hypothesis no. 35

H0: There is no significant effect for motivation on affective strategies in early


Lydia Mitits 163

H1: There is a significant effect for motivation on affective strategies in early adolescent

EFL learners.

Hypothesis no. 36

H0: There is no significant effect for motivation on social strategies in early adolescent

EFL learners.

H1: There is a significant effect for motivation on social strategies in early adolescent

EFL learners.

Hypothesis no. 37

H0: There are no statistically significant correlations between overall language

learning strategy use in L2 Greek and FL English by multilingual early adolescent

learners.

H1: There are statistically significant correlations between overall language learning

strategy use in L2 Greek and FL English by multilingual early adolescent learners.

Hypothesis no. 38

H0: There are no statistically significant correlations between strategy categories used

in L2 Greek and FL English by multilingual early adolescent learners.

H1: There are statistically significant correlations between strategy categories used in

L2 Greek and FL English by multilingual early adolescent learners.

Hypothesis no. 39

H0: There are no statistically significant differences between individual strategy items

used in L2 Greek and FL English by multilingual early adolescent learners.

H1: There are statistically significant differences between individual strategy items

used in L2 Greek and FL English by multilingual early adolescent learners.

Hypothesis no. 40

H0: There is no significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on overall

strategy use in multilingual learners.


H1: There is a significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on overall

strategy use in multilingual learners.

Hypothesis no. 41

H0: There is no significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on memory

strategies in multilingual learners.

H1: There is a significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on memory

strategies in early adolescent EFL learners.

Hypothesis no. 42

H0: There is no significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on cognitive


H1: There is a significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on cognitive


Hypothesis no. 43

H0: There is no significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on

compensation strategies in multilingual learners.

H1: There is a significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on

compensation strategies in multilingual learners.

Hypothesis no. 44

H0: There is no significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on

metacognitive strategies in multilingual learners.

H1: There is a significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on

metacognitive strategies in multilingual learners.

Hypothesis no. 45

H0: There is no significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on affective


Lydia Mitits 165

H1: There is a significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on affective


Hypothesis no. 46

H0: There is no significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on social


H1: There is a significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on social


6.3. General design of the study

The present study was designed as a large-scale quantitative study which employed

a descriptive approach to data collection and analysis. A survey method was used in

order to obtain data from as many participants as possible. There are both

advantages and disadvantages to using a quantitative approach, the most significant

benefit being the ability to analyze and interpret results more rapidly. It is generally

advisable to combine quantitative and qualitative methods in what is known as

triangulation (McDonough and McDonough, 1997: 71; Cohen, Manion and Morrison,

2000: 113). The reason for this is that by using various methods of data analysis the

results are more reliable and valid. It will be argued in this chapter (see 6.5 and 6.6.)

that since careful adaptation of the instrument and the large number of participants

are achieved, the problem of not having data from other methods is reduced.

In order to gather information related to the aforementioned research questions,

the researcher distributed written questionnaires which were adapted into Greek.

In the first phase of the study, both monolingual and multilingual groups were

administered the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) investigating

their language learning strategies when learning English. It was accompanied by an

Individual Background Questionnaire 1 (IBQ1) which elicited demographic


information about the participants as well as the number of language they spoke in

order to determine whether they were multilingual.

In the second phase, two months later, the multilingual group completed

another SILL, this time recording their language learning strategy use when

learning Greek. This questionnaire was accompanied by IBQ2 that would help

profile multilingual learners. The questionnaires completed by the multilingual sub-

sample (the SILL for English and the SILL for Greek) were paired since they had been

coded. The collected data were processed and analyzed using various statistic

procedures.

6.4. The sample

The sample of the study comprised the entire learner population in junior high

schools in Komotini, Thrace. The participants were students aged 12-15 overall and

were selected for the particular research on account of the fact that a large yet

unidentified number of them spoke more than one language on a daily basis besides

learning English at school. Other languages taught as school subjects were not

considered. Apart from the monolingual Greek-speaking students, the multilingual

learners mainly belonged to the Muslim minority of Thrace, which is either Turkish-

speaking or Pomak-speaking and in fewer cases Romani-speaking, or to immigrant

families from countries belonging to the Former Soviet Republics, Albania, Bulgaria,

etc. However the exact number of multilingual students and the language

distribution and use were unclear prior to the beginning of the study due to lack of

reliable records. After the administration of the self-report background

questionnaire 17 languages or combination of languages as L1 and 26 languages or

combination of languages as languages the multilinguals speak at home were

identified. There is such a large number of multilingual students on account of the

Lydia Mitits 167

fact that many of the Turkish-speaking students belonging to the Muslim minority

attend public high schools, along with the children from immigrant and repatriated

families who speak at least one more language besides Greek. On the whole, those

students come from underprivileged socio-economic backgrounds and, except the

Turkish L1 speakers, it is unclear how literate they are in the languages they speak.

6.4.1. The participants’ profiles

The Individual Background Questionnaires 1 (see app. 4) and 2 (see app. 5) offered

self-report data which helped profile the participants of the study. A number of

answered questionnaires were rejected as invalid on the grounds that 5 of them

were completed by learners with diagnosed learning difficulties, while another 12

were disregarded as invalid since they were only partially answered. In the rest of

the completed questionnaires the omitted responses were noted as missing values

and the statistical analysis was run.

Thus, the final number of the participants in the study was N=1239, with 595

(48.3%) males and 638 (51.7%) females (the difference in the total number is the

result of not reporting on their gender in 6 cases) (see table 6).

Table 6 Demographic information-Gender

Gender Frequency Valid Percent

Males 595 48.3

Females 638 51.7

Total 1233 10.,0

Next, the participants were asked to indicate the class they were attending at the

time the survey was conducted. There are 3 classes in junior high schools in Greece

and they generally correspond to the following ages: 1st class (aged 12-13), 2nd class


(aged 13-14), and 3rd class (aged 14-15).The responses showed that most students

attended 1st class (38%), followed by 2nd class (34%) and the smallest number was in

3rd class (28%) (see table 7).

Table 7 Demographic information-Age

Age (class) Frequency Percent

12-13 (1st class) 471 38.0

13-14 (2nd class) 421 34.0

14-15 (3rd class) 347 28.0

Total 1239 100.0

The questions contained in the IBQ 1 which asked the participants to report on

their native language (L1) and the languages they spoke at home (additional

languages) helped divide the sample into two sub-samples: the monolingual and the

multilingual ones. There were N=932 (75.2%) monolinguals and N=307 (24.8%)

multilinguals who attended junior high schools in Komotini at the time of the

survey (see table 8). The multilingual profile of the participants was further

enriched by analyzing the IBQ 2 which required them, first of all, to verify the

relevant information from IBQ 1 and, secondly, to report on the way their L1 was

acquired, how proficient they were in their L1, the number of languages they spoke,

the order of acquisition, the languages they spoke at home, and how literate they

were in all the reported languages. That information was used to further verify the

multilingual profile of the particular participants and only the questionnaires with

consistent paired responses were included as valid cases.

Lydia Mitits 169

Table 8 Language profile

Case type (sub-samples) Frequency Percent

Monolinguals 932 75.2

Multilinguals 307 24.8

Total 1239 100.0

The IBQ 2 also offered important information about the languages reported as

native languages. The self-report identified 17 native languages (L1).

Understandably, L1 Greek was present in 910 (73.4%) cases, followed by 250 (20.2%)

Turkish L1 speakers, and 20 (1.6%) Russian L1 speakers. Among other L1 were

Armenian, Georgian, Bulgarian, etc. (see table 9).

Table 9 Native language(s)

Native language Frequency Percent

1. Greek 910 73.4

2. Turkish 250 20.2

3. Russian 20 1.6

4. Greek and Turkish 12 1.0

5. Armenian 11 .9

6. Greek and Russian 10 .8

7. Pontic Greek 6 .5

8. Georgian 5 .4

9. Bulgarian 3 .2

10. German 3 .2

11. Albanian 2 .2

12. Greek and Armenian 2 .2


13. Greek and German 1 .1

14. Greek and Italian 1 .1

15. Moldovan 1 .1

16. French 1 .1

17. Estonian 1 .1

Total 1239 100.0

When asked to report on the languages they spoke at home, 26 languages or

combinations of languages were noted (see table 10).

Table 10 Home language(s)

Home language Frequency Percent

1. Greek 825 66.6

2. Turkish 155 12.5

3. Greek and Turkish 106 8.6

4. Greek and Russian 91 7.3

5. Greek and Armenian 15 1.2

6. Russian 9 .7

7. Greek, Russian and Armenian 5 .4

8. Greek and Georgian 3 .2

9. Greek and Albanian 3 .2


11. Greek and Pontic Greek 3 .2

12. Greek, Russian and Georgian 3 .2

13. Greek and Rumanian 2 .2

Lydia Mitits 171

14. Greek and Bulgarian 2 .2


16. Greek, Turkish and Bulgarian 2 .2

17. Armenian 1 .1

18. Albanian 1 .1

19. Pontic Greek 1 .1

20. Greek and Italian 1 .1

21. Greek and Ukrainian 1 .1

22. Greek, Moldovan and Russian 1 .1

23. Greek and French 1 .1

24. Rumanian 1 .1

25. Turkish and Pomak 1 .1

26. German 1 .1

Total 1239 100.0

An interesting observation was that Turkish L1 speakers differed with respect to

whether or not they spoke Greek at home. 155 (12.5%) used only Turkish, while 106

(8.6%) used both languages. The participants whose linguistic background is

associated with the Former Soviet Republics reported using both Greek and their

native languages and a small number of them reported using 3 languages on a daily

basis. Surprisingly, only one case reported speaking Pomak, although the unofficial

sources and the researcher’s experience, after working with the Muslim minority

children for over a decade, point to a number of learners who are in contact with

the Pomak language. On the whole, the self-report justifies the terminological


choice of referring to the participants in the present study as multilingual rather

than bilingual.

Other important qualitative data which served to profile the multilingual

learners in junior high schools in Komotini was on how literate in the languages

they reported using the participants were. Their responses varied according to their

L1. In case of Turkish L1, all the learners were literate since they had attended

primary schools for Muslim minority children where they receive dual immersion

education (the curriculum is divided into subjects taught in Turkish and Greek).

Their L2 Greek was generally on a lower level of proficiency, though. The

participants with other languages as L1 were mostly second generation immigrants

who have assimilated to the degree where their Greek is the dominant or the most

proficient language. However, the participants that formed the multilingual sub-

sample were those who choose to report other languages as their L1. When asked

about their literacy in those languages they generally responded that their

knowledge was limited to the spoken language. Only a very small number reported

that they could read and write Russian, Georgian, etc. Finally, those participants

who reported Italian, French and German as their L1 also reported literacy in those

languages.

In order to gain some insight into the motivation to learn English by the whole

sample and the motivation to learn Greek by the multilingual sub-sample, the

response to the question on how important learning the corresponding language is

to them was considered. The table shows that the largest number of participants

N=1100 (89.6%) find it very important or important to speak English well (see table

11), while even a higher percentage of multilingual learners believe that speaking

impeccable Greek is very important or important (95.4%) (see table 12).

Lydia Mitits 173

Table 11 Motivation to learn English-the whole sample

Motivation to learn

English Frequency Valid Percent

very important 589 48.0

important 511 41.6

not so important 127 10.4

Total 1227 100.0

Table 12 Motivation to learn Greek-the multilingual sub-sample

As far as the English language proficiency by the whole sample and the Greek

language proficiency by the multilingual sample are concerned, it was measured

according to the self-reported grade by the respondents. They were asked to mark

the grade range within which their final grade on the last semester was. The four

categories were: excellent (19-20), very good (16-18), good (13-15), and sufficient (…-

12). The table 13 shows that almost half of the participants (49.1%) have excellent

English language knowledge required for the particular level (A2-B1-B2), followed

by 32.7% of those who are very good, while 11.5% are good and 6.7% are sufficient or

below.

Motivation to learn

Greek Frequency Valid Percent

very important 208 68.2

important 83 27.2

not so important 14 4.6

Total 305 100.0


Table 13 English language proficiency level

Grade in English Frequency Valid Percent

... -12 81 6.7

13-15 138 11.5

16-18 393 32.7

19-20 590 49.1

Total 1202 100.0

The Greek language proficiency estimated by the grades the respondents

reported having in the Greek language vary from those in English. Only 12.2% were

the grades in the excellent range, while there was an equal distribution among the

other three categories with 28.9% with very good grades, 30.7% good, and 28.2%

sufficient or below (see table 14).

Table 14 Greek language proficiency level

6.5. Instrumentation

One of the most efficient and comprehensive ways to assess frequency of language

learning strategy use is a questionnaire, also referred to as an inventory or a

Grade in Greek Frequency Valid Percent

... -12 81 28.2

13-15 88 30.7

16-18 83 28.9

19-20 35 12.2

Total 287 100.0

Lydia Mitits 175

summative rating scale. The language learning strategy use questionnaire most often

used around the world in the last couple of decades is the Strategy Inventory for

Language Learning-SILL.

6.5.1. Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)

Originally, the SILL was designed as a tool for assessing the frequency of use of

language learning strategies by students at the Defense Language Institute Foreign

Language Center in Monterey, California. It was followed by two revised versions

published in an appendix to Oxford’s learning strategy book for language teachers

(1990). Those were Version 5.1 for foreign language learners with English native

language (80 items) and Version 7.0 (ESL/EFL) for learners of English as a second/

foreign language (50 items).

In 1989, the SILL was organized according to strategy groups using a factor

analysis. This procedure allowed the researcher to divide the instrument into six

factors which were developed based on the early factor analyses, with the intent to

offer an adequate number of items in each subscale to facilitate more in-depth

comprehension of the learning strategies for ESL/EFL (Oxford, 1996) (see app.1). These

subscales included:

1. Memory strategies (grouping, imagery, rhyming, structured reviewing, etc.) (9

items).

2. Cognitive strategies (reasoning, analyzing, summarizing, etc., as well as general

practicing) (14 items).

3. Compensation strategies (guessing meanings from the context, using synonyms and

gestures to convey meaning when the precise expression is not known, etc.) (6 items).


4. Metacognitive strategies (paying attention, consciously searching for practice

opportunities, planning for language tasks, self-evaluating one’s progress, monitoring

errors, etc.) (9 items).

5. Affective strategies (anxiety reduction, self-encouragement, self-reward, etc.) (6

items).

6. Social strategies (asking questions, cooperating with native speakers of the

language, becoming culturally aware, etc.) (6 items).

It was translated and adapted for use in Greek with the particular learner

population (Gavriilidou and Mitits, in press). Two identical translations were

produced, one to investigate the frequency of language learning strategies when

learning English (see app.2) and another when learning Greek (see app.3). The

internal consistency coefficient for the whole scale was calculated and Cronbach’s

alpha was found at .920 for the English SILL and .947 for the Greek SILL. The internal

consistency coefficient was also calculated for the 6 sub-scales. Reliability at <0.7 is

considered as high. Most of the sub-scales have high reliability. A few are in the

medium reliability range (0.3-0.7) tending towards high reliability (see app.6).

The SILL uses a choice of five Likert-scale responses (1-5) for each strategy

described: never or almost never true of me, generally not true of me, somewhat true of me,

generally true of me, and always or almost always true of me. Instead of Likert scales an

alternative statistical tool, the bar, inspired by the fuzzy theory, is suggested by

Kambakis-Vougiouklis (2012) who employed this method in her study of 110 first year

students of Greek. The students were administered the SILL questionnaire in an

attempt to reveal and activate the potential that the SILL might have with respect to

learners’ confidence whether their choice of a specific strategy is effective.

The average scores for the six strategy categories on the SILL were interpreted

based on the reporting scale established by Oxford (1990: 300), which divided the

Lydia Mitits 177

frequency of use into three levels and was specifically designed to inform students as

to how often they use strategies for learning English: (1) ‘High Usage’ with a mean of

3.5-5.0 (2) ‘Medium Usage’ with a mean of 2.5-3.4 and (3) ‘Low Usage’ with a mean of

1.0-2.4.

6.5.2. Individual Background Questionnaires (IBQ)

As already mentioned in the section of the general design of the study, the SILL for

English and the SILL for Greek were accompanied by exhaustive background

questionnaires. The first IBQ was based on Oxford’s background questionnaire for

the SILL and elicited general demographic information about the participants. Only

the questions relevant to the participants’ gender, age, English proficiency level, and

motivation to learn English were considered for the purposes of the present study. It

also contained questions relevant to establishing whether the participants were

monolinguals or multilinguals. The second IBQ elicited other important information

about multilingual learners that would help determine linguistic, affective, social,

and education background (De Angelis, 2007). It also asked for information on the

participants’ Greek proficiency level and motivation to learn Greek in order to

correlate the data from the two SILL questionnaires.

The rationale for having such exhaustive background questionnaires was twofold.

Firstly, gaining permission to conduct such a large scale research in Greek public

schools is very difficult and it was believed by the researcher that data collected can

be used for further research into other factors influencing language learning

strategies. Secondly, the gathered information has the potential to help discuss and

interpret the findings or, at least, raise the question of how variables that affect

strategy use and those found in multilingual language learners influence the choice

and frequency of LLS.


6.6. The adaptation of the SILL

The last decade has seen growing interest in studying language learning strategies

in Greece (Kazamia, 2003; Gavriilidou & Papanis, 2010; Gavriilidou & Psaltou-Joycey,

2009; Psaltou-Joycey, 2010; Vrettou, 2011) and in investigating ways of identifying

and measuring strategies used when learning a foreign/second language. When it

comes to adapting the SILL into Greek, there have been four relevant studies so far.

Two focus on measuring the frequency of language learning strategy use in adult

Greek learners of English (Kazamia, 2003; Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou, 2009b),

while the others record the frequency of use in junior high school students

(Vrettou, 2009) and primary school children who are learning English at school

(Vrettou, 2011). All studies use adapted versions of the SILL developed by the

researchers themselves and they contain elements of a thorough adaptation process

into Greek. However, those adapted versions have been developed to cater for adult

learners and primary school children respectively and not for adolescent learners

aged 12 to 15. Although Vrettou (2009) also investigated junior high learners’

strategies, she used the same adaptation of the SILL as in her study of primary

school children (2011). As a result, the researcher identified the problem of not

having a valid and reliable instrument for measuring language learning strategy use

in the case of the particular learner population and recognized the need for relevant

instrument adaptation. Thus, the process of adapting Oxford’s Strategy Inventory

for Language learning (SILL) from English into Greek with the aim to administer it

to 12-15 year-old monolingual and multilingual students in junior high schools in

Komotini was developed.

An appropriate adaptation protocol that would maximize the questionnaire

reliability and validity both with the particular learner population and when used to

Lydia Mitits 179

compare the scores across cultures and languages was designed. As the SILL

questionnaire was developed in an English-speaking country and was originally

intended for learners of English as a second/foreign language, there were a number

of points to consider when adapting it in order to avoid serious errors of

interpretation. In the present study the questionnaire was administered in a

different linguistic and cultural setting from the original one and the review of field

literature demonstrated that there was a need to set standards of how the

questionnaire should be adapted to allow use in a different culture and language

without compromising the instrument’s reliability and validity.

The rationale behind adapting the SILL rather than creating a new instrument is

that the process is cheaper and faster since development, validation and norming of

a new instrument are both expensive and time-consuming (Hambleton & Patsula,

1998). Moreover, the database that is created after the administration allows both

for validity studies of the adapted questionnaire and for crosslinguistic and cross-

national comparability. However, the errors that occur during an instrument

adaptation are found in the area of cultural/language differences, technical

methods and the way the results are interpreted (ibid.: 158).

According to the International Test Commission Guidelines for Translating and Adapting

Tests (2010), there are four areas which have to be considered when a questionnaire

is to be adapted and those include: context, adaptation, administration and score

interpretation. Among various points to consider, for the purposes of the research

the following are emphasized: the adaptation process should take full account of

linguistic and cultural differences of the target population; appropriate statistical

techniques to establish the equivalence of the different versions of the instrument

and identification of problematic components should be applied; and

documentation of the changes should be provided.


Another very important issue is bias and its counterpart, equivalence, which are

two essential concepts in instrument translation and adaptation. Van de Vijver &

Tanzer (1997) distinguish among three types of bias: construct bias which occurs

when the construct measured is not identical across cultural groups; method bias

which refers to incompatibility of samples, e.g. if cultural groups have different

educational background, different levels of motivation or interest in the instrument

completion; and item bias which is a distortion of meaning at the item level, when

biased items have different meanings in different languages and cultures.

Among proposed strategies to overcome bias in questionnaire adaptation (Van

de Vijver & Tanzer, 1997: 63) the following have been singled out as most relevant to

the present study: use of informants with expertise in local culture and language;

use of samples of bilingual subjects; use of test-retest, training and/or intervention

studies; linguistic and conceptual item bias detection and, finally, psychometric

methods of item bias detection.

In the present study the process of the SILL adaptation was partially based on

the protocol proposed by Rahman et al. (2003) according to whom the process can

be broken down into three steps: the translation process which takes place at three

levels-linguistic/semantic, technical and conceptual level; the cross-cultural

verification and adaptation; and the verification of the psychometric properties of

the questionnaire. They also suggest detailed steps in the translation protocol and

stress the importance of the characteristics of the translators, key informants and

the focus group. The guidelines for the cross-cultural adaptation process developed

by Beaton et al. (2000) were also considered. According to them there are six stages:

initial translation done by two independent translators, one of whom has the

knowledge of the subject area while the other does not; synthesis of the translations

during which any discrepancies between the two initial translations are resolved;

Lydia Mitits 181

back translation into the original language; expert committee review which should

achieve semantic, idiomatic, experiential and conceptual equivalence; pretesting of

the final version; and, finally, submission of final reports to the coordinating

committee.

6.6.1. The adaptation protocol

Figure 1: Adaptation protocol

The process of adaptation was broken down into three steps: (a) the translation

process, (b) cross-cultural verification and adaptation, and (c) verification of the

psychometric properties of the instrument. The translation process consisted of the

initial translations, synthesis of the translations and back translation. The second

step included the expert committee review in the light of the focus group

suggestions and other verification methods. Finally, in the third stage, the

questionnaire was administered and its psychometric properties verified (see figure

1).


6.6.2. The translation process

The process of translating the SILL from English into Greek took place at three

levels and equivalence between the original and translated versions was considered

at each level: linguistic/semantic, technical and conceptual. To these three, the

'comprehension level' was added to ensure that the target population-secondary

school students aged 12 -15 with Greek L1 and Greek L2 understood the translated

material as easily as the source population for whom the original questionnaire was

designed.

The initial translation was undertaken by two translators who have an excellent

command over technical and colloquial aspects of both the original and the target

language and who also have an in-depth insight of the cultures in question so that

they could relate this to the terms and concepts used in the questionnaire. The first

translator was an ‘informed’ translator, qualified in the area investigated by the

questionnaire and with necessary technical and scientific background in order to

understand the concepts and constructs used. The second one, the ‘uninformed’

translator was not informed about the concepts measured and did not have any

particular knowledge of the subject matter. As Beaton et al. (2000) point out such a

translator is more likely to observe bias and ambiguous meaning since he/she is not

influenced by the research expectations. Both translators produced written reports

with their comments on the difficulties they experienced.

Next, the two translators compared their versions and synthesized a new one

while reporting the process of the synthesis. Both agreed that there were no

particular linguistic and semantic issues to be resolved apart from certain items

which demanded careful paraphrasing as literal translation would lead either to

ambiguity or misunderstanding of the concepts in question. Such items were the

Lydia Mitits 183

following: ‘I physically act out new English words’ (item no 7 of the SILL version 7.0) or

‘I try to find patterns in English’ (item no 20) which were paraphrased in Greek: ‘I try to

understand the rules of English by myself.’ It was also observed in the translators’

reports that a number of items would cause cultural bias and possibly be deemed

invalid, but it was the responsibility of the panel of experts to remove that bias and

review the translation.

An English teacher, a native speaker of English, and another English native

speaker, a university degree holder, then back translated the questionnaire into

English. Both produced blind back translations during which the back-translators

were not informed about the concepts under investigation, for the reasons

previously mentioned. This process enhances content validity of individual items as

it ensures a consistent translation. But, as Beaton et al. remind us: “Back translation

is only one type of validity check, highlighting gross inconsistencies of conceptual

errors in the translation” (2000:3188). The back-translators’ written reports

revealed that all items contained the same concepts as the original ones and there

was no need for revision after the back-translation.

6.6.3. Cross-cultural verification and adaptation

After the initial and back translation, cross-cultural verification and adaptation was

carried out. As the research objective was to administer the questionnaire to

secondary school students the majority of whom had L1 Greek, while approximately

one third had L1 which varied (Turkish, Russian, Armenian, etc.) and whose L2 was

Greek of various levels of proficiency, the items were discussed with 2 Greek

language teachers and 2 English teachers in the secondary schools that the students

in question attended, 1 Russian L1 speaking teacher of Greek and 1 Turkish L1

speaking teacher of Turkish, both of whom were Greek university graduates. The


particular key informants were selected on the grounds of their profession,

knowledge of the languages in question and familiarity with the student population.

It was important to get their opinion about the comprehension and cultural

relevance of the items.

These key informants were given the translated questionnaire and asked to

comment on each item, especially those that had proven problematic in the first

translation. They agreed that the translation was generally easy to understand and

that the students would not have any particular difficulties in comprehending the

linguistic and syntactic level. Their objection had to do with some items which did

not have, what Beaton et al. (2000: 3189) call “experiential equivalence”.

The most objected one was item No 43 ‘I write down my feelings in a language

learning diary’ as the concept of keeping a diary in order to record one’s feelings

about learning a language is simply not experienced in Greek education. This item

was removed. Another comment referred to the technical issue of the questionnaire

format, layout and rubrics in order to make it more reader-friendly, less

overwhelming and intimidating for teenagers and, as a result, reduce the

administration bias.

A convenience group of 8 students from the study population was assembled and

was administered the questionnaire in pairs. The students whose Greek L2 was

limited were read out the questions. Each item was discussed and difficulties noted.

The subjects were asked to note down problems of comprehension, language and

cultural relevance and were encouraged to give suggestions which led to the second

revision of the translation.

To eliminate any comprehension difficulties the last revision was further

administered to 30 12 year-old students with L1 Turkish as that particular target

group was expected to encounter most problems on account of the fact that their

Lydia Mitits 185

Greek L2 proficiency levels are mixed, ranging from low to intermediate in general.

The focus groups' remarks were recorded and transcribed. The written report was

submitted to the researcher and her supervisor who revised the last version in the

light of the key informants’ suggestions and focus groups’ comments. Any

discrepancies were removed, the differences were discussed and seriously disputed

items changed.

Presented below is a summary of the conclusions derived from the process

applied to the translation procedure. Part A-Memory strategies from Oxford’s

original 7.0 version, which consists of 9 items, is now reduced to 8 items as the item

No 4 has been excluded. Part B-Cognitive strategies in our questionnaire contains 15

items as opposed to the 14 items in the original version since item No 31 from

Oxford’s SILL version 5.1 was added to the list. Part C-Compensation strategies and

Part D-Metacognitive strategies are identical to the original version, while in Part E-

Affective strategies item No 43 has been replaced by item No 67 from SILL version

5.1, but the number of items is the same. Finally, Part F-Social strategies underwent

no changes.

Items 2(2*)3, 6(5*), 8(7*), 9(8*), 10(9*), 11(10*), 14(13*), 15(14*), 17(16*), 18(17*),

19(18*), 21(20*), 23(22*), 24(24*), 25(25*), 26(26*), 29(29*), 31(31*), 32(32*), 34(34*),

35(35*), 36(36*),39(39*), 40(40*), 42(42*), 44(44*), 45(45*), 46(46*), 47(47*), 48(48*),

49(49*), 50(50*)-31 items in all-were straightforward, and no major changes were

made after the first step . The remaining items were modified at later stages of the

procedure.

The adaptations of the SILL questionnaire that were made involved the following:

first of all, there is a general agreement between the original English version of the

questionnaire and the Greek translation. The items generally correspond to each

3 * refers to the item number in the adapted Greek version of the SILL


other. Two major alterations were made and the first included memory strategy

item No 4: ‘I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in

which the word might be used’ which caused problems on the conceptual and

comprehension levels, as all the subjects asked for clarifications and still could not

understand the notion, probably because of their age and level of cognition. Since

this item checks mental learning processes as well as learning style preferences

(visual type learners) as does item No 9: ‘I remember new English words or phrases by

remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign’, it was not

deemed essential for the purposes of the questionnaire administration in the

present study and thus was removed. The strategy that is highly relevant is item No

31 in the SILL version 5.1: ‘I use reference materials such as glossaries or dictionaries to

help me use the new language’ which was used instead and added to the cognitive

strategy category. There is a general agreement in the literature that this particular

strategy is significant in second/foreign language learning and is included in a

number of strategy lists. In Greece it was employed in questionnaires adapted to

record language learning strategy use in adults and primary school children

respectively. (Kazamia, 2003; Vrettou, 2011: 136).

Another alteration included the substitution of affective strategy item No 43: ‘I

write down my feelings in a language learning diary.’ with another affective strategy

item No 67 from Oxford’s SILL version 5.1: ‘I actively encourage myself to take wise risks

in language learning, such as guessing meaning or trying to speak, even though I might make

some mistakes.’ It was made as a result of the focus group comments and key

informants’ suggestions which led us to conclude that the particular item (No 43) is

invalid since none of the subject reported using it and they seemed confused by the

concept of keeping a language learning diary. On the other hand, strategy item No

67 was considered extremely important by the experts because it formed a crucial

Lydia Mitits 187

part of the research hypothesis on multilingual language learners for whom the

SILL had partially been adapted and was to be administered in the main phase of the

research.

As far as the remaining modifications are concerned, they were slight and for

reasons of better comprehension. Namely:

Strategy item No 1 (1*) ‘I think of relationships of what I already know and new

things I learn in English.’ was translated: ‘Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια

πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Ελληνικά.’ containing an

acceptable level of abstraction in terms of technical equivalence between the

languages.

Strategy item No 3 (3*) ‘I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or

a picture of the word to help me remember the word.’ was translated: ‘Συνδυάζω

την προφορά μιας καινούριας ελληνικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη

θυμάμαι καλύτερα.’ where the word ‘sound’ is replaced by ‘pronunciation’

which is the semantic equivalent and is more precise in meaning. This

particular modification is made in the light of the focus group comments.

Strategy item No 7 (6*)’I physically act out new English words’ was translated:

‘Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις’ as the literal translation

would impede comprehension. ‘Play theatre’ is a literal translation of an

idiomatic expression in Greek that is a full equivalent of ‘act out’.

Strategy item No 12 (11*) ‘I practice the sounds of English.’ was translated:

‘Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των ελληνικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω.’ where

again the word ‘sound’ was substituted for ‘pronunciation’ to facilitate

comprehension. The rest involved a syntactic as well as cultural adaptation

since it reflects an approach to learning taken by students in Greece.


Strategy item No 13 (12*) ‘I use the English words I know in different ways.’ was

translated: ‘Χρησιμοποιώ τις ελληνικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές

προτάσεις.’ This particular modification was the result of both the key

informants’ and the focus group’s suggestions, who found the literal

translation too vague and insisted that this item is more specific.

Strategy item No 16 (15*) ‘I read for pleasure in English.’ was translated:

‘Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Ελληνικά για ευχαρίστηση.’ The focus group

required a further explanation as this item has a culture specific expression.

The provision of a specification seemed a simplest way to clarify the

meaning.

Strategy item No 20 (19*): ‘I try to find patterns in English.’ was translated:

‘Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της ελληνικής γλώσσας.’ where the

more general expression ‘patterns’ was substituted by ‘rules’ as it was

believed to be the linguistic equivalent and ‘by myself’ was added to

emphasize autonomous learning as opposed to formal instruction.

Strategy item No 22 (21*): ‘I try not to translate word-for-word.’ and Strategy

item No 27 (27*): ‘I read English without looking up every new word.’ were

translated: ‘Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην

άλλη.’ and ‘Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο

λεξικό.’ respectively. What was noticed during the adaptation protocol was

that the first translated version involved negative statements that caused a

lot of confusion when the subjects were asked to mark their answers on the

five-point Likert scale and instead of marking 5 they marked 1 or vice versa.

The present translation is believed to eliminate this problem of item

construct ambiguity. Moreover, concerning item No 27, the word ‘dictionary’

Lydia Mitits 189

was added since ‘look up’ phrasal verb meaning ‘search in a dictionary or a

reference book’ does not have an equivalent in Greek.

The rest of the adaptations had to do with retaining the linguistic or semantic

equivalence of similar meanings, making sure that the translated meanings remain

as near as possible to the original ones while, at the same time, obtaining an

identical meaning of concepts which may have different cultural understandings.

6.6.4. The pilot study

Reliability analysis was performed during the pilot study carried out in October

2011. It involved 25 L1 Turkish speakers and 25 L1 Greek speakers. They were all

second year junior high school students who were asked to complete the

questionnaire twice, at a three week interval, and the results were compared to

establish test-retest reliability of the instrument. All experimental procedures were

approved by the Institutional Review Board for investigations involving human

participants. Written informed consent was obtained from the legal guardians of

the participants before they were allowed to participate in the study.

To check the SILL’s internal consistency a reliability analysis was performed. To

check the stability of SILL scores over time, test-retest data are reported and the

intra-class correlation coefficient was computed. The internal consistency

coefficient for the whole scale was calculated and Cronbach’s alpha was found at .91

suggesting a high degree of internal consistency of the SILL. The Cronbach’s alpha

for memory strategies was .71, for cognitive strategies was .82, for compensation

strategies was .51, for metacognitive strategies was .48, for affective strategies was

.78 and for social strategies was .82.

Test-retest reliability for the total scale and the sub-scales ranged from fair to

good: total scale (r=.778, p<.001), memory strategies (r=.831, p<.001), cognitive


strategies (r=.874, p<.001), compensation strategies (r=.761, p<.001), metacognitive

strategies (r=.696, p<.001), affective strategies (r=.851, p<.001), social strategies

(r=.861, p<.001) indicating that at least within the time frame considered here scores

of SILL mirror stable individual differences.

6.6.5. Verification of the psychometric properties of the instrument

This section describes the psychometric qualities of the Greek adaptation of 50-item

ESL/EFL SILL which are established and presented in terms of reliability and

validity. Turner et al. (2001) emphasize the significance of psychometric and

measurement knowledge by those adapting a questionnaire who should possess

both core knowledge and skills, and context-related qualifications, the level of

which will depend on the questionnaire purpose and context. In general,

questionnaire users should understand the concepts of descriptive statistics and

have the ability to define, apply and interpret them. The above authors list the

knowledge required for the appropriate test selection among which the following

are singled out as crucial in the adaptation of the SILL questionnaire in the present

study: knowledge of how to determine questionnaire reliability (e.g. internal

consistency and test-retest), validity evidence (test scores, construct, content,

criterion-related, etc.), cross-validation, test bias, test administration procedures,

test-takers variables that may influence validity and interpretation of results, etc.

Reliability

Reliability refers to the degree of precision or accuracy of scores of an instrument

(Oxford, 1996). In the case of the SILL, the Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of internal

consistency, was chosen as the most appropriate reliability index. In order to

measure test-retest reliability, the scales were re-administered to the same learner

population sample by the researchers.

Lydia Mitits 191

Oxford & Ehrman (1995) point out that although the current ESL/EFL SILL was

constructed using six subscales, reliability of the SILL is determined with the whole

instrument. This is because the six subscales are strongly correlated with the SILL

mean (.66 to .81) and moderately correlated with each other (.35 to .61). In general,

the ESL/EFL SILL reliabilities reported in the literature have been high.

According to Chamot (2001), the SILL has been translated into at least 17

languages and administered to 10,000 learners approximately. The main purpose

has been to investigate strategies used when learning English in foreign language

contexts. The majority of those language learners have been native speakers of

Spanish, French, Chinese, Japanese, and other. As far as the SILL reliability after

linguistic and cultural adaptation is concerned, Oxford (1996) lists a number of

research results which prove high reliability of the SILL when translated into a

native language of the respondents and then administered. In general, the

translated versions of the SILL have had high reliability index expressed through

Cronbach’s alpha which varied between .91 and .95 in the case of the Chinese

translation (Yang, 1992), Japanese translation (Watanabe, 1990), Korean translation

(Oh, 1992), Turkish translation (Demirel, 2009), etc. The SILL has also been used to

investigate students studying various foreign languages. In one such study it was

administered to 1,200 university students (Nyikos & Oxford, 1993). It is also very

acceptable when used with multilingual groups of ESL/EFL learners, which is the

case in our study. In Greece, the most significant evidence of using the SILL to assess

language learning strategies when learning Greek as a second language is Psaltou-

Joycey’s (2008) study on cross-cultural differences in the use of language learning

strategies by students of Greek as a second language.


Validity

Validity refers to the degree to which an instrument measures what it claims to

measure (Oxford, 1996). Abraham and Vann (1996) point out that validation is an

ongoing process and that we should not validate the instrument per se but the way

in which data are interpreted and the findings justified, as well. Beaton et al. (2000:

3189) maintain that a careful cross-cultural adaptation should ensure content and

face validity between the source and target versions of the scale, in other words, if

the original scale is reliable and valid so should be the adapted one. As this may not

always be the case on account of subtle cultural differences, psychometric

measurements should be employed in order to ensure statistical or psychometric

properties of a questionnaire. According to the written reports compiled during the

adaptation process, it can be assumed that the Greek version of the questionnaire is

as valid as the original one concerning the item-level equivalence since the careful

adaptation procedure has ensured semantic, idiomatic, experiential and conceptual

equivalence. Its validity is further improved by resolving technical issues of

questionnaire translation.

Another aspect of validity, the utility of the instrument (Messick, 1989), is very

significant with respect to the SILL since its practical application, particularly in the

language classroom, cannot be neglected. The appropriate interpretation of the SILL

should lead to improved classroom instruction. In other words, it can help improve

individual language learning strategy use which should, in turn, serve as a tool for

learner self-direction, autonomy and achievement. In our case, by comparing

bilingual and monolingual strategy use when learning FL, as well as by comparing

bilinguals’ strategy use when learning L2 and FL we can utilize the positive

differences and incorporate them into teaching materials.

Lydia Mitits 193

Although the SILL is a standardized measure with versions in many different

languages which can be used to gather and analyze information on large number of

language learners, it has received some criticism. LoCastro (1994; 1995) in Macaro

(2006) argues that language learning inventories, such as the SILL, lack validity on

account of the fact that they are not transferable across sociocultural domains. It is

argued in this paper that sociocultural bias can be overcome if a detailed adaptation

procedure is employed. Oxford (1996) supports that the SILL construct validity is

represented in the relationship between the questionnaire and the language

performance, meaning that, generally, more advanced learners use more strategies

more frequently. Construct validity of the SILL has also been studied in relation to

the ESL/EFL setting, learning styles, gender, motivation, etc. and it has been found

that there is a strong relationship between the SILL score and the afore mentioned

independent variables (Oxford, 1996).

Every attempt was made to reduce the bias that occurs during translation.

Construct and item bias was noticed and dealt with in order to overcome the

problem of measuring different constructs in different cultures or distorting the

meaning of individual items. That is why ‘adaptation’ and not ‘application’ or

‘assembly’ was selected as it allows for a solution to the afore mentioned problems

of bias. Method bias, in particular administration bias discovered in the ambiguous

instructions for test-takers and guidelines for administrators, was overcome by the

adaptation of the layout and provision of a detailed manual and administration

protocol. As proposed in the literature, the present study used expert informants

concerning Greek, Turkish and Russian language as well as those qualified to judge

Greek educational context in which all the subjects receive their education. It also

used representative samples of the research population which provided significant


feedback on the linguistic, technical and conceptual levels of the adapted

instrument.

The researcher believes that, since the translation protocol was carefully carried

out, socio-cultural bias should be avoided and the results should be reliable and as

Oxford claims: ‘The SILL can be administered in the respondent’s native language or

a foreign or second language with confidence that measurement error is minimal’

(1996: 32). As far as the adaptation of the SILL to investigate language learning

strategies when learning Greek is concerned, Oxford’s 80 item version 5.1 of the SILL

can serve to make the point that SILL does not have to be used solely for English as

this particular version was developed to assess the frequency of use of language

learning strategies when learning any foreign language other than English.

Bearing all of the above theoretical considerations in mind, the SILL

questionnaire version 7.0 (ESL/EFL) was selected for its content validity and

reliability as it has been used in different language and cultural settings. It can be

considered universal and can be applied to diverse populations after cultural

adaptation. Therefore, in order to study the strategic profile of Greek students, it

was deemed more feasible to use a tried and tested instrument after appropriate

adaptation than to develop a new one. The most distinguishing and, at the same

time, demanding feature of our target population is its diversity with respect to its

linguistic and cultural backgrounds. The majority of the participants belongs to a L1

Greek-speaking homogenous group and are not expected to encounter any

particular difficulties during the questionnaire administration. Another large group

is L1 Turkish-speaking participants who are characterized with certain

idiosyncrasies. While the primary school children who are taught in Muslim

minority schools and find themselves in a homogenous environment do not object

to answering the Turkish version of the questionnaire, the older high school

Lydia Mitits 195

students studying in heterogeneous learning environments do not appreciate to be

segregated by language and insist on answering in Greek. During the entire

translation protocol particular attention was paid to providing sufficient

comprehension levels since one third of the respondents have other than Greek L1

and may need simplified language, but are not young learners who would require

simplified concepts, as well. This was another challenge of the particular translation

and adaptation procedure. As a result, the SILL was administered in Greek for the

following reasons. Firstly, Greek is the only common language of reference for all

the participants of the study and they have at least reached the intermediate (B2)

level of proficiency on the Common European framework of Reference (2001), which

means that they should not have particular difficulties in responding and, secondly,

their level of proficiency in English is much more mixed so they could not be

expected to respond to the SILL in English with a high degree of accuracy. No

attempt was made to translate the SILL into the learners’ first languages since it was

infeasible to establish if they are literate in their L1 and to what level of proficiency

(except for the Muslim group with L1 Turkish, Pomak or Romani who receive

education in two languages, Greek and Turkish).

6.7. The conduct of the study

After being granted the permission to distribute questionnaires in the junior high

schools of Komotini, Thrace by the Pedagogical Institute of Athens and the Ministry

of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs, the researcher contacted the

English teachers in the particular schools and arranged a meeting to inform and

train them in questionnaire distribution procedure. At the same time, consent from

parents was sought and given. Data were collected over a period of two months in

spring 2012. The researcher was present during all the questionnaire


administrations to ensure that the procedure was strictly followed and to clarify any

possible difficulties.

Phase 1, the distribution of the SILL for English and IBQ1 took place at the

beginning of March in all four junior high schools. Based on the self-report, the

multilingual cases were identified and the SILL for Greek together with IBQ2 were

prepared for the particular sub-sample. In phase 2, late April, the multilingual

learners were asked to complete the SILL for Greek questionnaire. Both phases

required one teaching hour each for the administration procedure. Anonymity of

the participants was ensured throughout the conduct of the study. In order to

identify the multilingual cases and pair their responses on the SILL for English and

the SILL for Greek, the participants were asked to provide their class register

number. The participation in the study was voluntary and only those who wished to

participate were administered the questionnaires.

The Individual Background Questionnaire 1 was used to determine various

demographic factors. For the purposes of the study the participants were asked to

report on their gender. Their age was determined according to the class they

attended. Their proficiency level was estimated according to their EFL achievement

in school-the English grade. Motivation was measured through self-report questions

as part of the background questionnaire. Next, the SILL questionnaire asked the

participants to report on the frequency and type of strategies they used when

learning English. Finally, they were asked about the languages they spoke and that

information helped identify the multilingual cases.

The purpose of the Individual Background Questionnaire 2 was similar to IBQ1 in

that it elicited information on gender, age-class, grade in Greek and motivation to

learn Greek, among others. The reason for repeating some of the questions from

Lydia Mitits 197

IBQ1 was to confirm and validate key information. Lastly, the two month period

between the two administrations has added to the instrument reliability.

Summary

This chapter detailed the methodological approach to the current research and

stated the research questions and hypotheses. It also described the design, the

participants, the instrument and the conduct of the study.

It was argued that the process of adapting the Strategy Inventory for Language

Learning from English into Greek, however time consuming and costly, is the most

effective way to produce an instrument for measuring the frequency of language

learning strategy use of teenage language learners of various linguistic and cultural

backgrounds who receive formal education in Greek junior high schools. It also

allows for comparison of data and findings across nations as it provides the

opportunity to examine language learning strategies of those for whom there

previously was no translated version of the SILL. The carefully planned and

executed adaptation process coupled with the large number of participants, adds to

reliability and validity of the adapted SILL questionnaire.

The pilot study was held in October 2011, followed by the first phase of the main

study at the beginning of March 2012 and the second phase at the end of April. Two

SILL questionnaires (one for English and one for Greek) were the elicitation tools,

whereas two IBQs accompanying them recorded self-reported information on the

independent variables under investigation: gender, age, proficiency level in both

languages and motivation to learn both languages. The multilingual learners with

L1 other than Greek were those who completed both questionnaires.

Understandably, the L1 Greek monolinguals only responded to the first one.


The next chapter focuses on presenting the results for the two phases of this

large-scale quantitative study which compared language learning strategies used by

monolinguals and multilinguals.

Lydia Mitits 199

7. The results of the study

The present chapter reports on the results of the study and the report of the

findings contains (1) descriptive analyses (frequencies, means, and standard

deviations) from the reported results on the SILL for English by the monolingual

and multilingual participants and the SILL for Greek by the multilingual participants

(2) the main and interaction effects of the independent variables (multilingualism,

gender, age, language proficiency level and motivation) using the multivariate

analysis of variance MANOVA, and one-way and two-way ANOVA analysis of variance

(3) the comparison of the mean scores between and within subjects using the

Independent and Paired Samples t-tests, and Pearson r correlations. For the purpose

of clarity, the results are sequentially presented using each research question and

hypotheses assumed as an organizing framework.

7.1. Data Analysis

Upon eliciting all the required data, it was processed using the Statistical Package for

Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 22 for Windows and the significance level was set at a

minimum conventional level of significance 5%, p<.05. The dependent variable was

the language learning strategy use (the frequency of overall use, 6 strategy

categories use, and the use of 50 individual strategy items) while the independent

variables were multilingualism, gender, age, EFL proficiency level and motivation to

learn English. The entire sample was divided into the monolingual and multilingual

sub-samples.

Descriptive statistics were calculated for the frequencies and percentages of

overall strategy use and strategy categories on the SILL for English and the SILL for

Greek, as well as the most and the least frequently used individual strategies.


MANOVAs were run to investigate the hypotheses relevant to the main and

interaction effects of the independent variables as well as to observe the within-

subjects contrasts when comparing the two questionnaire results (the SILL for

English and the SILL for Greek). The MANOVA was selected for its robustness as it

allows to determine the effects of multiple independent and dependent variables

simultaneously while reducing Type I error (George & Mallery, 2005) and was

followed by the post hoc using the Sidak method that helped determine which

means were significantly different from one another.

The independent-samples t-test, which helped observe the discrete aspects of

each variable, was used to compare the means for monolingual and multilingual sub-

samples on strategy categories and overall strategy use on the SILL for English. The

paired-samples t-test was used to compare the means of two variables-The SILL for

English and the SILL for Greek for the multilingual group and the Pearson

correlation coefficient was calculated to observe the possible correlation of

strategies used when learning English and Greek in the case of multilingual learners.

One-way and two-way ANOVA were run to investigate the main effects of the

independent variables upon overall strategy use and the 6 categories as well as their

interactions. They were followed by the Tukey-HSD post hoc test to determine which

means were significantly different from one another.

7.2. Answer to research question 1




In order to investigate the learners’ use of language learning strategies, this study

used the SILL (ESL/EFL version 7.0). The mean score in the range above 3.5 on all the

Lydia Mitits 201

SILL items is considered to reflect high use of a given strategy, 2.5 to 3.4 indicates

medium use, and below 2.4 shows low use of a strategy according to Oxford (1990)

(see chapter 6).

7.2.1. Multilingualism factor

Descriptive statistics were computed to answer the first research question with

respect to the strategic profile of the monolingual and multilingual participants (see

app. 9). First, the frequency of overall strategy use for the whole sample was

calculated and found to be in the medium frequency range of 2.97 (SD=.57) (see table

15). The means for the 6 strategy categories also fell within the same range with

affective strategies showing the highest frequency of 3.29 (SD=.82), followed by

metacognitive with the mean of 3.24 (SD=.84), then social (SD=.85) and cognitive

(SD=.64) with the same 2.94 mean. Compensation strategies had 2.82 (SD=.79) mean

while the least used strategies belonged to memory group with 2.61 (SD=.63) mean.

Table 15 Descriptive statistics: SILL for English (the whole sample)

Dependent variable N Min. Max. Mean SD

Affective 1237 100 5.00 3.29 .82

Metacognitive 1237 1.00 5.00 3.24 .84 Social 1237 1.00 5.00 2.94 .85

Cognitive 1239 1.00 5.00 2.94 .64 Compensation 1237 1.00 5.00 2.82 .79

Memory 1239 1.00 5.00 2.61 .63

Overall strategy use 1239 1.22 4.88 2.97 .57

The mean differences on the overall strategy use and the six categories were also

calculated for the sub-samples of monolingual and multilingual learners of English

using the MANOVA estimates and it was observed that the multilinguals (mean=2.90,

SD=.040) outscored the monolinguals (mean=2.79, SD=.031) both overall and on all

six categories (see table 16).


Table 16 Descriptive statistics: monolingual and multilingual means

95% Confidence Interval Dependent Variable Mean SD

Lower Bound Upper Bound monolinguals 2.47a .037 2.40 2.55

Memory strategies multilinguals 2.57a .048 2.48 2.67 monolinguals 2.77a .036 2.70 2.84

Cognitive strategies multilinguals 2.84a .047 2.74 2.93 monolinguals 2.74a .047 2.65 2.83

Compensation strategies multilinguals 2.93a .061 2.81 3.05 monolinguals 2.96a .046 2.87 3.05

Metacognitive strategies multilinguals 3.14a .060 3.02 3.26 monolinguals 3.13a .046 3.04 3.22

Affective strategies multilinguals 3.16a .059 3.05 3.28 monolinguals 2.74a .049 2.65 2.84

Social strategies multilinguals 2.84a .064 2.71 2.96 monolinguals 2.79a .031 2.73 2.85

Overall multilinguals 2.90a .040 2.82 2.98

a. Based on modified population marginal mean.

In order to test the null hypotheses no. 1 to no. 7 and establish whether there are

statistically significant differences in the frequency of strategy use between

monolingual and multilingual EFL learners, the one-way MANOVA between-subjects

effect was observed by the comparison of means on the overall use and the six

categories (see table 17). Moreover, the two-way ANOVA produced statistically

significant effect for the overall strategy use (F=4.39, p<.05), compensation (F=5.98,

p<.05) and metacognitive strategies (F=5.37, p<.05).

As a result, null hypothesis no. 1 was rejected because a statistically significant

difference between monolingual and multilingual EFL learners with respect to

overall frequency of language learning strategy use was found and it was in favor of

the multilinguals (MD=.106, p<.05). The study failed to reject null hypotheses no. 2,

no. 3, no. 6 and no. 7 since there were no statistically significant differences between

monolinguals and multilinguals with respect to memory, cognitive, affective and

social strategies (p>.05). However, null hypotheses no. 4 and no. 5 were rejected.

There were statistically significant differences between monolingual and

Lydia Mitits 203

multilingual EFL learners with respect to compensation strategies (MD=.189, p<.05)

as well as metacognitive strategies (MD=.177, p<.05). In both cases, multilinguals

displayed higher frequency of strategy use again. They reported compensation

strategies mean of 2.93 (SD=.061) while the monolinguals reported 2.74 (SD=.047)

mean. It must be noted that both means are within the medium usage range. As for

compensation strategies the mean scores are again within the medium range with

multilinguals outscoring the monolinguals by 3.14 (SD=.060) to 2.96 (SD=.046)

frequency mean.

Table 17 MANOVA between-subjects effects

95% Confidence Interval for Differenced

Dependent Variables Mean

Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.d

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

monolinguals multilinguals -.099a,b .061 .102 -.218 .020 Memory strategies multilinguals monolinguals .099a,b .061 .102 -.020 .218

monolinguals multilinguals -.067a,b .059 .257 -.184 .049 Cognitive strategies multilinguals monolinguals .067a,b .059 .257 -.049 .184

monolinguals multilinguals -.189a,b,* .077 .015 -.340 -.037 Compensation strategies multilinguals monolinguals .189a,b,* .077 .015 .037 .340

monolinguals multilinguals -.177a,b,* .076 .021 -.326 -,027 Metacognitive strategies multilinguals monolinguals .177a,b,* .076 .021 .027 .326

monolinguals multilinguals -.028a,b .075 .705 -.175 .118 Affective strategies multilinguals monolinguals .028a,b .075 .705 -.118 .175

monolinguals multilinguals -.094a,b .081 .245 -.253 .065 Social strategies multilinguals monolinguals .094a,b .081 .245 -.065 .253

monolinguals multilinguals -.106a,b,* .051 .036 -.205 -.007 Overall

multilinguals monolinguals .106a,b,* .051 .036 .007 .205 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the ,05 level.

a. An estimate of the modified population marginal mean (I).

b. An estimate of the modified population marginal mean (J).

d. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Sidak.

After investigating the differences between the monolinguals and multilinguals

and their overall strategy use and the use of six strategy categories when they learn


English, it was considered important to further analyze the data in order to find out

if and how the strategic profiles of the two sub-samples differed on the 50 individual

items contained in the SILL (see app.7).

Table 18 SILL for English for monolingual cases (most frequently used items)

Most frequently used N Mean SD

29 compensation If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same.

922 3.78 1.24

32 metacognitive I pay attention when someone is speaking English. 925 3.74 1.23

31 metacognitive I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better.

922 3.71 1.24

38 metacognitive I think about my progress in learning English. 905 3.61 1.25

33 metacognitive I try to find out how to be a better learner of English. 892 3.60 1.25

40 affective I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake.

926 3.58 1.33

42 affective I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English. 906 3.56 1.38

45 social If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again.

909 3.53 1.28

37 metacognitive I have clear goals for improving my English skills. 924 3.51 1.26

41 affective I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English. 928 3.51 1.39

Descriptive statistics for individual strategy items on the SILL for English for

monolinguals revealed that the most frequently used items belong to metacognitive

and affective strategies, while the least used ones are from memory and cognitive

categories (see table 18). There is an overlap between the most and least used items

by the monolingual and multilingual sub-samples. However, the following strategies

are only found in monolinguals among the ten most frequently used strategies.

Strategy No. 29 (If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the

same) is the most frequently used strategy by monolinguals with 3.78 mean. It is a

compensation strategy which helps overcome limitations in speaking and writing by

using a circumlocution or synonym. Also strategy No. 38 (I think about my progress in

learning English) with 3.61 mean belongs to metacognitive strategies and involves

self-evaluation of one’s learning. Finally, strategy No. 40 (I encourage myself to speak

Lydia Mitits 205

English even when I am afraid of making a mistake) is an affective strategy of

encouraging oneself by making positive statements about learning.

The same procedure was employed in order to find which individual strategies

are most frequently reported by the multilinguals and a list of ten strategies with

the highest mean are presented in table 19. While all ten items on the monolingual

list are in the high frequency range, only six strategies show high usage among the

multilingual learners.

Table 19 SILL for English for multilingual cases (most frequently used items)

Most frequently used N Mean SD

32 metacognitive I pay attention when someone is speaking English. 305 3.84 1.28

31 metacognitive I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better.

307 3.75 1.29

33 metacognitive I try to find out how to be a better learner of English. 289 3.69 1.26

41 affective I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English. 301 3.58 1.31

10 cognitive I try to talk like native English speakers. 305 3.53 1.38

11 cognitive I practice the sounds of English. 304 3.50 1.21

24 compensation To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses. 307 3.47 1.41

45 social If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again.

299 3.45 1.29

37 metacognitive I have clear goals for improving my English skills. 304 3.45 1.26

42 affective I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English. 291 3.44 1.31

As already mentioned monolinguals and multilinguals share most of the

frequently used strategy items. However, the following strategies are only found in

multilinguals. Strategy No. 10 (I try to talk like native English speakers) is a cognitive

strategy which helps practice naturalistically, as is strategy No. 11 (I practice the

sounds of English) used to formally practice sound of English. Moreover, they also

employ compensation strategy No. 24 (To understand unfamiliar English words, I make

guesses) which helps them guess intelligently in order to compensate for a lack of

knowledge.


Ten least frequently reported strategies by monolinguals are presented here (see

table 20).

Table 20 SILL for English for monolingual cases (least frequently used items)

Least frequently used N Mean SD

6 memory I physically act out new English words. 919 1.50 1.00

5 memory I use flashcards to remember new English words. 929 1.51 .97

4 memory I use rhymes to remember new English words. 925 1.96 1.20

19 cognitive I try to find patterns in English. 919 2.16 1.29

15 cognitive I read for pleasure in English. 928 2.17 1.27

44 affective I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English.

918 2.21 1.25

25 compensation When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures.

929 2.32 1.38

26 compensation I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English.

923 2.41 1.41

22 cognitive I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English.

923 2.43 1.27

47 social I practice English with other students. 922 2.47 1.31

All the means are in the low usage range from 1.50 to 2.47. The strategies that are

never or almost never used belong to memory strategies. As far as the least used

items by the monolinguals and multilinguals are concerned, there is again a

common pattern. However, the following strategies are only found in monolinguals

among the least frequently used. Strategy No. 22 (I make summaries of information that

I hear or read in English) with 2.43 mean score belongs to cognitive strategies and is

used to create structure for input and output by summarizing the new information.

Furthermore, the monolinguals do not seem to compensate for limitations in

speaking and writing by coining words as they report low use of compensation

strategy No. 26 (I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English) and they

do not employ the social strategy No. 47 (I practice English with other students) to

cooperate with their peers to overcome language problems.

Lydia Mitits 207

Descriptive statistics for the least frequently used strategies by the multilinguals

reveals that only five of the items belong to the low usage range and that the other

five are in the medium range, unlike the monolinguals whose least frequently used

strategies are all found in the low range (see table 21). The least frequently used

strategies found only in multilinguals belong to cognitive, compensation and

metacognitive categories respectively and show that multilinguals do not seek

practice opportunities nor practice naturalistically. More specifically, those are

strategy No. 13 (I start conversations in English), No. 27 (I read English without looking up

every new word) and No. 35 (I look for people I can talk to in English).

Table 21 SILL for English for multilingual cases (least frequently used items)

Least frequently used N Mean SD

6 memory I physically act out new English words. 305 1.63 1.17

5 memory I use flashcards to remember new English words. 305 1.78 1.16

19 cognitive I try to find patterns in English. 303 2.27 1.27

4 memory I use rhymes to remember new English words. 300 2.48 1.23

15 cognitive I read for pleasure in English. 306 2.54 1.40

44 affective I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English.

302 2.54 1.36

35 metacognitive I look for people I can talk to in English. 303 2.60 1.30

27 compensation I read English without looking up every new word. 299 2.60 1.36

25 compensation When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures.

307 2.62 1.41

13 cognitive I start conversations in English. 301 2.68 1.26

In order to test null hypothesis no. 8, a t-test for two independent samples was

used to establish if there are statistically significant differences between

monolinguals’ and multilinguals’ responses on individual items on the SILL for

English with respect to how frequently they use the particular strategies (see table

22).


Table 22 Means for monolinguals and multilinguals on individual items

SILL for English Case type N Mean SD Sig.

monolingual 919 2.78 1.362 (3 memo) I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to help remember the word. multilingual 304 2.99 1.288

.018

monolingual 925 1.96 1.208 (4 memo) I use rhymes to remember new English words.

multilingual 300 2.48 1.238 .000

monolingual 929 1.51 .979 (5 memo) I use flashcards to remember new English words.

multilingual 305 1.78 1.168 .000

monolingual 919 3.39 1.294 (8 memo) I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign. multilingual 299 3.11 1.277

.001

monolingual 914 3.25 1.368 (10 cog) I try to talk like native English speakers.

multilingual 305 3.53 1.385 .002

monolingual 909 3.37 1.415 (14 cog) I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in English. multilingual 297 2.88 1.498

.000

monolingual 928 2.17 1.276 (15 cog) I read for pleasure in English.

multilingual 306 2.54 1.404 .000

monolingual 923 2.43 1.271 (22 cog) I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English. multilingual 303 2.80 1.361

.000

monolingual 928 3.08 1.437 (24 comp) To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses.

multilingual 307 3.47 1.417 .000

monolingual 929 2.32 1.386 (25 comp) When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures. multilingual 307 2.62 1.418

.001

monolingual 923 2.41 1.413 (26 comp) I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English. multilingual 299 2.92 1.415

.000

monolingual 926 2.52 1.312 (28 comp) I try to guess what the other person will say next in English. multilingual 304 2.81 1.225

.000

monolingual 922 3.78 1.247 (29 comp) If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing. multilingual 307 3.41 1.273

.000

monolingual 913 2.56 1.255 (36 meta) I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English. multilingual 301 2.80 1.293

.007

monolingual 905 3.61 1.252 (38 meta) I think about my progress in learning English.

multilingual 297 3.41 1.252 .014

monolingual 918 2.21 1.259 (44 aff) I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English. multilingual 302 2.54 1.367

.000

monolingual 922 2.47 1.315 (47 soc) I practice English with other students.

multilingual 303 2.77 1.351 .001

monolingual 929 2.51 1.415 (50 soc) I try to learn about the culture of English speakers.

multilingual 307 2.77 1.381 .005

Lydia Mitits 209

There are statistically significant differences on 18 items. The multilinguals

report higher usage of 14 strategies: no. 3 (p<.05), no. 4 (p<.001), no. 5 (p<.001), no. 10

(p<.005), no. 15 (p<.001), no. 22 (p<.001), no. 24 (p<.001), no. 25 (p<.005), no. 26

(p<.001), no. 28 (p<.001), no. 36 (p<.05), no. 44 (p<.001), no. 47 (p<.005) and no. 50

(p<.05). Only 4 items are in favor of the monolinguals: no. 8 (p<.005), no. 14 (p<.001),

no. 29 (p<.001) and no. 38 (p<.05). As a result null hypothesis no. 8 was rejected and it

was concluded that there are statistically significant differences between

monolinguals and multilinguals with respect to individual strategy items.

7.2.2. Gender factor

As far as the independent variable gender is concerned, descriptive statistics

showed that girls reported using more strategies more frequently than boys overall

and for each of the six categories (see table 23).

The results of the MANOVA test indicated that gender was significant since main

effects were found both with the overall use of strategies (F=4.3, p<.001) and five

categories: cognitive (F=14.2, p<.001), compensation (F=10.7, p<.005), metacognitive

(F=7.5, p<.05), affective (F=13.9, p<.001) and social (F=8.4, p<.005). Memory strategies

showed no significant effect for gender (F=.39, p>.05).

Table 23 Descriptive statistics: gender

95% Confidence Interval Dependent Variable Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

boy 2.508a .039 2.432 2.583 Memory strategies girl 2.545a .046 2.455 2.635

boy 2.697a .038 2.623 2.771 Cognitive strategies girl 2.919a .045 2.830 3.007

boy 2.712a .049 2.616 2.809 Compensation strategies girl 2.962a .058 2.847 3.077

boy 2.948a .049 2.853 3.044 Metacognitive strategies girl 3.155a .058 3.041 3.268

boy 3.019a .048 2.926 3.113 Affective strategies girl 3.294a .057 3.183 3.405

Social boy 2.681a .052 2.579 2.782


strategies girl 2.913a .061 2.793 3.033 boy 2.750a .032 2.687 2.813 overall girl 2.953a .038 2.877 3.028

a. Based on modified population marginal mean.

Consequently the null hypotheses no. 9, no. 11, no. 12, no. 13, no. 14 and no. 15

were rejected and one can conclude that there were statistically significant

differences in strategy use based on the early adolescent EFL learners’ gender.

Those were observed in the overall use of strategies as well as in cognitive,

compensation, metacognitive, affective and social categories and were all in favor of

female learners. We only failed to reject null hypothesis no. 10 as there was no

significant effect for gender on memory strategies in early adolescent EFL learners.

In other words, males and females report a similar frequency when using memory

strategies.

7.2.3. Age factor

Another main effect using the MANOVA was found with age (F=3.4, p<.001) as an

independent variable. Statistically significant effect was observed for memory

strategies (F=9.2, p<.001), cognitive strategies (F=4.2, p<.05), compensation strategies

(F=4.3, p<.05) and affective strategies (F=5.1, 0<.05). Thus, null hypotheses no. 17, no.

18, no. 19 and no. 21 were rejected. However, the results failed to reject null

hypothesis no. 16 as there was no significant effect for age on overall strategy use,

as well as null hypotheses no. 20 and no. 22 which refer to metacognitive and social

strategies. The conclusion drawn is that there is a difference in use of memory,

cognitive, compensation and affective strategies based on the precise age of


In order to determine which means are statistically different from one another

the post hoc test using the Sidak method was used and it revealed that there are

statistically significant differences on memory strategies between ages 12-13 (1st

Lydia Mitits 211

grade) and 14-15 (3rd grade) (MD=.3, p<.001) as well as ages 13-14 (2nd grade) and 14-

15 (3rd grade) (MD=.3, p<.01). On cognitive strategies there are differences between

ages 12-13 (1st grade) and 14-15 (3rd grade) (MD=.2, p<.05) and ages 13-14 (2nd grade)

and 14-15 (3rd grade) (MD=.2, p<.05). The most important observation is that all these

differences are in favor of younger students, pointing at the downward trend of

strategy use. In other words, the older the learners are the fewer strategies they

report using. However, on compensation strategies there are differences between

ages 12-13 (1st grade) and 14-15 (3rd grade) (MD=.2, p<.05) whereas affective

strategies showed differences between ages 13-14 (2nd grade) and 12-13 (1st grade)

(MD=.3, p<.005), all of which are in favor of the older age group.

7.2.4. Proficiency level factor

The MANOVA analysis did not reveal a main effect with the independent variable,

proficiency level, although a statistically significant difference was observed on the

dependent variable, metacognitive strategies, between grades 19-20 and 10-12

(MD=.3, p<.05) in favor of higher grades.

In order to investigate the possible effect of the English language proficiency

level on the use of strategy categories and overall, without the interference of the

other variables, the one-way ANOVA analysis of variance was used.

Table 24 One-way ANOVA: proficiency level by SILL for English

SILL for English

EFL achievement N Mean SD F Sig.

10-12 81 2.41 .667 13-15 138 2.57 .707 16-18 393 2.58 .624

Memory strategies

19-20 590 2.69 .602

6.397 .000

10-12 81 2.69 .625 13-15 138 2.75 .692 16-18 393 2.88 .619

Cognitive strategies

19-20 590 3.08 .621

19.950 .000

Compensation strategies 10-12 81 2.75 .892 .831 .477


13-15 138 2.78 .850 16-18 392 2.81 .800 19-20 589 2.86 .755 10-12 81 2.86 .850 13-15 138 3.01 .875 16-18 392 3.15 .840

Metacognitive strategies

19-20 589 3.44 .804

22.041 .000

10-12 81 3.03 .932 13-15 138 3.09 .890 16-18 392 3.24 .830

Affective strategies

19-20 589 3.43 .732

12.468 .000

10-12 81 2.68 .825 13-15 138 2.80 .934 16-18 392 2.87 .862

Social strategies

19-20 589 3.07 .823

9.759 .000

10-12 81 2.72 .602 13-15 138 2.82 .637 16-18 393 2.91 .563

Overall strategy use

19-20 590 3.10 .523

20.499 .000

There are statistically significant differences in strategy use means on all

categories, except for compensation strategies (see table 24). More specifically, the

effect of proficiency level (EFL achievement) overall was F=20.49 (p<.001), on

memory strategies F= 6.39 (p<.001), on cognitive strategies F=19.95 (p<.001), on

metacognitive strategies F=22.04 (p<.001), on affective strategies F=12.46 (p<.001)

and on social strategies F=9.75 (p<.001). Thus, null hypotheses no. 23, no. 24, no. 25,

no. 27, no. 28 and no. 29 were rejected. We only failed to reject null hypothesis no.

26.


the Tukey-HSD post hoc test was conducted. It revealed that there are statistically

significant differences on memory strategies between grades 19-20 and 10-12

(MD=.28, p<.001), and 19-20 and 16-18 (MD=.11, p<.05) in favor of higher grades. On

cognitive strategies there are differences between grades 19-20 and the other three

categories again in favor of higher grades: 19-20 and 10-12 (MD=.18, p<.001), 19-20

Lydia Mitits 213

and 13-15 (MD=.33, p<.001) and 19-20 and 16-18 (MD=.21, p<.001). There are similar

differences on metacognitive strategies with differences between grades 19-20 and

all the others; more precisely: 19-20 and 10-12 (MD=.58, p<.001), 19-20 and 13-15

(MD=.42, p<.001) and 19-20 and 16-18 (MD=.29, p<.001). There is also a difference

between grades 10-12 and 16-18 (MD=.29, p<.05), again in favor of higher grades. On

affective strategies there are differences between grades 19-20 and 10-12 (MD=.39,

p<.001), 19-20 and 13-15 (MD=.34, p<.001) and 19-20 and 16-18 (MD=.19, p<.001), with

the students with grades 19-20 outscoring all the other categories. They also

produced higher scores on social strategies, where the differences were between 19-

20 and 10-12 (MD=.39, p<.001), 19-20 and 13-15 (MD=.27, p<.01) and between 19-20

and 16-18 (MD=.21, p<.01). On overall strategy use the differences are once again

between grades 19-20 and 10-12 (MD=.37, p<.001), 19-20 and 13-15 (MD=.27, p<.001)

and, finally, 19-20 and 16-18 (MD=.18, p<.001). In all these cases the learners who

reported higher EFL achievement expressed through their grade in English also

reported higher frequency of strategy use.

7.2.5. Motivation factor

The last tested variable was motivation to learn English and it was also significant

(F=4.4, p<.001), meaning that the higher motivated learners reported using

strategies more frequently than the lower motivated ones. More precisely, main

effect was found with the overall strategy use (F=23.4, p<.001), memory strategies

(F=12.1, p<.001), cognitive strategies (F=10.5, p<.001), metacognitive strategies

(F=25.8, p<.001), affective strategies (F=13.9, p<.001) and social strategies (F=14.3,

p<.001). Subsequently, the null hypotheses no. 31, no. 32, no. 34, no. 35 and no. 36

(except no. 33) were rejected, leading to the conclusion that differences in strategy

use overall and in memory, cognitive, metacognitive, affective and social categories


are based on the level of motivation to learn English and that students tend to use

compensation strategies regardless of how motivated they are.


the post hoc Sidak revealed that there are statistically significant differences

between each two categories of the variable – motivation to learn English, on 5

strategy groups and overall, except for compensation strategies (see table 25). In

other words, the learners who reported that speaking English fluently is ‘very

important’ outscored those who answered ‘important’, who, in turn, reported

higher frequency of strategy use than those learners who marked ‘not so

important’. It can be concluded that motivation to learn English produced

statistically significant results which had an upward trend with more motivated

learners reporting higher means than less motivated ones.

Table 25 Motivation mean differences

95% Confidence Interval for Differenced

Dependent Variable Mean

Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.d Lower Bound

Upper Bound

important .244*,b,c .063 .000 .093 .395 very important not so

important .426*,b,c .081 .000 .232 .620

very important

-.244*,b,c .063 .000 -.395 -.093 important

not so important

.182b,c .080 .068 -.009 .373

very important

-.426*,b,c .081 .000 -.620 -.232

Memory strategies

not so important

important -.182b,c .080 .068 -.373 .009 important .210*,b,c .062 .002 .062 .359 very

important not so important

.480*,b,c .080 .000 .289 .670

very important

-.210*,b,c .062 .002 -.359 -.062

Cognitive strategies

important

not so important

.269*,b,c .079 .002 .081 .457

Lydia Mitits 215

very important -.480*,b,c .080 .000 -.670 -.289 not so important

important -.269*,b,c .079 .002 -.457 -.081 important .167b,c .081 .111 -.026 .360 very important

not so important .239b,c .103 .062 -.008 .486 very important -.167b,c .081 .111 -.360 .026 important

not so important .072b,c .102 .861 -.172 .316 very important -.239b,c .103 .062 -.486 .008

Compensation strategies

not so important important -.072b,c .102 .861 -.316 .172 important .420*,b,c .080 .000 .230 .611 very important

not so important .958*,b,c .102 0.000 .714 1.202 very important -.420*,b,c .080 .000 -.611 -.230 important

not so important .538*,b,c .101 .000 .297 .779 very important -.958*,b,c .102 0.000 -1.202 -.714

Metacognitive strategies

not so important important -.538*,b,c .101 .000 -.779 -.297 important .322*,b,c .078 .000 .136 .509 very important

not so important .626*,b,c .100 .000 .387 .865 very important -.322*,b,c .078 .000 -.509 -.136 important

not so important .304*,b,c .099 .006 .068 .540 very important -.626*,b,c .100 .000 -.865 -.387

Affective strategies




Social strategies




overall

not so important important -.290*,b,c .067 .000 -.450 -.130

7.2.6. Interactions between factors

The MANOVA test served to investigate possible interactive effects between the

independent variables with any dependent variables. The analysis produced

statistically significant interactions between the following factors:

i. monolingual/multilingual by proficiency level on social strategies (F=3.2,

P<.05)


ii. motivation by age on social strategies (F=3.2, p<.05)

iii. proficiency level by age on cognitive strategies (F=2.6, p<.05), compensation

strategies (F=2.8, p<.05) and overall (F=2.3, p<.05)

iv. monolingual/multilingual by motivation by proficiency level on memory

strategies (F=2.2, p<.05), compensation strategies (F=2.1, p<.05), affective

strategies (F=2.3, p<.05) and overall (F=2.5, p<.05)

v. monolingual/multilingual by motivation by gender on memory strategies

(F=3.5, p<.05)

vi. monolingual/multilingual by motivation by age on affective strategies

(F=2.9, p<.05)

vii. monolingual/multilingual by proficiency level by gender on compensation

strategies (F=2.7, p<.05)

viii. monolingual/multilingual by proficiency level by age on memory strategies

(F=2.7, p<.05) and overall (F=2.5, p<.05)

ix. motivation by proficiency level by gender on affective strategies (F=3.5,

p<.01) and overall (F=3.1, p<.01)

x. motivation by proficiency level by age on affective strategies (F=1.8, p<.05)

xi. motivation by gender by age on compensation strategies (F=2.7, p<.05),

affective strategies (F=3.3, p<.05), social strategies (F=2.6, p<.05) and

overall (F=3.5, p<.01)

xii. proficiency level by gender by age on social strategies (F=2.9, p<.01)

xiii. monolingual/multilingual by motivation by proficiency level by age on

memory strategies (F=2.6, p<.01), cognitive (F=2.1, p<.01), metacognitive

(F=2.8, p<.01), affective (F=2.5, p<.05) and overall (F=3.1, p<.01)

xiv. monolingual/multilingual by motivation by gender by age on compensation

strategies (F=3.8, p<.01) and affective strategies (F=3.9, p<.01)

Lydia Mitits 217

xv. monolingual/multilingual by proficiency level by gender by age on affective

strategies (F=2.3, p<.05)

xvi. motivation by proficiency level by gender by age metacognitive strategies

(F=2.1, p<.05), social strategies (F=2.9, p<.001) and overall (F=2.6, p<.01)

With respect to the interaction between the dependent variables, six strategy

categories and overall strategy use on the SILL for English, with independent

variables, monolingual/multilingual by age, the post hoc test using the SIDAK

method showed that there are statistically significant differences in favor of

multilingual learners aged 12-13 on compensation strategies (MD=.29, p<.01),

multilingual learners aged 13-14 on metacognitive strategies (MD=.28, p<.05) as well

as in favor of multilingual learners aged 14-15 on metacognitive strategies (MD=.31,

p<.05).

Next, in order to observe which means are statistically different from one

another concerning proficiency by age, the post hoc test using the Sidak method

revealed that the learners aged 12-13 with school grade/EFL achievement 19-20

outscored learners with grade 13-15 (MD=.36, p<.01) and learners with grade 16-18

(MD=.20, p<.01) on cognitive strategies. The learners aged 13-14 with grade 19-20

outscored learners with grade 10-12 (MD=.64, p<.05) on metacognitive strategies.

The learners aged 13-14 with grade 19-20 reported using more affective strategies

than learners with grade 13-15 (MD=.36, p<.05) and, finally, the learners aged 13-14

with grade 19-20 compared to learners with grade 10-12 were found to use more

strategies overall (MD=.39, p<.05).

Another significant interaction was found between the dependent variables and

proficiency by gender by age in the following categories: on cognitive strategies

boys aged 13-14 with grade 16-18 outscored boys with grade 10-12 (MD=.65, p<.01)

while girls aged 12-13 with grade 19-20 outscored girls with grade 13-15 (MD=.52,


p<.01); on compensation strategies boys aged 13-14 with grade 16-18 outscored boys

with grade 10-12 (MD=.90, p<.01) and boys with grade 19-20 reported using more

strategies than boys with grade 10-12 (MD=.72, p<.05); on affective strategies girls

aged 12-13 with grade 19-20 outscored girls with grade 13-15 (MD=.55, p<.05); and,

lastly, on overall strategy use boys aged 13-14 with grade 16-18 reported using

strategies more frequently than boys with grade 10-12 (MD=.59, p<.05).

7.3. Answer to research question 2



In order to investigate language learning strategy transfer between Greek (L2) and

English (FL) in multilingual learners, a possible variation and correlation in the

language learning strategy use were sought to detect. The data gathered from the

SILL for English and the SILL for Greek for the multilingual sub-sample were

analyzed with respect to the overall strategy use, strategy categories and individual

items. Those means were compared using the MANOVA, descriptive statistics, the

Paired-Samples t-test and were correlated by computing the Pearson r correlation

coefficient.

7.3.1. The SILL for English and the SILL for Greek

First of all, the MANOVA test of within-subjects contrasts was employed to determine if

there are statistically significant differences between the two questionnaires

administered to the multilingual sub-sample: the SILL for Greek and the SILL for

English, which aimed at investigating the frequency of strategies that particular

learners reported using when they learn/use Greek and English. It was found that

there are significant differences (F=6.26, p<.05) in favor of the SILL for Greek

Lydia Mitits 219

(MD=.09, p<.05) pointing towards a more frequent use of strategies by multilingual

learners in their L2 Greek.

In order to find out if the multilingual learners transfer the strategies they use

from one language to the other the Pearson r correlation coefficient was calculated

(see app.12). A possible correlation of overall strategy use on the SILL for English and

the SILL for Greek was calculated and it was found that overall means on the SILL for

English and the SILL for Greek are statistically significantly correlated (medium

positive correlation, r=.489). Strategy category means show statistically significant

medium positive correlations on 5 strategy categories between the SILL for English

and the SILL for Greek: memory strategies r=.399; cognitive strategies r=.459;

compensation strategies r=.409; metacognitive strategies r=.336; social strategies

r=.340, and low positive correlation on affective strategies r=.269. As a result, the null

hypotheses no. 37 and no. 38 were rejected and it is concluded that there are

significant correlations between overall language learning strategy use and on

strategy categories in L2 Greek and FL English by multilingual early adolescent

learners.

For a more discrete observation of the relation between the two questionnaire

responses, descriptive statistics (see app.10) and the Paired-Samples t-test (see app.

13) were used and, as shown in table 26, the overall frequency of strategy use is 3.10

(SD=.676), which is in the medium frequency range, with metacognitive strategies

showing the highest frequency of 3.38 mean (SD=.905), followed by affective and

cognitive which have the same mean of 3.16 (SD=912 and SD=719 respectively).

Table 26 Strategy categories and overall means on SILL for Greek

SILL for Greek N Min. Max. Mean SD

Metacognitive strategies 308 1.11 5.00 3.38 .905

Affective strategies 308 1.00 5.00 3.16 .912

Cognitive strategies 308 1.14 5.00 3.16 .719

Social strategies 308 1.00 5.00 3.05 .925


Compensation strategies 309 1.00 5.00 3.01 .841

Memory strategies 308 1.00 5.00 2.73 .732


The least used strategies are from the memory category with 2.73 mean (SD=.732).

However, all the strategy categories are within the medium range usage. It can be

inferred that when multilingual learners learn or use their second language Greek

they mostly use indirect strategies which help them center their learning, plan and

evaluate it. They also encourage themselves and try to maintain motivation to learn

Greek. The most often used direct strategies are those which help them analyze and

reason, receive and send messages, create structure for input and output, etc. They

do not often use mnemonics.

On the other hand, table 27 shows that the overall frequency of strategy use by

multilinguals learning English is 3.02 (SD=.603) which is in the medium frequency

range again, with affective and metacognitive strategies showing the highest

frequency of 3.28 (SD=827 and SD=833 respectively). The least used strategies are

once again from the memory category (mean=2.70, SD=.603). This leads to the

conclusion that when multilingual learners learn or use their foreign language

English they mostly use indirect strategies which help them center their learning,

plan and evaluate it. They also encourage themselves and try to maintain motivation

to learn English. They do not often use mnemonics for English, either.

Table 27 Strategy categories and overall on SILL for English

SILL for English N Min. Max. Mean SD

Affective strategies 307 1.00 5.00 3.28 .827

Metacognitive strategies 307 1.22 5.00 3.28 .833

Social strategies 307 1.00 5.00 2.99 .911

Compensation strategies 307 1.00 5.00 2.98 .800

Cognitive strategies 307 1.00 4.67 2.97 .654

Memory strategies 307 1.00 4.38 2.70 .653


Lydia Mitits 221

The Paired-Samples t-test procedure was performed to compare the means of two

dependent variables-The SILL for English and the SILL for Greek-for the multilingual

group with the aim to determine if the use of strategies differs significantly between

the two languages (see table 28).

Table 28 Strategy categories on SILL for English and SILL for Greek

Dependent variables Mean

difference SD t df Sig.

Memory strategies E Memory strategies G

-.037 .763 -.863 306 .389

Cognitive strategies E Cognitive strategies G

-.191 .721 -4.655 306 .000

Compensation strategies E Compensation strategies G

-.023 .890 -.457 306 .648

Metacognitive strategies E Metacognitive strategies G

-.105 1.006 -1.836 306 .067

Affective strategies E Affective strategies G

.119 1.055 1.981 306 .049

Social strategies E Social strategies G

-.059 1.056 -.988 306 .324

The mean difference is significant at the p<.05 level and is presented in bold. As

far as the six strategy categories are concerned there are statistically significant

differences between cognitive strategies in favor of Greek (MD=.19, p<.001), and

between affective strategies in favor of English (MD=.12, P<.05). So, it can be

concluded that multilingual learners use more strategies that help them practice,

receive and send messages, analyze and reason, and create structure for input and

output when they learn their second language while they rely more on strategies

that help them lower their anxiety, encourage themselves, and control their

emotions when they learn their foreign language. They use memory, compensation,

metacognitive and social strategies when learning English and Greek within the

same frequency range.


Descriptive statistics and frequency analysis (see app.8) indicated 10 most and

least used strategy items by multilinguals when learning their L2 Greek. The most

used items belong to metacognitive and cognitive strategies (see table 29), while the

least used ones are from the memory category (see table 30).

Table 29 SILL for Greek-the most frequently used items

N Min. Max. Mean SD

10 cognitive I try to talk like native Greek speakers. 302 1.00 5.00 3.87 1.278

31 metacognitive I notice my Greek mistakes and use that information to help me do better.

306 1.00 5.00 3.84 1.157

32 metacognitive I pay attention when someone is speaking Greek. 305 1.00 5.00 3.69 1.316

16 cognitive I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in Greek. 298 1.00 5.00 3.64 1.290

37 metacognitive I have clear goals for improving my Greek skills. 305 1.00 5.00 3.55 1.253

33 metacognitive I try to find out how to be a better learner of Greek 294 1.00 5.00 3.52 1.371

49 social I ask questions in Greek. 305 1.00 5.00 3.46 1.371

15 cognitive I read for pleasure in Greek. 304 1.00 5.00 3.46 1.286

17 cognitive I first skim a Greek passage than go back and read carefully.

305 1.00 5.00 3.44 1.232

42 affective I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using Greek.

296 1.00 5.00 3.42 1.312

There is a similar pattern between the most and least used strategies on the SILL

for English and the SILL for Greek by multilinguals. However, the following items are

only found on the SILL for Greek most frequently used strategies. No. 15 (I read for

pleasure in Greek) is a cognitive strategy as are the strategies No. 16 (I write notes,

messages, letters, or reports in Greek) and No. 17 (I first skim a Greek passage than go back

and read carefully). These strategies are all in the high frequency range and show that

when learning Greek multilinguals use resources for receiving and sending

messages, get the idea quickly, and take notes. They also ask for clarification or

verification (No. 49 I ask questions in Greek). These strategies are probably so

frequently used only in Greek because Greek is the medium of education.

Lydia Mitits 223

Table 30 SILL for Greek-the least frequently used items

N Min. Max. Mean SD

5 memory I use flashcards to remember new Greek words. 307 1.00 5.00 1.77 1.087

6 memory I physically act out new Greek words. 305 1.00 5.00 1.82 1.210

19 cognitive I try to find patterns in Greek. 306 1.00 5.00 2.45 1.303

4 memory I use rhymes to remember new Greek words. 307 1.00 5.00 2.52 1.276

44 affective I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning Greek.

301 1.00 5.00 2.52 1.310

34 metacognitive I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study Greek.

301 1.00 5.00 2.77 1.291

21 cognitive I try not to translate word-for-word. 306 1.00 5.00 2.79 1.333

48 social I ask for help from Greek speakers. 308 1.00 5.00 2.81 1.355

25 compensation When I can't think of a word during a conversation in Greek, I use gestures.

309 1.00 5.00 2.81 1.382

3 memory I connect the sound of a new Greek word and an image or picture of the word to help remember the word.

304 1.00 5.00 2.83 1.231

There is also a common pattern as far as the least used strategies on the SILL for

English and the SILL for Greek are concerned. It should be noted that only three of

the least used strategies are found within the low frequency range (1.77-2.45 mean

score). The following items are only found on the SILL for the Greek list of the least

used strategies reported by the multilingual participants. No. 3 (I connect the sound of

a new Greek word and an image or picture of the word to help remember the word), No. 21 (I

try not to translate word-for-word), No. 34 (I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to

study Greek), and No. 48 (I ask for help from Greek speakers). What the multilinguals do

not do when learning Greek is arranging and planning their learning. They also do

not employ guessing nor mnemonics. Finally, they do not ask for correction.

Paired-Samples t-test was used to establish if there are statistically significant

differences between the responses on individual items on the SILL for English and

the SILL for Greek (see app.14). The mean difference is significant at p<.05 level and

is presented in bold. With respect to 50 individual strategies, 19 items show


significant differences (see table 31). 14 items are in favor of Greek: No. 1 (MD=.25,

p<.01), No. 6 (MD=.21, p<.05), No. 10 (MD=.32, p<.01), No. 13 (MD=.71, p<.001), No. 14

(MD=.35, p<.01), No. 15 (MD=.93, p<.001), No. 16 (MD=.67, p<.001), No. 19 (MD=.19,

p<.05), No. 27 (MD=.24, p<.05), No. 30 (MD=.21, p<.05), No. 35 (MD=.55, p<.001), No. 49

(MD=.26, p<.05), and No. 50 (MD=.50, p<.001). 5 are in favor of English: No. 9 (MD=.17,

p<.05), No. 11 (MD=.29, p<.01), No. 24 (MD=.26, p<.01), No. 41 (MD=.30, p<.01) and No.

45 (MD=.42, p<.001).

Table 31 Strategy items on SILL for English and SILL for Greek

MD SD t df Sig.

(1 memo) I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in English/Greek.

-.25817 1.551 -2.910 305 .004

(6 memo) I physically act out new English/Greek words.

-.20530 1.406 -2.537 301 .012

(9 cog) I say or write new English/Greek words several times.

.17763 1.498 2.067 303 .040

(10 cog) I try to talk like native English/Greek speakers.

-.31773 1.635 -3.360 298 .001

(11 cog) I practice the sounds of English/Greek. .29333 1.705 2.978 299 .003

(13 cog) I start conversations in English/Greek. -.70805 1.709 -7.151 297 .000

(14 cog) I watch English/Greek language TV shows spoken in English/Greek or go to movies spoken in English/Greek.

-.35274 1.818 -3.314 291 .001

(15 cog) I read for pleasure in English. /Greek -.93377 1.758 -9.228 301 .000

(16 cognitive) I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English/Greek.

-.67014 1.871 -6.075 287 .000

(19 cog) I try to find patterns in English/Greek. -.19269 1.468 -2.277 300 .024

(24 comp) To understand unfamiliar English/Greek words, I make guesses.

.26059 1.562 2.922 306 .004

(27 comp) I read English/Greek without looking up every new word.

-.23729 1.617 -2.519 294 .012

(30 meta) I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English/Greek.

-.20598 1.619 -2.206 300 .028

(35 meta) I look for people I can talk to in English/Greek.

-.55629 1.712 -5.646 301 .000

(36 meta) I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English/Greek.

-.30769 1.696 -3.136 298 .002

(41 aff) I give myself a reward or treat when I do .30508 1.627 3.220 294 .001

Lydia Mitits 225

well in English/Greek.

(45 soc) If I do not understand something in English/Greek, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again.

.42761 1.659 4.442 296 .000

(49 soc) I ask questions in English/Greek. -.25828 1.721 -2.608 301 .010

(50 soc) I try to learn about the culture of English/Greek speakers.

-.50489 1.819 -4.863 306 .000

It can be noticed that direct strategies belonging to the cognitive category are

more frequently used in English probably because the learners are aware that they

are in the process of learning a foreign language and recognize the need to practice

by repeating and formally practicing with sounds and writing systems. They use

cognitive strategies for Greek too but this time to practice naturalistically. Here we

see that all the cognitive strategies are in favor of Greek and are directly related to

the second language context since all these strategies can, should and are employed

in everyday school life with Greek as a medium of education. The indirect

metacognitive strategies are also linked to the context in which the languages are

learned. Another category of indirect strategies, social strategies are also in favor of

Greek. It is interesting to note though that cooperating with peers or proficient

language users is an acceptable strategy when learning English but not Greek. This

can be attributed to the multilingual learners’ need to feel assimilated and not

treated differently from the linguistic majority students.

Lastly, as far as null hypothesis no. 39 is concerned, it was reject because the

analysis showed that there are significant differences between individual strategy

items used in L2 Greek and FL English by multilingual early adolescent learners on 19

out of 50 individual strategy items.


7.3.2. Gender by Questionnaire type (SILL for English and SILL for Greek)

Hypotheses no. 40 to no. 46 were investigated using the MANOVA. The dependent

variable (factor 1) were the two questionnaires (the SILL for English and the SILL for

Greek) while gender was marked as the independent variable. The analysis

produced a statistically significant interaction between the factor ‘questionnaire’

and gender (F=6.4, p<.05). The post hoc test using the Sidak method showed that

there are statistically significant differences in favor of girls. Moreover, there are

statistically significant differences between strategy use on the SILL for English and

Greek in boys in favor of Greek (MD=.20, p<.005), pointing at multilingual boys’

higher use of language learning strategies in the case of their second language,

Greek whereas multilingual girls use both equally frequently.

As table 32 shows the multilingual girls outscored the multilingual boys on both

questionnaires, on the SILL for English (MD=.34, p<.001) and the SILL for Greek

(MD=.15, p<.05) with the first having a larger significance margin. In other words,

gender plays a significant role in the frequency of strategy use when early

adolescents learn their FL English and SL Greek, although this difference is more

evident in the case of the foreign rather than the second language. Thus, null

hypothesis no. 40 was rejected and it is concluded that there is a significant effect

for gender by second vs. foreign language on overall strategy use in multilingual

learners.

Table 32 Gender by Questionnaire type

Gender by Questionnaire type (SILL for English and SILL for Greek)

95% Confidence Interval gender Mean Std. Error

Lower Bound Upper Bound SILL for English 2.82 .050 2.730 2.928

boys SILL for Greek 3.01 .058 2.899 3.128

SILL for English 3.16 .044 3.084 3.255 girls

SILL for Greek 3.16 .050 3.069 3.268

Lydia Mitits 227

The investigation of the effect that gender may have on the six strategy categories

revealed the following results. Memory, compensation, affective and social

strategies on the SILL for English and the SILL for Greek were similarly used by boys

and girls, thus failing to reject the null hypotheses no. 41, no. 43, no. 45 and no. 46.

On the other hand, null hypotheses no. 42 and no. 44 were rejected because there

was a significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on cognitive

(F=5.9, p<.05) and metacognitive (F=5.3, p<.05) strategies in multilingual learners,

both of which are in favor of the SILL for Greek. The post hoc test specified that

those differences were in favor of multilingual girls, MD=.29, p<.001, in case of

cognitive strategies and MD=.30, p<.001 in case of metacognitive strategies.

Summary

The comparison of means for the monolinguals and multilinguals on overall strategy

use on the SILL for English showed a statistically significant difference on the

frequency of the overall strategy use between the two groups in favor of

multilinguals. There are also statistically significant differences on compensation

and metacognitive strategy categories, with multilinguals displaying higher

frequency of strategy use. As far as statistically significant differences on the 50

individual strategies are concerned, again the multilinguals outscored the

monolinguals reporting higher usage of 14 strategies while only 4 items are in favor

of the monolinguals.

Next, the effects of gender, age, language proficiency level in English and

motivation to learn English were analyzed and it was found that there girls

outperform boys with respect to the overall strategy use and on cognitive,

compensation, metacognitive, affective and social categories; that unexpectedly

early adolescents use fewer memory and cognitive strategies as they grow up while


they increase the use of compensation and affective strategies; that language

proficiency level and motivation are positively correlated with the frequency of

reported language learning strategies. Moreover, 16 interaction effects between the

independent variables, monolingual vs. multilingual, gender, age, proficiency level

in English and motivation to learn English, and the dependent variable, language

learning strategies, were observed revealing the interplay and complexity of the

relationships between and among various factors that influence strategy use.

This study also addressed the issue of language learning strategy use in Greek as a

second language versus English as a foreign language by analyzing the self-reported

language learning strategy use by multilingual (with L1 other than Greek) early

adolescent learners (junior high school students, aged 12-15) and it also focused on

investigating the possible variation in language learning strategy use when those

learners learn a second language (Greek) and a foreign language (English). There is a

positive correlation between the frequency of strategy use between Greek and

English, which implies that those learners who use more strategies more often when

learning Greek do so when learning English as well and vice versa. Respectively,

those learners who use fewer strategies when learning the second language also use

fewer strategies when learning the foreign language.

It was concluded there is a statistically significant variation with respect to the

frequency of strategy use between Greek and English overall in favor of Greek.

Moreover, there is a statistically significant variation between strategy categories

with cognitive strategies showing a higher frequency of use in Greek and affective

strategies in English. Also, there are differences between the frequency of use on 19

individual strategic items between Greek and English that are statistically significant

(14 items are in favor of Greek).

Lydia Mitits 229

Lastly, there are statistically significant differences in favor of multilingual girls

both when learning English and Greek. The multilingual boys’ higher use of language

learning strategies in the case of their second language, Greek, was observed,

whereas multilingual girls use strategies for both languages equally frequently.

Chapter 8 presents a detailed discussion of the findings and proposes their

pedagogical implications.


8. Discussion of the findings

Using the research questions and hypotheses as a framework, the following section

presents the discussion and interpretation of the findings based upon the analysis of

the data from the SILL for English and the SILL for Greek and the theoretical

background of research into language learning strategies and multilingualism. The

findings of the current study are also compared with those found in previous

research. Lastly, suggestions are made concerning the relevance of the interpreted

findings to teaching/learning practices in Greek junior high schools characterized

with the presence of a significant number of multilingual learners, and beyond.

8.1. Discussion of research question 1




For the first research question thirty six (36) null and alternative research

hypotheses were assumed and served as research objectives. With respect to the first

independent variable under investigation, multilingualism, the findings show that

the first null hypothesis is rejected, meaning that there are statistically significant

differences between monolingual and multilingual early adolescent EFL learners

with respect to the overall frequency of language learning strategy use. Moreover,

null hypotheses no. 4 and no. 5 were also disproved by the results of the data

analysis as there are statistically significant differences between monolingual and

multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to compensation and

metacognitive strategy categories. As our findings failed to find significant

differences in the use of memory, cognitive, affective and social strategies, null

hypotheses no. 2, no. 3, no. 6 and no. 7 were confirmed. As for the individual strategy

Lydia Mitits 231

items, the study found significant differences on 18 items and as a result no. 8 null

hypothesis, which assumed that there are no differences in the frequency of use of

the 50 items between monolinguals and multilinguals, was also rejected.

8.1.1. Monolingual and multilingual EFL learners’ profiles

Early adolescents in Greek junior high schools use a variety of strategies to help

them learn English, which is taught both as a compulsory school subject and as the

most favored foreign language in private language institutes. On the whole, they

employ affective strategies most, closely followed by metacognitive ones. Social and

cognitive strategies are next. Compensation strategies are fifth and memory

strategies come last. All of the above categories fall within the medium range of use

as is the case in a number of studies both in the Greek context and in other cultures

and languages (Green & Oxford, 1995; Mochizuki, 1999; Wharton, 2000; Kazamia,

2003; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Rao, 2006; Yang, 2007; Lee & Oxford, 2008; Psaltou-Joycey

&Kantaridou, 2009b; Vrettou, 2009, 2011).

When the two sub-samples (monolinguals’ and multilinguals’ reported use of

strategies) were analyzed separately, the monolinguals also reported using affective

strategies most, followed by metacognitive, then cognitive and social to the same

degree, compensation, and, finally, memory strategies. Similarly, the multilinguals

preferred to use affective and metacognitive strategies most, followed by social,

compensation, cognitive and memory strategies. All of the above strategy categories

revealed a moderate usage. It is evident that there is a need for LLS instruction to

maximize the adolescents’ learning potential; thus, both groups should be given

strategy instruction in order to improve their strategy use while taking advantage of

what they already do.


It can be concluded that when early adolescents learn EFL, regardless of their

prior language learning experience, they mostly rely on the affective strategies

which involve motivation, awareness of emotions and the ability to regulate feelings

and anxieties that are part of the language learning process. Examples of affective

strategies include “being aware of their tension or nervousness when using or

studying English”, “rewarding or treating themselves when doing well in English”,

and “trying to relax”. The present author argues that the possible explanation for

such a high use of affective strategies in the particular teaching context is that

foreign language learning causes tension to these adolescents and they consciously

try to lower it by using strategies. In Greek society and education English is generally

treated as a prestigious and important language to learn, whose effective and

enjoyable teaching methodology, as opposed to other school subjects in the

curriculum, appeals to teenagers. Obviously, EFL teachers play a part in teaching

these learners how to encourage themselves and also how to remain motivated by

averting negative emotions towards learning English while exploiting the positive

ones. This positive attitude is a predictor of motivation to learn and these two

factors work together to enhance language learning (Oxford, 1990:141). This

affective state of a learner that is crucial in the process of acquisition, known as the

affective filter hypothesis (Krashen, 1982), is what helps a learner to be relaxed and

motivated to use the input available in the environment.

A probable explanation for the second most favored use of metacognitive

strategies by both monolinguals and multilinguals is that they share the similar EFL

environment. Metacognitive strategies are higher order executive skills which

involve planning, organizing, monitoring, and evaluating (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990).

Many students reported using metacognitive strategies to regulate or control their

learning, such as “thinking about their progress when learning English”, “seeking

Lydia Mitits 233

out ways to be a better learner”, “setting clear goals in learning English”, and

“planning their schedule to study English”, as well as “reading books to improve

their learning”, and “trying to practice English every day”. They also appear to be

able to monitor their errors and evaluate their progress by noticing and correcting

themselves and by creating impressions of how well they are doing. It must be

noted, though, that since the frequency of metacognitive strategies reported is in

the medium frequency range there is a need for a further instruction in a more

effective use of the particular strategy category.

This metacognitive awareness may be put down to the influence of factors such as

language teaching methods and type of strategy training already discussed in

chapter 4. It is generally recognized that EFL teaching methodology includes

embedded strategy instruction particularly in the teaching of the four skills of

listening, speaking, reading and writing and it is known that English language

teaching materials, both in public and private schools in Greece, follow this practice.

In other words, early adolescent EFL learners are taught by their English teachers

how to improve their English to a certain degree.

On the other hand, the different use of cognitive strategies between the

monolinguals and multilinguals (they come third in monolinguals and fifth in

multilinguals) may be attributed to many years of formal language learning in

private language institutes and the instructional approaches favored by FL teachers

in Greece. As already stated, the multilinguals in our study do not necessarily attend

such private schools while the monolingual Greek L1 speaking teenagers do so

almost without an exception. As a result, the cognitive strategies they select reflect

typical instructional strategies they are likely to experience there, and those include:

translating, taking notes, repeating, summarizing, and formally practicing with

sounds and writing systems. They seem to go more obviously through the phase of


Interlanguage (Selinker, 1972) during which they rely heavily on the analyzing and

reasoning strategies.

Another interesting finding is that the monolinguals in our study reported using

cognitive and social strategies equally. As language learning is a social phenomenon

dependent on communicating with others, it is logical that learners who employ

cognitive strategies to help them learn would also rely on social strategies, in

particular those which refer to asking questions in order to clarify or verify a point

as well as to be corrected. Moreover, the cultural element is probably another reason

why Greek learners resort to social strategies as Greek people are generally

communicative and open to social interaction, which, by extension, applies to the

Greek educational system. Such strategies are rated high in most studies in the Greek

context (Kazamia, 2003; Psalotu-Joycey, 2008; Vrettou, 2009; Psaltou-Joycey &

Kantaridou, 2009a).

The lowest mean score, both in monolinguals and multilinguals, was for memory

strategies which include creating mental linkages, applying images and sounds,

reviewing, and employing action. They presuppose using mime, flashcards or rhyme,

techniques not generally used with adolescents. Instruction in deploying mnemonics

to store and retain information is not a part of the Greek classroom practice.

Moreover, the level of abstraction of the vocabulary studied in junior high schools is

high and does not allow for a frequent use of more elementary memorization

strategies.

Other studies conducted in the Greek context, whose participants were either

primary school children, university students or adults, produced varied results

(Kazamia, 2003; Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou, 2009a, 2009b; Psaltou-Joycey &

Sougari, 2010; Vrettou, 2011). Even the study of junior high school students’ strategy

use (Vrettou, 2009) differentiated itself from the findings of the present study

Lydia Mitits 235

mainly with respect to the position of affective strategies which came first here and

forth in Vrettou’s study. It is believed that this difference is probably due to the

different adaptation procedure of the SILL (the version used here did not contain the

controversial item 43 – I write down my feelings in a language learning diary - which

scored very low in the Greek context).

The most important finding that sets apart the language learning profiles of the

monolingual and multilingual learners in our study is that the multilingual early

adolescents use compensation and metacognitive strategies more frequently and to

a higher degree than their monolingual counterparts. Kostic-Bobanovic and

Bobanovic (2011) found that bilingual students reported higher use of learning

strategies than their monolingual colleagues with memory and metacognitive

strategies reaching a statistically significant level. Tuncer (2009) reported that

bilinguals had an advantage of employing cognitive and metacognitive strategies

while learning a language and attributed it to bilinguals being more advantageous in

the learning process, successful at learning previous languages and experienced in

learning more than two languages. In her comparative study Hong-Nam (2006)

found that for monolingual students, the six underlying factors determined to be of

the greatest significance during the language learning process were compensation

strategies, cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, memory strategies, social

and practical practice, and affective strategies. For bilingual learners those factors

were cognitive strategies, metacognitive and affective strategies, compensation

strategies, memory strategies, social strategies, and independent practice strategies.

Obviously the reported findings vary. The participants in these studies (as in the

majority of studies comparing monolinguals’ and multilinguals’ strategy use) were

university students. Also those studies were conducted in different cultural and


linguistic contexts, which must have been another important factor in the selection

of LLS as pointed out in chapter 4.

As far as the present study is concerned, a possible explanation for the

statistically significant variation in favor of the multilinguals in the two categories is

that, first of all, compensation strategies involve guessing intelligently when

listening and reading and overcoming limitations when speaking and writing. They

are constantly used by novice learners, experienced speakers and native speakers

and are a way of processing information both when understanding new language

and when producing it. The definition of compensation strategies itself points

towards multilingual speakers’ reality when they use their L2 (Greek) in order to be

functional both at school and outside. It can be assumed that they have developed

their compensation strategies more than their monolingual counterparts. It can be

argued that this multilingual advantage is on account of their previous language

learning experience. They compensate more as a result of their language learning

experience with L2 Greek where they constantly compensate in their daily

exchanges.

As for the higher use of metacognitive strategies, they involve centering,

arranging, planning, and evaluating one’s learning, all of which facilitate learning a

language. Metacognitive awareness in closely linked to multilingualism and is often

stressed as one of the most important advantages of multilingual language learners.

Our finding is in line with research suggesting that bilinguals/multilinguals have an

advantage, particularly in terms of employing advanced metalinguistic and

cognitive skills, lexical knowledge, and a less conservative learning procedure

(Thomas, 1988; Zobl, 1992; Klein, 1995; Wharton, 2000).

Last but not least, as already mentioned, the multilingual learners in the present

study generally come from underprivileged social environments; they differ

Lydia Mitits 237

according to the level of literacy in the languages they use daily; the linguistic

context in which they function can be described as subtractive as it generally does

not involve socially prestigious languages (see 5.2.); they are insufficiently exposed

to languages other than their L2 Greek (see 5.3.1.); and, yet, they report higher use of

learning strategies, which indicates their superior language learning abilities. The

above findings are in line with research into multilingual advantage over

monolinguals when learning an additional language (Jessner, 1999; Rivers, 2001;

Moore, 2006; Kemp, 2007).

The multilingual advantage is further proved by the finding that they outperform

monolinguals on a number of individual strategies. Out of 50 individual strategy

items tested on the SILL, the multilinguals reported using 14 significantly more often

as opposed to 4 items reported by the monolingual learners. Understandably they

outscore on the memory strategies as they are more experienced in applying images

and sounds by representing sounds in the memory or by using imagery. They also

employ action to help them learn, such as physical response or sensation, and

mechanical techniques. On the other hand, the memory strategy the monolinguals

use more often involves semantic mapping, which is a strategy for applying images

and sounds useful for remembering new expressions. Memory load is heavier in the

case of multilingual learners because they constantly make choices about the use of

languages at their disposal and they simultaneously activate their various language

systems (Herdina & Jessner, 2002; Jessner, 2006) (see 5.5.2.). It is interesting to note

that as more experienced learners the multilinguals in the present study select

memory strategies which help them both to store and retrieve new information

while their monolingual counterparts seem to limit that use mainly to storing

linguistic information.


The items favored by the monolinguals further corroborate the stance that

factors such as the teaching context and methodology, as well as the fact that they

have the experience of learning only a foreign language in an artificial setting (the

classroom) contribute to the choice of strategies. They report “watching English

films”, “using synonyms” and “thinking about their progress in English” much more.

It seems that those strategies have been adopted under the influence of their private

school EFL teachers and the pressure from their parents who generally insist that

their children get an EFL certificate. They rely on analyzing and reasoning strategies

commonly used by language learners with which they construct formal models of

language, create general rules and revise those rules (Oxford, 1990:44).

On the other hand, cognitive strategies used far more by the multilingual

adolescents are strategies such as “trying to talk like native English speakers”,

“reading for pleasure in English” or “summarizing information they hear or read in

English”. This feature of favoring practicing in naturalistic, realistic settings, the

examples of which are participating in conversations, listening to music, reading an

article, is a clear indication of how being experienced in learning languages in

natural settings (Greek in Greece) contributes to the differentiated profile of

multilinguals.

Another striking difference is the 4 compensation strategies ranked high on the

multilinguals’ list. Compensation strategies help learners to comprehend or produce

language despite the limited knowledge they may have and mainly enable

compensation of grammar and vocabulary. This can be achieved in two ways

according to Oxford (1990:48): by guessing intelligently and by overcoming

limitations in speaking and writing. The multilinguals in our study use linguistic and

other clues to guess the meaning, use mime or gesture, coin words, etc. In case of

Lydia Mitits 239

linguistic deficit multilinguals tend to resort to strategic behaviors which help them

restore communication (see 5.5.2.).

All these strategies are undoubtedly linked to their everyday use of Greek L2

where they constantly need to compensate as their fluency and competency in

Greek in not necessarily at the level of L1 Greek speakers.

A further possible interpretation of why the multilinguals compensate more than

monolinguals can be found in the distinction between language learning and

language use strategies. As already discussed in chapter 3, strategies can be divided

into strategies for learning and strategies for using (Ellis, 1986; Cohen, 1990, 1996b,

1998) and it can be argued that Oxford’s compensation strategies actually serve as

compensating tools for communication strategies or as cover strategies (used by

learners to create the impression that they have control over material when they do

not). Since the multilingual learners are experienced in communicating in other

languages besides their L1, it can be assumed that they are successful users of

communication strategies which do not necessarily make them better language

learners because it is possible that successful use of communication strategies may

actually prevent language learning on account of the fact that successful

compensation for lack of linguistic knowledge may prevent the need for learning

according to Ellis (1994).

8.1.2. Language learning strategy use by gender

The results of the present study revealed females’ superiority over males’ both on

the overall frequency of strategy use and 5 strategy categories: cognitive,

compensation, metacognitive, affective and social. The gender effect was not

observed with respect to memory strategies failing to reject only null hypothesis no.

10 (no. 9 to no. 15 were all rejected). The possible explanation is that adolescent


girls mature more quickly and have an inclination towards learning languages. They

seem to possess a higher level of metacognitive awareness which helps them

organize their learning, set goals and work more systematically towards achieving

them (Mulac, Studley & Blau, 1990). Girls’ social role also shapes their approach to

learning languages as they are generally more sociable and communicative, less

inhibited to ask for cooperation and clarification and more sensitive to other

people’s communicative needs (Tannen, 1990 cited in Green & Oxford 1995; Oxford,

1993). The fact that both genders reported an equally low use of memory strategies

can be attributed to the fact that mnemonics are generally not taught in Greek

schools and their value is not recognized by EFL teachers.

In examining differences in strategy use between males and females, females

report greater strategy use in the majority of studies (Politzer, 1983; Oxford et al.,

1988; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Oxford et al., 1993; Green & Oxford, 1995; Kaylani, 1996).

The differences in favor of women concern both the frequency and the range of

strategies used and are found in various age groups and cultures. A number of

studies have found that males used more strategies than females (Wharton, 2000;

Tercanlioglu, 2004) while other studies have failed to discover any evidence of

different language learning strategy use by gender (Ehrman & Oxford, 1990;

Vandergrift, 1997). El-Dib’s (2004) study documented differences in strategy use by

gender related to the type of strategy rather than an overall difference. In Greece,

Papanis (2008) reported higher frequency of metacognitive and cognitive strategy

use by bilingual Muslim minority girls in primary schools while Vrettou (2009, 2011)

reported that females exceeded males in the use of cognitive, metacognitive,

affective and social and attributed the finding to earlier biological, affective and

social maturity of girls. Psaltou-Joycey and Kantaridou (2009b) reported higher

scores in all strategy categories by female university students and attributed it to

Lydia Mitits 241

women’s ability to self-manage their learning better than men. On the other hand,

Gavriilidou and Papanis’ (2010) study of university students found no significant

effect of gender. Sarafianou (2012) found that her senior high school girls

outperformed boys in all strategy categories. These diverse results in gender

differences can be put down to the complex interaction of various factors involved

in the use of language learning strategies as well as diverse educational and cultural

contexts, and investigation procedures.

8.1.3. Language learning strategy use by age

The effect of age on the use of strategies is more complex than that of gender within

the particular age group. Early adolescents in Greek junior high schools retain the

same level of strategy use from the age of 12 to 15 overall and in metacognitive and

social strategies. They reduce their use of memory and cognitive categories while

they increase the use of compensation and affective strategies. It can be argued that

this steady overall use is on account of the fact that the learners belong to an age

group with common characteristics that require a longer time period to reveal

possible differences. However, it is revealing that there is a downward trend in very

important strategy groups (memory and cognitive). Why older learners reduce their

strategy use in the particular strategies crucial for formal language learning may be

put down to the fact that most of them achieve their EFL related goals by the age of

13 or 14 (the B2 level certificate in English) and tend to lose interest in English as a

school subject. Compensation and affective strategies, on the other hand, are related

to linguistic survival and affect towards a language that remain active in the EFL

classroom and beyond.

Although Oxford and Crookall (1989) draw a general conclusion from the

literature that students of different ages and different stages of L2 learning use


different strategies and that more sophisticated strategies are often employed by

older or more advanced students (Bialystok, 1981; Politzer, 1983; Tyacke &

Mendelsohn, 1986; Chamot et al., 1987), Psaltou-Joycey (2010: 63) points out that the

effect of age on language learning strategies interrelates with other factors in a

rather complex manner. For this reason a number of studies have investigated

strategy use and age in relation to other variables such as the level of proficiency,

culture, beliefs and attitudes, etc. Psaltou-Joycey and Sougari (2010) compared 11

and 14 year-olds and found statistically significant differences in all strategy

categories of the SILL, except compensation strategies in favor of the younger

students. It can be concluded that there are developmental changes in the use of

language learning strategies; however, they are neither systematic with respect to

strategy category nor do they increase in relation to age. They follow various

patterns with some showing a linear and others a curvilinear pattern (Tragant &

Victori, 2006).

8.1.4. Language learning strategy use by proficiency level

When tested for a significant main effect alongside other factors, the proficiency

level in English did not yield any significant results, although it produced a lot of

significant interactions with the other factors. This probably resulted from the way

in which proficiency was measured (four levels) and the robustness of the MANOVA.

However, when a separate one-way ANOVA test was run, proficiency level made a

significant difference in overall strategy use as well as in five categories: memory,

cognitive, metacognitive affective and social strategy groups. It showed that the

more proficient learners deployed more strategies than the less proficient ones and

that this trend was apparent between almost all school grade groupings. The only

category equally used by learners of different English proficiency level was the

compensation one, which further proves the claim made earlier on the possible

Lydia Mitits 243

distinction between language learning and language use strategies (Cohen, 1998)

with the former having as an explicit goal facilitating knowledge in a target

language and the latter aiming primarily at employing the language that learners

have in their current interlanguage. Obviously early adolescents compensate for the

lack of knowledge regardless of how proficient they are in EFL.

The relationship between the level of proficiency and frequency of strategy use is

an upward linear one, meaning that the higher the grade, the more strategies are

used or vice versa. Higher school grades correlate with higher strategy use. This

finding is consistent with the majority of studies. The language learning level has

shown a strong correlation with learners' choice of strategies (Oxford & Nyikos,

1989). Chamot (2004) also describes this relationship between language learning

strategies and the student’s proficiency level as quite evident. Research has shown

that more proficient language learners use a greater variety and often a greater

number of learning strategies (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990;

Green & Oxford, 1995; Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999; Purdie & Oliver, 1999; Wharton,

2000; Bruen, 2001; Griffits, 2003; Anderson, 2005; Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou,

2009a). In general, there is a positive linear correlation between learners’ proficiency

level and the number and selection of strategies used. Yet, some studies (Kazamia,

2003; Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006) have produced different results showing

curvilinear, low and even negative correlations between those two variables. These

diverse findings can be attributed to the interrelation of proficiency level with other

factors influencing language learning strategy use, such as different learning

contexts, research methodology, the number of participants, and the way in which

proficiency level is measured.


8.1.5. Language learning strategy use by motivation

The situation concerning the effect of motivation to learn English and the frequency

of strategy use is straightforward. The more motivated the learners are the more

strategies they employ in 5 strategy categories and overall. However, they seem to

use compensation strategies regardless of their level of motivation.

Dörnyei (2006) defines learning strategies as examples of motivated learning

behavior. Research into the relationship between motivation and successful

language learning has found that there is a strong correlation (Ehrman & Oxford,

1989; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). Motivation affects the use of language learning

strategies, with highly motivated learners generally employing more strategies

more frequently than less motivated ones (Wharton, 2000; Schmidt & Watanabe

2001). In Greece research has shown that motivation, related to aspirations and

enjoyment at learning English, is higher in university students majoring in English

(Psaltou-Joycey, 2003; Psaltou-Joycey and Kantaridou, 2009b). At the same time

Vrettou (2009) found that there is a correlation between motivation and frequency

of language learning strategies reported by early adolescents.

8.1.6. Interactions between factors

The variables under investigation revealed significant interactions between

monolinguals and multilinguals and the other independent variables when their

effect was measured for the frequency of overall strategy use and the strategy

categories. It leads to the conclusion that gender, age, proficiency level and

motivation influence the frequency of strategies used by monolinguals and

multilinguals in a rather complex manner and following an intricate pattern.

Some of the most important interactions observed will be discussed herein. With

respect to age, the analysis of the interactions has shown that monolinguals and

Lydia Mitits 245

multilinguals at the age 12-13 differ in the use of compensation strategies, with

multilinguals compensating more when learning English. As they grow older they

still report more strategies, but, this time, those are metacognitive ones which are

probably more employed as a result of the transfer from their L2 Greek and their

metalinguistic experience.

Although age itself produced conflicting and surprising results, with older

learners using fewer strategies in certain categories, proficiency interrated with age

revealed that those learners who have better grades in English generally outscored

those with lower grades in cognitive, metacognitive, affective categories and

overall. In other words, learners who employ practicing, use resources to help them

learn, analyze and reason, use higher level cognitive strategies (note taking,

summarizing, highlighting), center and plan their learning, and like English are

more strategic learners.

Another, even more complex interaction, was observed among proficiency level,

gender and age with both boys and girls with higher grades outperforming their

schoolmates of the same age in cognitive, compensation and affective strategies. A

possible interpretation is similar to the previous one. It can be added that,

regardless of the gender, more proficient learners are better at using strategies that

help them learn English.

8.2. Discussion of research question 2



In case of the second research question null hypotheses no. 37 and no. 38 were

rejected and the alternative hypotheses were confirmed, based on the findings

discussed in the previous chapter. As a result it can be claimed that there are


statistically significant correlations between language learning strategies used in L2

Greek and FL English by multilingual early adolescent learners overall and on the six

strategy categories. In other words, those learners who use more strategies more

frequently when they learn English also use more strategies when they learn Greek.

At the same time, however, our findings point out that multilinguals report higher

use of strategies in their L2 Greek than FL English. The present study failed to reject

null hypothesis no. 39 as statistically significant differences were found between the

two questionnaires on individual strategic items.

The effect of gender on the overall frequency of strategy use for the two

languages, Greek and English, was significant showing that multilingual girls

outperformed multilingual boys, with the higher level of significance in FL English

than L2 Greek (null hypothesis no. 40 was rejected). On the other hand, our study

failed to reveal statistically significant differences on the six strategy categories and,

as a result, alternative hypotheses no. 41, no. 43, no. 45 and no. 46 were confirmed.

Only null hypotheses no. 42 and no. 44 were rejected leading to the conclusion that

gender plays an important role in the selection and use of cognitive and

metacognitive strategies based on whether multilinguals learn and use their second

or foreign language.

8.2.1. Multilingual LLS transfer

The present study has shown that the multilinguals exceeded the monolinguals in

the use of strategies for learning EFL, which can be attributed to prior language

learning being a benefit for the multilingual learners in that they tend to transfer

the strategies they already employ in the languages they have been using and

developing. Moreover, there is a positive correlation between the frequency of

strategy use between L2 Greek and FL English, which implies that those learners

Lydia Mitits 247

who use more strategies more often when learning Greek do so when learning

English, and vice versa. Respectively, those learners who use fewer strategies when

learning the second language also use fewer strategies when learning the foreign

language. On the whole, a positive crosslinguistic influence in L3 acquisition is

apparent here with respect to transfer of strategies (see 5.5.2.). It is generally

assumed that such transfer of strategies from one additional language to another is

a feature of a multilingual learner; however, there appear to be no studies that

compare L2 and L3/FL strategies used by the same multilingual group of learners. As

a result no comparison with other studies is possible.

There is no statistically significant variation with respect to the frequency of

strategy use between Greek (the second language) and English (the foreign language)

overall. They are both within the medium range of use, which leads to the

conclusion that multilingual learners should not only be offered strategic

instruction when learning English as a foreign language in school, but should also be

encouraged and guided by their Greek language teachers to employ strategies to

further develop their L2. There is a difference in the order of preference of the 6

strategy categories between Greek and English. The most used strategies when

learning Greek belong to the metacognitive group while affective and metacognitive

strategies come first when multilinguals learn English. The second favorite in case of

Greek are affective, whereas cognitive and social strategies follow. When learning

English the multilinguals use compensation and cognitive strategies third and fourth

among strategy categories.

In both languages memory strategies were least used which is in line with the

majority of studies in very diverse linguistic and cultural contexts, both when

learning a foreign and a second language (Wharton, 2000; Kazamia, 2003; Hong-Nam,

2006; Yang, 2007; Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou, 2009b; Vrettou, 2009, 2011). One


reason for such low use might be that some of the types of memory strategies on the

SILL may not be considered appropriate for adolescents and adult learners, such as

the participants in this study. For instance, physically acting out new English words

or making up rhymes, may be strategies preferred by learners at lower levels of

maturity and younger age groups. Moreover, in the Greek educational system

memory strategies or mnemonics are generally not taught and their contribution to

learning is not recognized, so they have not become part of the learning process.

There is a statistically significant variation between strategy categories with

cognitive strategies showing a higher frequency of use in Greek and affective

strategies in English. Higher frequency of use of cognitive strategies in learning

Greek can be attributed to the fact that direct strategies are essential in learning not

just language but other subject matters as well (e.g. getting the idea quickly, using

resources for receiving and sending messages; creating structure for input and

output, taking notes, summarizing, highlighting). Higher frequency of use of

affective strategies in learning English have to do with emotions, attitudes,

motivation, values, self-esteem and the sense of efficacy (encouraging yourself,

making positive statements, rewarding yourself, discussing your feelings) and show

the tension they feel when using English but also the value attached to learning

English by the learners in Greek education.

A more detailed look at the 50 strategies on the SILL revealed differences between

the frequency of use on 19 individual strategic items between Greek and English that

are statistically significant (14 items are in favor of Greek and 5 in favor of English).

The multilinguals “think of relationships between what they know and new things in

Greek” and they “physically act out new Greek words” probably because memorizing

and building up new vocabulary in Greek is of vital importance for their everyday

use of the language both in school and outside. They also “try to talk like native

Lydia Mitits 249

Greek speakers”, “start conversations in Greek”, “watch films and read for pleasure

in Greek”, write a lot and think about Greek grammar. All of the above are cognitive

strategies necessary if a non-Greek speaker aspires to reach native-like proficiency

in both spoken and written language and use the Greek language to achieve general

success at school. The only cognitive strategies that multilinguals use more often

when learning English are those that involve learning spelling and pronunciation.

An interesting point is that, although the multilingual adolescents in our study

employ more strategies that are directly linked to the second vs. foreign language

environment factor, such as “looking for people to speak Greek”, “trying to find

different ways to use Greek”, “asking questions in Greek”, they report “asking other

person to slow down or repeat” only when they speak English but not Greek. It is

believed by the author that this finding shows that the multilinguals either have a

strong need to assimilate and do not want to differ from Greek L1 speakers or that

the fact that they are multilingual is not recognized and appreciated by the school

and wider environment.

It can be argued that the influence of the language learning context (second vs.

foreign) is reflected in the types of strategies learners employ rather than the

frequency of overall use. The characteristics of the second language context in the

present study are the following: Greek is the official language of the country; it is the

dominant language; it is the language of instruction because the participants in the

study attend public schools which follow full immersion programs; Greek is the

language multilinguals both learn and use. The characteristics of English are: it is a

foreign language with no official status; it is recognized as a language of wider

communication with native speakers of English and as a lingua franca; it is a

compulsory school subject with the learners in a typical TENOR situation; it is highly


valued by parents and institutions; and it is the language multilinguals almost

exclusively learn.

Among various factors that influence the choice of strategies discussed in

chapter 4, cultural background and language being learnt are upheld as further

adding to the noted differences between L2 Greek and FL English in multilingual

adolescents. The multilingual participants in the present study have only one

shared characteristic-they all use more than one language for their everyday

communication. Apart from that, they are a rather heterogeneous group comprising

learners who come from different cultural backgrounds, carry with them different

values and aspirations, and as research has shown this factor can have a strong

impact on the selection of strategies (Politzer & McGroarty, 1985; Reid, 1987; Chang,

1990; Mochizuki, 1999; Yang, 1999; Wharton, 2000; Griffiths & Parr, 2000;

Tercanlioglu, 2004; Psaltou-Joycey, 2008).

Their linguistic backgrounds, such as their proficiency and functional capability

in their L1, cultural and political criteria, other affective criteria and literacy in L1

(De Angelis, 2009; Kemp, 2009) vary as well. Moreover, the reported native

languages range from typologically very distant (e.g. Turkish, Georgian) to

relatively close (Russian, Bulgarian, etc.) and the issue of typological closeness may

have a role in the selection of strategies. Furthermore, differences in strategy use

are apparent between a foreign language and a second language context, since a

number of studies have shown that second language learners’ strategy use is of

higher frequency compared to foreign language learners’ (Politzer, 1983; Oh, 1992;

Green & Oxford, 1995; Wharton, 2000; Olivares-Cuhat, 2002; Keatley, Chamot,

Spokane, & Greenstreet; 2004 ). What contributes to the significance of the present

study is that most of these studies were of English as L2 while our findings are of

Greek as L2.

Lydia Mitits 251

8.2.2. Gender effect in multilinguals

Two most important findings with respect to the effect of gender in multilinguals

when they learn a foreign and a second language will be interpreted here. The first

refers to the fact that early adolescent females employ more cognitive and

metacognitive strategies than males when they learn Greek. A possible explanation

is that the higher level of maturity and ambition to achieve school success,

commonly found in girls of the particular age group, help girls understand the

importance of using strategies to practice, reason, analyze, plan, organize, set goals

and objectives, pay attention, etc. The second intriguing finding corroborates this

one in that multilingual boys report higher use of strategies for Greek than for

English as they also recognize the need to be proficient in their second language in

order to be functional in the Greek society.

8.3. Pedagogical implications

The most significant contribution of the empirical study conducted here is its

application to the educational context of Greek junior high schools and the teaching

of English as a FL. It also has to offer to the teaching of Greek to numerous

multilingual students in Thrace and beyond.

The role of language learning strategies is generally recognized by the

researchers and educators as being crucial in the learning process, while concepts

relevant to the recognition of LLS (what makes a good language learner, learner

autonomy and self-regulation) have contributed to the shift in EFL teaching

methodology. As a result, the results of the study in question can add to profiling

early adolescent monolingual and multilingual learners of English with the aim to

improve the teaching practices and help those learners become more autonomous,

self-regulated and successful.


The present author fully supports the belief, which underlies much of the

research in the field (Oxford, 1990; Larsen-Freeman, 1991; Cook, 1991), that language

learning strategies are teachable and that learners can improve by training in

learning strategies. Whether language learners receive strategy training or not and,

if they do, what kind of training they are given will influence the frequency and

choice of strategies they use in the second/foreign language classroom.

Thus, what teenage learners should be offered is language learning strategy

instruction so that this training can aid the improvement of language learning

skills, namely listening, speaking, reading, writing and vocabulary. A number of

studies have found that such training had a positive effect on the learning skills and

increased the frequency of strategies used (Cohen et al., 1996; Robbins & Dadour,

1996; Ayaduray & Jacobs, 1997; Takeuchi & Wakamoto, 2001, Manoli &

Papadopoulou, 2012: Manoli, 2013).

Next, teaching aims and objectives in a language learning classroom should not

only be the teaching of the content but also the development of awareness of the

processes involved in learning (Nunan, 1997), such as what strategies there are at

the learners’ disposal and the knowledge of how to employ them. This is another

step towards becoming self-regulated and more autonomous language learners.

Moreover, the researcher upholds the view supported by many (O’Malley &

Chamot, 1990; Oxford & Leaver, 1996; Cohen, 1998; Nunan, 1997; Chamot et al., 1999;

Shen, 2003) that explicit learning strategy instruction should become part of

everyday teaching/learning practices. Adolescent learners are mature enough to be

able to communicate their learning experiences and develop their metalinguistic

awareness. It must be admitted that the new Greek curriculum (Cross-Thematic

Curriculum Framework for Compulsory Education, 2003), which includes elementary and

junior high school English syllabi design, aims at the development of critical and

Lydia Mitits 253

creative thinking abilities by creating positive attitudes toward learning through

exploration and discovery and sees self-evaluation, control and management of

learning as an essential part of the learning process. However, everyday teaching

practices tend to disregard the importance of helping learners become autonomous

and self-regulated. It is believed a priority that language teachers be offered in-

service training in the benefits of the particular approach.

What is proposed here is an implementation of explicit and integrated strategy

training required for the development of the four skills of listening, speaking,

reading and writing as it provides learners with opportunities to practice strategies

with authentic language learning tasks (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Oxford & Leaver,

1996; Nunan, 1997; Cohen, 1998; Chamot et al., 1999; Grenfell & Harris,1999) and has

been found effective in some intervention studies in the Greek context (Gavriilidou

& Papanis, 2009; Sarafianou, 2013, Manoli, 2013).

With respect to the multilingual learners in Greek mainstream secondary

education, the new education policy expressed in the New Curriculum is in line with

the Common European Community Education Policy which aims at promoting

cooperation and cultural awareness in open democratic pluralistic societies. In the

case of EFL teaching one of the main objectives is foreign language literacy and

raised awareness of multilingualism and multiculturalism.

The educational program in Greek junior high schools can be described as a weak

form of education for bi-/multilingualism (see 5.8.) as it is a mainstream type of

schooling which also offers foreign language teaching; the students mainly belong

to the language majority; the language of the classroom is the majority language

with FL lessons; and the aim in language outcome is limited bilingualism. As for

multilingual learners, the Greek program can also be characterized as transitional

for language minority students, where the language of the classroom moves from


minority to majority language with the societal and educational aims of assimilation

and relative monolingualism. Although the present educational context does not

offer multilingual education, it should recognize the importance of minority

language learning for linguistic and cognitive development as well as academic

success of multilingual learners.

The most important finding of the present study is that, despite the fact that the

multilingual teenagers in Komotini junior high schools generally come from

underprivileged socioeconomic backgrounds and their multilingualism can be

described as subtractive rather than additive, they nonetheless outperform the

monolinguals in strategy use. The author proposes that the negative view mostly

formed as a result of school underachievement by linguistic minority students can

and should be changed by integrating the multilingual cultural and linguistic

heritage into the school curriculum. This can be achieved by creating a general

positive atmosphere at the school, a meaningful curriculum for the linguistic

minorities, teacher education into the issues of multilingualism and the

involvement of the multilinguals’ other languages (Reich et al., 2002). Teaching

implications of a wide range of metalinguistic abilities showed by multilingual

children are potential resources for learning, although practicing teachers often

remain unaware of children’s knowledge and abilities in different languages and fail

to see them (Moore, 2006).

In order to take advantage of the positive aspects of multilingualism in teaching,

the author proposes creating links among languages and exploiting the resources

that multilingual learners bring into the classroom. This can be achieved by using

cross-language approaches and strategy training (Jessner, 2006). One way of

achieving this is to use contrastive analysis (James, 1998; Hawkins, 1999) as part of

language learning and teaching in the classroom as it is concerned with the process

Lydia Mitits 255

of learning to learn a language and cross-language comparisons with special emphasis

on the role of the L1 in second language learning, but also any prior language

knowledge, not only the L1 to L2 (see Mitits, in press). Teaching methods that allow

contact and cooperation among languages have shown the raising of metalinguistic

awareness (Yelland et al.,1993; Jessner, 1999; Cummins, 2001; Clyne, 2003; Ó Laoire,

2004). A classroom practice including contrastive analysis and translation for

consciousness-raising and language awareness purposes has been suggested (e.g.

James, 1996; Kupferberg & Olshtain, 1996; Kupferberg, 1999).

This particular practice has its place under the umbrella term ‘translanguaging’

(Garcia, 2009) discussed in chapter 5. It is proposed as a complementary approach in

the language classroom which can help both monolingual and multilingual learners

to draw across languages, become more confident and accomplish lesson goals

better. ‘Translanguaging’ can be used as a scaffolding technique among languages, as

a way to develop learners’ metalinguistic understanding and metacognitive

awareness. It can also be used among students without having to wait for the

teacher to assume a direct teaching role. Ideally, having multilingual teachers would

further facilitate such learning. However, cooperation among teachers of different

languages, those with different linguistic backgrounds and students’ parents and/or

local community is sufficient for the implementation of ‘translanguaging’.

The above proposed methods can be applied under a cross-curricular approach to

learning a second/foreign language through collaboration between teachers who

teach FL English or any other modern languages and those who teach Greek, as well

as the researchers in the field, in order to facilitate cross-curricular cooperation

which would lead to the development of language learning strategies and raise

learners’ literacy skills (Harris & Grenfell, 2004). Research has indicated that by


making explicit links between the languages taught learners are able to transfer

knowledge of their L1 to other languages learnt and vice versa.

Language learning strategy training should accompany and support the proposed

cross-language approach to teaching as a crucial tool in helping learners structure

prior language knowledge in order to develop their languages and become more

autonomous learners (Zapp, 1983; Jessner, 2006). The present research into the

relationship between multilingualism and language learning strategies has

contributed by revealing the language learning strategies that students bring to

learning in order to enhance a possible strategy transfer.

Summary

The results of the study have confirmed the main research hypotheses. Mainly, it

has been proved that language learning strategies used by monolingual and

multilingual early adolescent EFL learners differ with respect to frequency and

strategy type and that language learning strategy use by monolingual and

multilingual early adolescent EFL learners is influenced by their gender, age,

proficiency level and motivation. The discussion has contributed to the possible

explanations of the variations found both with respect to the rate of strategy use

and the factors influencing it. Also, the multilingual advantage is recognized and

attributed to the prior language learning experience as well as the potential for

strategy transfer is stressed. Finally, pedagogical ramifications of the results of the

study are proposed. It is strongly believed by the author that the involvement of

other languages used by multilingual learners would benefit overcome their general

underachievement in school and, at the same time, help both monolinguals and

multilinguals develop their cross-linguistic and cross-cultural awareness which in

turn can aid their development into self-regulated, autonomous learners.

Lydia Mitits 257

Chapter 9 offers some concluding remarks, the limitations of the study and

directions for future research.


9. Conclusion and suggestions for further research

Based on the findings of this study it can be concluded that monolingual and

multilingual early adolescents in Greek junior high schools employ language

learning strategies to a similar degree overall and need strategy training in order to

become more efficient language learners. However, multilinguals show significant

variation with respect to strategy categories and individual strategies they prefer.

They also appear to transfer LLS from their second language Greek to the foreign

language English and vice versa. This points to multilinguals’ enhanced learner

autonomy and a different approach to learning, which could be incorporated into

teaching materials to help less effective learners develop appropriate strategies for

learning languages.

There is a similar pattern of language learning strategy use in second and foreign

language context with the exception of those strategies determined by the context.

It is necessary to teach strategies in both contexts. It is useful to create the

opportunities provided by each context to help develop less frequently used

strategies (e.g. simulate second language context when learning English and

recognize the need to teach strategies in Greek-full immersion is not enough). Prior

language learning is a benefit for the multilingual learners in that they tend to

transfer the strategies they already employ in the languages they have been

developing.

Gender, age, language proficiency level, and motivation are recognized as factors

which exert influence of the frequency and type of strategies used in learning

language. In both monolingual and multilingual groups girls outperform boys. Also,

in line with previous research, language proficiency level and motivation to learn

English are positively correlated with the frequency of strategies used. On the other

Lydia Mitits 259

hand, the effect of age is more intricate, with the overall strategy use and

metacognitive and social strategies remaining steady from age 12 to 15, memory and

cognitive strategy categories showing a downward trend, and compensation and

affective ones tending to increase.

To sum up, this comparative descriptive study adds to the delineation of the

strategic profiles of monolingual and multilingual EFL learners, especially in relation

to their gender, age, language proficiency level and motivation to learn English

while, at the same time, it searches to find any possible differences between the two

groups of learners. It also aims at discovering a possible variation within the

multilingual group when it learns Greek and English. In that respect it can be said

that this is the first such study in the Greek context and one of very few studies

internationally, although the need to investigate and compare monolingual and

multilingual language learning is widely recognized.

9.1. Limitations of the study

The fact that the sample of the study included the entire junior high school

population in the town of Komotini, characterized by its multicultural and

multilingual community, points to a rather representative large-scale study, which

helps learners’ characteristics to be carefully considered. Nonetheless, it should be

noted that one limitation of the study was the fact that it was exclusively held on

the basis of quantitative research methods. The reasons for this were: (1) the

permission granted to conduct the study in the particular state schools only allowed

two teaching hours and no audio/video recordings of the students; (2) time

consumption and disruption of the flow of school lessons are not appreciated by the

school staff; (3) after completing two SILL questionnaires the students themselves

were generally unwilling to discuss the questionnaire items again. As a result, it is


recommended that in a future study of a similar representative sample, mixed

methods (qualitative and quantitative) for gathering and validating language

learning strategy data are used to ensure the triangulation of the data and the

finding (Mackey & Gass, 2005; Dörnyei, 2007). For example, a survey combined with

personal interviews or think-aloud procedures should be employed. The advantages

and disadvantages of various research methods were discussed in 3.3.

The selection of the SILL for the data collection was made on account of the fact

that this particular instrument has been widely used across languages and in

different educational contexts and as such allows for the comparison of findings and

helps answer the research questions posed in the study. Despite a very careful

adaptation procedure into Greek (Gavriilidou & Mitits, in press), the adapted

instrument requires a further validation which can be achieved through a

confirmatory factor analysis. This statistical method can lead to an instrument with

a different number of factors and items than the one proposed by Oxford (1990).

Another limitation of the present study closely linked to its administration

restrains is the fact that motivation level was assessed only by the participants’

response to the question asking how important it is for them to speak English well.

However, motivation as a factor influencing LLS use was one of the secondary goals

of the study and it was practically impossible to administer another questionnaire

testing the participants’ motivation. Nonetheless, there was a strong positive

correlation between the participants’ answer to the particular question and their

frequency of strategy use.

Next, the interpretation of the influence of language learning proficiency level

on the frequency of strategy use should be taken with caution for two reasons.

Firstly, as discussed in 4.3., a possible explanation for the variation in the findings

between the level of proficiency and strategy use could be the differences in the

Lydia Mitits 261

ways that proficiency is estimated. Secondly, whether successful use of strategies

has a positive effect on proficiency in a language or vice versa, as well as how other

factors contribute to this relationship is not conclusive.

9.2. Recommendations for future research

The majority of previous studies on learners strategy use were conducted with

monolingual participants in monolingual environments and with English as a

second/foreign language. As it has been established that monolingualism is no

longer a norm in the 21st century world, more studies using language learners from

multilingual contexts coming from various cultural and linguistic backgrounds need

to be carried out in order to compare language learning behaviors and paths to

language learning employed by monolinguals and multilinguals.

The current study was also conducted to determine influence of individual

background variables, such as gender, age, English proficiency, and motivation on

language learning strategy use. However, for better understanding of individual

differences in strategy use, studies using variables such as learner characteristics,

learning styles, social and situational context, cultural background, teaching

methods, etc. need to be carried out.

Moreover, another revealing aspect with pedagogical implications would be

studies assessing language learning strategies adequate for particular learning tasks

(e.g., grammar, vocabulary, reading, speaking). Also, intervention studies (see

Sarafianou, 2013: Manoli, 2013) which measure the effect of a strategy-based

intervention program would also lead to important findings on how strategy

training contributes to becoming more successful language learners and how to

implement that knowledge into teaching practices. Closely linked to this would be

studies comparing language teachers’ beliefs about language learning as well as


their strategy teaching with those of their students, because it is important to see

how teachers’ teaching of strategies matches their students’ learning.

Last but not least, further research of multilingual language learning in the Greek

primary and secondary education context would yield important data on how those

learners approach new languages, what the cross-linguistic influences among the

languages they use are, and what kind of effect additional languages have on the

languages they have been learning and/or using. Furthermore, further

investigation of how to develop multilingual competences in the classroom is

required. Thus, besides comparing multilinguals to their monolingual counterparts,

both quantitative and qualitative studies comparing the languages that multilingual

students in Greek schools use are required in order to get a better understanding

involved in the process of learning a language.

Lydia Mitits 263

Bibliography Abraham, R. G. & R. J. Vann (1987). Strategies of two learners: A case study. In A.

Wenden & J. Rubin (eds), Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 85–102). New York: Prentice Hall.

Abraham, R. G. & R. J. Vann (1996). Validity issues in the assessment of L2 learner strategies. Applied Language Learning 7(1 & 2): 1-4.

Afflerbach, P., Pearson, D. & S. G. Paris (2008). Clarifying the differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher 61(5): 364-373.

Alexander, P. A. & P. H. Winne (2006). Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ambridge, B. & E. V. M. Lieven (2011). Language Acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Anderson, J. R. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications (2nd ed). New York: Freeman.

Anderson, J. R. (2005). L2 strategy research. In E. Hinkel (ed), Handbook of research in second language research and learning (pp. 757-772). New York: Routledge.

Aronin, L. & B. Hufeisen (2009). The exploration of multilingualism: Development of research on L3, multilingualism and multiple language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Aronin, L. & M. Ó Laoire (2004). Exploring multilingualism in cultural contexts: Towards a notion of multilinguality. In Hoffmann, C. & J. Ytsma (eds), Trilingualism in Family, School and Community. (pp. 11–29). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Ayaduray, J. & G. M. Jacobs (1997). Can learner strategy instruction succeed?: The case of higher order questions and elaborated responses. System 25: 561-570.

Bachman, L. & A. Palmer (1982). The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL Quarterly 16(4): 449–465.

Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baker, C. (1996). Foundations of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Baker, C. & S. Prys Jones (1998). Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Balke-Aurelk, G. & T. Lindblad (1982). Immigrant children and their languages. Department of Education research, University of Gothenburg.


Beaton, E. D., Bomardier, C., Guillemeni, F. & M. Bozi-Ferrz (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 25(24): 3186–3191.

Bejarano, Y. (1987). A cooperative small-group methodology in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly 21: 483-504.

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. London: Longman.

Benson, P. (2006). Autonomy in Language Learning. Retrieved from http://ec.hku.hk/autonomy/what.html and <http://ec.hku.hk/autonomy/#k>.

Benson, P. & P. Voller (1997). Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman.

Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning 28: 69-83.

Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Modern Language Journal 65: 24-35.

Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies. Oxford: Blackwell. Bialystok, E. (1991). Metalinguistic dimensions of bilingual language proficiency. In

E. Bialystok (ed), Language Processing in Bilingual Children. (pp. 113–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Metalinguistic aspects of bilingual processing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21: 169-181.

Bild, E. R. & M. Swain (1989). Minority language students in a French immersion program: Their French proficiency. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 10: 255-274.

Braun, M. (1937). Beobachtungen zur Frage der Mehrsprachigkeit. Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 4: 115–30.

Bremner, S. (1998). Language learning strategies and language proficiency: Investigating the relationship in Hong Kong. Asian Pacific Journal of Language in Education 1: 490-514.

Brown, H. D. (1980). Principles and practices of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th ed). White Plains, New York; Harlow: Longman.

Brown, R. (1973). A First Language: The Early Stages. London: Allen and Unwin. Bruen, J. (2001). Strategies for success: Profiling the effective learner of German.

Foreign Language Annals 34(3): 216-225.

Lydia Mitits 265

Bruner, J. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R., J. Jarvelle, & W. J. M. Levelt (eds), The Child's Concept of Language. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Butler, D. L. (1997). The role of goal setting and self-monitoring in students’ selfregulated engagement in tasks. Paper presented in Chicago at the American Education Research Association Meeting.

Canale, M. & M. Swain (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1: 1-47.

Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on cross-linguistic influence in L3 acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (eds), Crosslinguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguisitc perspectives (pp. 8-20). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Cenoz, J. (2009). Towards multilingual education: Basque Educational Research in International Perspective. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Cenoz, J., Hufeisen, B. & U. Jessner (2001). Third language acquisition in the school context. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, (special issue).

Chamot, A. U. (1994). A model for learning strategy instruction in the foreign language classroom. In J. E. Alatis (ed), Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics 1994, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, (pp. 323–336).

Chamot, A. U. (2001). The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition. In M. P. Breen (ed), Learner Contributions to Language Learning: New Directions in Research. Harlow: Longman.

Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and Teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 1(1): 14-26.

Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25(1): 112-130.

Chamot, A. U. & L. Küpper (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals 22: 13-24.

Chamot, A. U, O’Malley, J. M., Küpper, L. & M. V. Impink-Hernandez (1987). A Study of Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction: First Year Report. Rosslyn, VA: InterAmerica Research Associates.

Chamot, A. U. & J. M. O’Malley (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Chamot, A. U. & P. B. El-Dinary (1999). Children's learning strategies in immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Journal 83(3): 319-341.

Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B. & J. Robbins (1999). The Learning Strategies Handbook. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley, Longman.


Chang, S. J. (1990). A study of language learning behaviors of Chinese students at the University of Georgia and the relation of these behaviors to oral proficiency and other factors. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Chapelle, C. (1994). Are C-tests valid measures for L2 strategy research? Second Language Research 10(2): 157-187.

Chomsky, N. (1959). A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior. Language 35(1): 26-58.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press. Chou, Y. C. (2002). An exploratory study of language learning strategies and the

relationship of these strategies to motivation and language proficiency among EFL Taiwanese technological and vocational college students. Dissertation Abstracts International 63(07), 2481. (UMI No. 3058397).

Cline, T. & N. Frederickson (1996). Curriculum Related Assessment, Cummins and Bilingual Children. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Clyne, M. (1997). Some of the things trilinguals do. International Journal of Bilingualism 1: 95-116.

Clyne, M. (2003). Towards a more language-centred approach to plurilingualism. In J. -M. Dewaele, A. Housen & L. Wei (eds), Bilingualism: Beyond Principles. (pp. 43–55). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Cohen, A. D. (1996a). Verbal reports as a source of insights into second language learner strategies. Applied Language Learning 7(1 & 2): 5-24.

Cohen, A. D. (1996b). Second language learning and use strategies: Clarifying the issues. University of Minnesota, Center for advanced Research on Language Acquisition, Minneapolis, Revised Version.

Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.

Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S. J., & T-Y. Li (1996). The impact of strategies-based instruction on speaking a foreign language. Minneapolis: CARLA, University of Minnesota.

Cohen, A. D. & E. Macaro (2007). Language Learner Strategies: Thirty Years of Research and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & K. Morrison (2000). Research methods in education: 5th edition. London and New York: Routledge Falmer.

Cook, V. (1981). Second language acquisition from an interactionist perspective. International Studies Bulletin 6(1): 93-111.

Cook, V. (1991). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Edward Arnold.

Lydia Mitits 267

Cook, V. (1993). Wholistic multi-competence: jeu d’esprit or paradigm shift? In B. Kettemann & W. Wieden (eds), Current Issues in European Second Language Acquisition Research. (pp. 3–9). Tübingen: Narr.

Cook, V. (2002). Background to the L2 user. In Cook, V. (ed). Portraits of the L2 User. (pp. 1–28).Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cook, V. J. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence. Second Language Research 7(2): 103–117.

Cook, V. J. & V. Cook (2001). Second Language Learning and Teaching (3rd ed). London and New York: Arnold Publishers.

Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. IRAL 5(4): 161-170. Council of Europe (2001). The Common European framework of reference for languages:

Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe (2007). From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: guide for the

development of language education policies in Europe, Executive Version. Language Policy Division. Strasbourg.

Council of Europe (2009). Plurilingual and Pluricultural Competence. Language Policy Division. Strasbourg.

Council of Europe (2010). Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education. Language Policy Division. Strasbourg.

Creese, A. & A. Blackledge (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal 94, i,: 103-115.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

Cummins, J. (1991). Language learning and bilingualism. Sophia Linguistica 29: 1-194. Cummins, J. (2000). Putting language proficiency in its place: Responding to

critiques of the conversational/academic distinction. In Cenoz, J. & U. Jessner (eds), English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language. (pp. 54-83). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (2001). Instructional conditions for trilingual development. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4(1): 61-75.

Cummins, J. (2005). Teaching for cross-Language transfer in dual language education: Possibilities and pitfalls. TESOL Symposium on Dual Language Education: Teaching and learning two languages in the EFL setting, Bogazici University. Istanbul, Turkey.

Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (CJAL)/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée (RCLA) 10(2): 221-240.

Δαμανάκης Μ. (1997). H εκπαίδευση των παλιννοστούντων και αλλοδαπών μαθητών στην Eλλάδα. Eκδόσεις Gutenberg, Aθήνα.


Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: from Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik.

De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. De Angelis, G. & L. Selinker (2001). Interlanguage transfer and competing linguistic

systems in the multilingual mind. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (eds), Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. (pp. 42–58). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Demirel, M. (2009). The validity and reliability study of Turkish version of strategy inventory for language learners. World applied science journal 7(6): 708-714.

Dewaele, J-M. (1998). Lexical inventions: French interlanguage as L2 versus L3. Applied Linguistics 19: 471-490.

Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-Instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Dickinson, L. (1992). Learner Autonomy 2: Learner Training for Language Learning, Dublin: Authentik.

Dickinson, L. & A. Wenden (1995). Special issue on autonomy. System 23: 2. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. London: Longman. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates. Dörnyei, Z. (2006). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences

in Second Language Acquisition. Psychology 10(1). Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: OUP. Duckworth, K., Akerman, R., MacGregor, A., Salter E. & J. Vorhaus (2009). Self-

regulated learning-literature review. Research Brief DCSF-WBL-09-04. Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition.

Language Learning 24: 37-53. Dulay, H., Burt, M. & S. Krashen (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University

Press. Edelsky, C. (1986). Educational Linguistics. Review of Charlene Rivera (1984):

Language proficiency and academic achievement. Language in Society 15: 123–128.

Edelsky, C. (1990). With Literacy and Justice for All: Rethinking the Social in Language and Education. London: Falmer Press.

Ehrman, M. (1996). Understanding Second Language Difficulties. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ehrman M. & R. L. Oxford (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal 72, iii: 253-265.

Lydia Mitits 269

Ehrman, M. & R. L. Oxford (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal 74(3): 311-327.

Ehrman, M., Leaver, B. & R. L. Oxford (2003.) A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System 31: 313–330.

El-Dib, M. A. B. (2004). Language learning strategies in Kuwait: Links to gender, language level, and culture in a hybrid context. Foreign Language Annals 37: 85-95.

Ellis, G. & B. Sinclair (1989). Learning to Learn English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (1986). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11: 305–328.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ervin, S. & C. Osgood (1954). Second language learning and bilingualism. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology Supplement, 49: 139–146. Eslinger, C. E. (2000). A more responsive mind: a study of learning strategy

adaptation among culturally diverse ESL students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, Utah.

Eun-Young, J. &. R. T. Jiménez (2011). A Sociocultural Perspective on Second Language Learner Strategies: Focus on the Impact of Social Context. Theory into Practice 50(2): 141-148.

Faerch, C. & G. Kasper (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (eds), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. (pp. 20–60). London: Longman.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist 34: 906−911.

Flippo, R. F. & D. C. Caverly (2008). Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research. London: Routledge.

Gan, Z. (2004). Attitudes and strategies as predictors of self-directed language learning in an EFL context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14(3): 389-411.

García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In Mohanty, A., Panda, M., Phillipson, R. & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (eds), Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the local. (pp. 128-145). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan (former Orient Longman).


Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F. & A.-M. Masgoret (1997). Toward a full model of second language learning: An empirical investigation. Modern Language Journal 81: 344-362.

Gavriilidou, Z. & A. Psaltou-Joycey (2009). Language learning strategies: an overview. Journal of Applied Linguistics 25: 11-25.

Gavriilidou, Z. & A. Papanis (2010). A preliminary study of learning strategies in foreign language instruction: Students’ beliefs about strategy use. Advances in Research on Language Acquisition and Teaching: Selected Papers, GALA: 221-231.

Gavriilidou, Z. & A. Papanis (2010). The effect of strategy instruction on strategy use by Muslim pupils learning English as a second language. Journal of Applied Linguistics 25: 47-63.

Gavriilidou, Z. & L. Mitits (in press). Adaptation of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) for students aged 12-15 into Greek: a pilot study.

Genesee, F. (1998). A case study of multilingual education in Canada. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (eds), Beyond bilingualism: multilingualism and multilingual education. (pp. 243-258). Clevedon, Eng.: Multilingual Matters.

Genesee, F., Tucker, R. & W. Lambert (1975). Communication skills in bilingual children. Child Development 54: 105–114.

George, D. & P. Mallery (2005). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 12.0 update. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Georgoyannis, P. (2006). Greek as a second/foreign language. An intercultural approach [in Greek]. 9th International Conference on Intercultural Education, University of Patras.

Gkaintartzi, A. & R. Tsokalidou (2011). ‘She is a very good child but she doesn’t speak’: The invisibility of children's bilingualism and teacher ideology. Journal of Pragmatics 43(2): 588–601.

Gogonas, N. (2010). Bilingualism and Multiculturalism in Greek Education: Investigating Ethnic Language Maintenance among Pupils of Albanian and Egyptian Origin in Athens. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Govaris, C., Kaldi, S. & S. Lolakas (2010). Exploring the relationship between self esteem and school achievement of students with immigrant background and native students in the Greek primary school. In Govaris, C. & S. Kaldi (eds), The Educational Challenge of Cultural Diversity in the International Context. (pp. 91-208).

Green, J. M. & R. L. Oxford (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly 29(2): 261-297.

Grenfell, M. & V. Harris (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies: In theory and practice. London: Routledge.

Lydia Mitits 271

Grenfell, M. & V. Harris (2007). The strategy use of bilingual learners of a third language: a research agenda. In, 5th International Conference on Third Language Acquisition and Multilingualism, Stirling. Southampton, UK, 14:1-14.

Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System 31(3): 367-383. Griffiths, C. (2004). Language Learning Strategies: Theory and Research. Occasional

Paper No. 1. Griffiths, C. (2008). Teaching/learning method and good language learners. In

Griffiths, C. (ed), Lessons from good language learners. (pp. 255-297). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Griffiths, C. & J. M. Parr (2000). Language learning strategies, nationality, Independence and Proficiency. Independence 28: 7-10.

Griggs, P. (1997). Metalinguistic work and the development of language use in communicative pair work activities involving second language learners. In L. Dıaz & C. Perez (eds), Views on the Acquisition and Use of a Second Language. (pp. 403–16). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with Two Languages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Grosjean, F. (1985). The bilingual as a competent but specific speaker-hearer. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6: 467–477.

Grosjean, F. (1992). Another view of bilingualism. In Harris, R. (ed), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Gu, P. Y. (1996). Robin Hood in SLA: What has the learning strategy researcher taught us? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 6: 1-29.

Gu, Y. (2010). Advance review: A new book on Teaching and Researching Language learning Strategies. Unpublished review, Wellington University, N. Z.

Gunderson, D. & D. Johnson (1980). Building positive attitudes by using cooperative learning groups. Foreign Language Annals 13: 39-43.

Haastrup, K. (1997). On word processing and vocabulary learning. In W. Börner and K. Vogel (eds), Kognitive Linguistik und Fremdsprachenerwerb. (pp. 129–47). Tübingen: Narr.

Hakuta, K. (1990). Language and cognition in bilingual children, Bilingual education. In Padilla, A. M., Fairchild, H.H. & C. M. Valadez (eds), Issues and strategies in bilingual education. London/New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Hambleton, K. R. & L. Patsula (1998). Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures 1. Social Indicators Research 45: 153–171.

Hamers, J. F. & M. H. A. Blanc (1989). Bilinguality and Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J. & M. Swain (1990). The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Harlow, L. (1988). The effects of the yellow highlighter--Second-language learner strategies and their effectiveness: a research update. Canadian Modern Language Review 45: 91-102.

Harris, V. & M. Grenfell (2004). Language-learning Strategies: A Case for Cross-curricular Collaboration. Language Awareness 13(2): 116-130.

Haugen, E. (1956). Bilingualism in the Americas: A bibliography and research guide. Montgomery: University of Alabama Press.

Hawkins, E. (1999). Foreign language study and language awareness. Language Awareness 3 & 4: 124–42.

Herdina, P. & U. Jessner (2002). A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Hetmar, T. (1991). Tosprogede elever – en undervisning i udvikling, Danmarks Lærerhøjskole, København.

Hoffmann, C. (1991). An Introduction to Bilingualism. London: Longman. Hoffmann, C. (2000). The spread of English and the growth of multilingualism with

English in Europe. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (eds), English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language. (pp. 1–21). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Holec, H. (1980). Learner training: meeting needs in self-directed learning. In H. B. Altman & C. Vaughan James (eds), Foreign Language Learning: Meeting Individual Needs. (pp. 30-45). Oxford: Pergamon.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning, Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Hombitzer, E. (1971). Das Nebeneinander von Englisch und Französisch als Problem des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. In H. Christ (ed), Probleme der Korrektur und Bewertung schriftlicher Arbeiten im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Berlin: Cornelsen. (pp. 21–34).

Hong-Nam, K. (2006). Beliefs about language learning and language learning strategy use in an EFL context: a comparison study of monolingual Korean and bilingual Korean-Chinese university students. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of North Texas.

Hong-Nam, K. & A.G. Leavell (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English learning context. System 34(3): 399-415.

Hong-Nam, K. & A. G. Leavell (2007). A comparative study of language learning strategy use in an EFL context: Monolingual Korean and bilingual Korean- Chinese university students. Asia Pacific Education Review 18(1): 71-88.

Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language teaming. In A. L. Wenden & J. Robin (eds), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 119-132). London: Prentice Hall.

Lydia Mitits 273

Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System 27 (4): 557–576.

Hsiao, T.-Y. & R. L. Oxford (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. Modern Language Journal 86(3): 368–383

Hufeisen, B. (2000). How do foreign language learners evaluate various aspects of their multilingualism? In Dentler, Hufeisen & Lindemann (eds), Tertiär- und Drittsprachen. Projekte und empirische Untersuchungen. (pp. 23–39).

Hyltenstam, K., Brox, O., Engen, T. O. & A. Hvenekilde (1996). Tilpasset språkopplæring for minorítetselever Rapport fra konsensuskonferanse. Oslo: Norge Forskningsrεd.

Χατζησαββίδης, Σ. (2007). Οι Ρομ στην ιστορία της ανθρωπότητας και την Ελλάδα, Ετερότητα στη σχολική τάξη και διδασκαλία της ελληνικής γλώσσας και των μαθηματικών: η περίπτωση των Τσιγγανοπαίδων. Βόλος. (pp. 39-63).

International Test Commission (2010). International test commission guidelines for translating and adapting tests. Retrieved from [http://www.intestcom.org]

Jacob, E. & B. Mattson (1987) Using Cooperative Learning with Language Minority Students: a Report from the Field. Washington, DC: Center for Language Education and Research, Center for Applied Linguistics.

James, C. (1992). Awareness, consciousness and language contrast. In C. Mair & M. Markus (eds). New Departures in Contrastive Linguistics Vol. 2. (pp. 183–198). Innsbruck: Institut für Anglistik.

James, C. (1996). A cross-linguistic approach to language awareness. Language Awareness 5(3 & 4): 138–48.

James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Learning and Use. London: Longman. Jang, E. (2008). The genesis of second language learner strategies: Sociocultural

influences on the strategy development of new Korean immigrant adolescents (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.

Jespersen, O. (1922). Language. London: Allen and Unwin. Jessner, U. (1995). How beneficial is bilingualism? Cognitive aspects of bilingual

proficiency. In K. Sornig, D. Halwachs, C. Penzinger & G. Ambrosch (eds), Linguistics With a Human Face: (pp. 173–182). Graz: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.

Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals: Cognitive aspects of third language acquisition. Language Awareness 8: 201-209.

Jessner, U. (2003). On the nature of crosslinguistic interaction in multilinguals. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (eds), The Multilingual Lexicon. (pp. 45–55). Dordrecht: Kluwer.


Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Jessner, U. (2008a). A DST model of multilingualism and the role of metalinguistic awareness. The Modern Language Journal 92(2): 270-283.

Jessner, U. (2008b). Teaching third languages: Findings, trends and challenges. Language Teaching 41:1.

Johnson, R. (1990). International English: towards an acceptable, teachable target variety. World Englishes 9(3): 301–15.

Jørgensen, N. & P. Quist (2007). Bilingual children in monolingual schools. In: P. Auer & L. Wei (eds), Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. (pp. 155-173). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kambakis-Vougiouklis, P. (1990). Lexical decomposition as a strategy for guessing unknown words: users' competence and confidence. Eric Document Reproduction Service No.ED. 328 096. 1990.

Kambakis-Vougiouklis, P. (1992a). Greek and English readers' accuracy and confidence when inferencing meanings of unknown words. Proceedings, 6th International Symposium on the Description and/or Comparison of English and Greek. 89-112.

Kambakis-Vougiouklis, P. (1992b). Accuracy and confidence of Greek learners guessing English word meaning. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Wales. Καμπάκη-Βουγιουκλή, Π. (1995). Γλωσσικό γκέτο;. Πρακτικά 7ου Πανελλήνιου Συνέδριου “Παιδιά Σε Νέες Πατρίδες”, Αλεξανδρούπολη, (pp. 38-49).

Καμπάκη-Βουγιουκλή, Π. (2001). Γλωσσική αποκατάσταση παιδιών επαναπατριζομένων από την πρώην ΕΣΣΔ: μια ψυχογλωσσική προσέγγιση. PHASIS, ICPBMGS, Vol. 4, 71-81, LOGOS, Tbilisi, Georgia.

Καμπάκη-Βουγιουκλή, Π. (2002). Γλωσσική αποκατάσταση Ελληνοποντίων μαθητών: μια ψυχογλωσσική προσέγγιση. Η διδασκαλία της γλώσσας και των μαθηματικών: Εκπαίδευση γλωσσικών μειονοτήτων. Παρατηρητής, Θεσσαλονίκη, (pp. 518-526).

Καμπάκη-Βουγιουκλή, Π. (2009). Γλώσσα και μαθηματικά πρότυπα. Εκδόσεις Κυριακίδη, Θεσσαλονίκη.

Kambakis-Vougiouklis, P. (2012). SILL revisited: Confidence in strategy effectiveness and use of the bar in data collecting and processing. In Z. Gavriilidou, A. Efthymiou, E. Thomadaki & P. Kambakis-Vougiouklis (eds), Selected papers of the 10th ICGL. (pp. 342-353). Komotini/Greece: Democritus University of Thrace.

Kambakis-Vougiouklis, P. & T. Vougiouklis (2008). Bar instead of a scale. Ratio Sociologica 3: 49-56.

Lydia Mitits 275

Kaylani, C. (1996). The influence of gender and motivation on EFL learning strategy use in Jordan. In R. L. Oxford (ed), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives. (pp. 75-88). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Kazamia, V. (2003). Language learning strategies of Greek adult learners of English: Volumes I and II. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Departments of Linguistics and Phonetics, School of Education. The Language Centre. The University of Leeds.

Keatley, C., Chamot, A. U., Spokane, A. & S. Greenstreet (2004). Learning strategies of students of Arabic. The Language Resource 8(4). Retrieved from http://www.nclrc.org/nectfl04ls.pdf

Kecskes, I. & T. Papp (2000). Foreign Language and Mother Tongue. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kellerman, E. (1995). Crosslinguistic influence: transfer to nowhere? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15: 125–50.

Kellerman, E. & E. Bialystok (1997). On psychological plausibility in the study of communication strategies. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (eds), Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. (pp. 31–48). London: Longman.

Kemp, C. (2007). Strategic processing in grammar learning: Do multilinguals use more strategies? The International Journal of Multilingualism 4(4): 241-261.

Kemp, C. (2009). Defining multilingualism. In L. Aronin & B. Hufeisen (eds), The Exploration of Multilingualism: Development of research on L3, multilingualism and multiple language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B. V.

Klein, E. C. (1995). Second versus Third Language Acquisition: Is There a Difference? Language Learning 45(3): 419-465.

Kojima, H. & C. Yoshikawa (2004). Language learning strategy use by Japanese senior high school students. Retrieved on 22 August, 2009, from http://repository. ul.hirosaki-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/AN00211590-91: 85-95 pdf. Language learning strategies: An overview 21.

Kostic-Bobanovic, M. & M. Bobanovic (2011). A comparative study of language learning strategies used by monolingual and bilingual EFL learners. Metodicki obzori 13(6): 41-53.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Ku, P. Y. (1995). Strategies associated with proficiency and predictors of strategy choice: A study on language learning strategies of EFL students at three


education levels in Taiwan. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56 (08): 3030. (UMI No. 9544413).

Kupferberg, I. & E. Olshtain (1996). Explicit contrastive instruction facilitates the acquisition of difficult L2 forms. Language Awareness 5(3 & 4): 149–65.

Kylani, C. (1996). The influence of gender and motivation on EFL learning strategy use in Jordan. In R. L. Oxford (ed), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 75-88). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.

Lambert, W. (1977). The effects of bilingualism on the individual: cognitive and sociocultural consequences. In P. Hornby (ed), Bilingualism: Psychological, Social and Educational Implications. (pp. 15–28). New York: Academic Press.

Lan, R. & R. L. Oxford (2003). Language learning strategy profiles of elementary school students in Taiwan. IRAL 41(4): 339-379.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Second language acquisition research: staking out the territory, TESOL Quarterly 25(2): 315-350.

Lee, K. O. (2003). The relationship of school year, sex, and proficiency on the use of learning strategies in learning English of Korean junior high school students. Asian EFL Journal 5(3): 1-36.

Lee, K. R. & R. L. Oxford (2008). Understanding ESL learners’ strategy use and strategy awareness. Asian EFL Journal 10(1): 7-32.

Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory into Practice. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

Lightbown P. & N. Spada (1993). How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Little, D. (2013). Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning. Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies Good Practice Guide. Retrieved 10 February 2013, from http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2241.

Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy: an anatomy and a framework. System 24(4): 427-435.

LoCastro, V. (1994). Learning strategies and learning environments. TESOL Quarterly 28: 409–414.

LoCastro, V. (1995). The author responds. TESOL Quarterly 29: 172–174. Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass &

C.G. Madden (eds), Input In Second Language Acquisition. (pp. 377- 393).Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Macaro, E. (2001). Learning Strategies in second and foreign language classrooms. London: Continuum.

Lydia Mitits 277

Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for Language Learning and for Language Use: Revising the Theoretical Framework. The Modern Language Journal 90, iii: 320-337

MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Toward a social psychological model of strategy use. Foreign Language Annals 27: 185-195

MacIntyre, P. D. & K. A. Noels (1996). Using social-psychological variables to predict the use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals 29: 373–386.

Mackey, W. F. (1962). The description of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 7: 51–85.

Mackey, A. & S. M. Gass (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. New York: Routledge.

Magiste, E. (1984). Learning a third language. Journal of multilingual and multicultural development 5: 415-421

Malakoff, M. (1992). Translation skill and metalinguistic awareness in bilinguals. In R. Harris (ed), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals (pp. 515–530). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Manoli, P. (2013). Developing Reading Strategies in Elementary EFL Classrooms. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Thessaly, School of Humanities and Social sciences, Department of early childhood education.

Manoli, P. & M. Papadopoulou (2012). Reading strategies versus reading skills: Two faces of the same coin. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences Journal 46: 817-821.

Martin-Jones, M. & S. Romaine (1986). Semilingualism: A half-baked theory of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics 7: 26–38.

McCarthy, J. (1997). Towards a conceptual framework for implementing a cross‐curricular approach to language awareness in the school curriculum, Language Awareness 6(4): 208-220.

McDonough, J. & S. McDonough (1997). Research methods for English language teachers. New York: Arnold.

McDonough, S. (2012). Review: Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies. ELT Journal 66(2): 253-255.

McGroarty, M. (1987). Patterns of persistent second language learners: elementary Spanish. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Miami, FL.

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold. McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T. & B. McLeod (1983). Second language learning: an

information-processing perspective. Language Learning 33(2): 135–158. McLeod, S. A. (2007). Vygotsky - Simply Psychology. Retrieved from

http://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html McLeod, S. A. (2008). Bruner - Learning Theory in Education. Retrieved from

http://www.simplypsychology.org/bruner.html


McLeod, S. A. (2009). Jean Piaget Cognitive Theory - Simply Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html

Meißner, F.-J. & M. Reinfried (eds), (1998). Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik. Konzepte, Analysen, Lehrerfahrungen mit romanischen Fremdsprachen. Tübingen: Narr.

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. E. Linn (ed), Educational measurement (3rd ed). New York: Macmillan.

Michael, C. & M. Swain (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1): 1-47.

Mißler, B. (1999). Fremdsprachenlernerfahrungen und Lernstrategien. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

Mitits, L. (in press). Three languages, three school subjects, one thematic framework – a cross-curricular approach to language learning in Muslim minority schools. Cross-curricular Approaches to Language Education. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Mitits, L. & A. Sarafianou (2012). Development of language learning strategies in multilingual vs. monolingual learners: empirical evidence from a combined methods longitudinal case study. In Z. Gavriilidou, A. Efthymiou, E. Thomadaki & P. Kambakis-Vougiouklis (eds), Selected papers of the 10th ICGL, (pp. 453-462). Komotini/Greece: Democritus University of Thrace.

Mizumoto, A. (2013). Effects of self-regulated vocabulary learning process on self-efficacy. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 7(3): 253-265.

Mochizuki, A. (1999). Language learning strategies used by Japanese university students. RELC Journal 30(2): 101-113.

Moore, D. (2006). Plurilingualism and strategic competence in context. International Journal of Multilingualism 3(2): 125-138.

Mulac, A., Studley, L. B. & S. Blau (1990). The gender-linked language effect in primary and secondary students’ impromptu essays. Sex Roles 23(9 & 10): 439-469.

Mullins, P. Y. (1992). Successful English language learning strategies of students enrolled at the Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Dissertation Abstracts International 53(06), 1829. (UMI No. 9223758).

Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H.H., and A. Todesco (1978). The Good Language

Learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Nation, R. & B. McLaughlin (1986). Novices and experts: An information processing

approach to the “good language learner” problem. Applied Psycholinguistics 7: 41-56.

Lydia Mitits 279

Nayak, N., Hansen, N., Krueger, N. & B. McLaughlin (1990). Language-learning strategies in monolingual and multilingual adults. Language Learning 40: 221-244.

Nikolaou, G. (2000). Ένταξη και Εκπαίδευση των Αλλοδαπών Μαθητών στο ∆ηµοτικό Σχολείο Από την «οµοιογένεια» στην πολυπολιτισµικότητα. (Integration and education of foreign pupils in primary school. From ‘homogeneity’ to ‘multiculturalism’ Athens: Ellinika Grammata).

Nisbet, J. D. & J. Shucksmith (1986). Learning Strategies. London: Routledge. Norton, B. & K. Toohey (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners.

TESOL Quarterly 35(2): 307–322. Nunan, D. (1988). The Learner-Centered Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. New York: Phoenix. Nunan, D. (1997). Does learner strategy training make a difference? Lenguas

Modernas 24: 123-142. Nyikos, M. (1987). The effect of color and imagery as mnemonic strategies on

learning and retention of lexical items in German. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

Nyikos, M. (1990). Sex-related differences in adult language learning: Socialisation and memory factors. Modern Language Journal 74(3): 273-287.

Nyikos, M. & R. L. Oxford (1993). A factor Analytic Study of Language - Learning Strategy Use: Interpretations from Information-Processing Theory and Social Psychology. The Modern Language Journal 77: 11-22.

O’Brien, T., & McEldowney, P. (2000). Course design and Evaluation. Volume 2 (units 4-6). Patras: Hellenic Open University.

Oh, J. (1992). Learning strategies used by university EFL students in Korea. Language Teaching 1: 3–53.

Olivares-Cuhat, G. (2002). Learning strategies and achievement in the Spanish writing classroom: a case study. Foreign Language Annals 35(5): 561–570.

‘O Laoire, M. (2001). Balanced bilingual and L1-dominant learners of L3 in Ireland. in J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (eds), Looking Beyond Second Language Acquisition: Studies in Third Language Acquisition and Trilingualism. (pp. 153 -60). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

‘O Laoire, M. (2004). From L2 to L3/L4: A study of learners’ metalinguistic awareness after 13 years’ study of Irish. CLCS Occasional Paper No. 65, Autumn.

O’Malley, J. M. (1987). The effects of training in the use of learning strategies on learning English as a second language. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (eds), Learner Strategies in Language Learning. (pp. 133-143). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Anita.


O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P. & L. Küpper (1985a). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly 19: 3.

O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Küpper, L. & R. P. Russo (1985b). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning 35(1): 21-46.

O’Malley, J. M. & A. U. Chamot (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: a synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System 17(2): 235-247.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House / Harper & Row. Now Boston: Heinle & Heine.

Oxford, R. L. (1993). Instructional implications of gender difference in language learning styles and strategies. Applied Language Learning 4: 65-94.

Oxford, R. L. (1994). Language Learning Strategies: An Update, University of Alabama Resources. Online Resources: Digests.

Oxford, R. L. (1996). Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language learning strategies. Applied Language Learning 7(1 & 2): 25-45.

Oxford, R. L. (1999). Relationships between second language learning strategies and language proficiency in the context of learner autonomy and self-regulation. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 38: 108-126.

Oxford, R. L. (2011a). Strategies for learning a second or foreign language. Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press 44(2): 167–180.

Oxford, R. L. (2011b). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Oxford, R. L., Nyikos, M. & M. Ehrman (1988). Vive la Différence? Reflections on Sex Differences in Use of Language Learning Strategies. Foreign Language Annals 21: 321–329.

Oxford, R. L. & D. Crookall (1989). Research on language learning strategies: Methods, findings, and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal 73: 404-419.

Oxford, R. L. & M. Nyikos (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal 73(3): 291- 300.

Oxford, R. L., Lavine, R. Z. & D. Crookall (1989). Language learning strategies, the communicative approach and their classroom implications. Foreign Language Annals 22(1): 29-39.

Oxford, R. L., Park-Oh, Y., Ito, S. & M. Sumrall (1993). Japanese by satellite: Effects of motivation, language learning styles and strategies, gender, course level, and

Lydia Mitits 281

previous language learning experiences on Japanese language achievement. Foreign Language Annals 26: 359-371.

Oxford, R. L. & J. Burry-Stock (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). System 25(1): 1-23.

Oxford, R. L. & M. E. Ehrman (1995). Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System 23(3): 359-386.

Oxford, R. L. & B. L. Leaver (1996). A synthesis of strategy instruction for language learners. In R. L. Oxford (ed), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 227-246). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Oxford, R. L., Cho, Y., Leung, S. & H-J. Kim (2004). Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. International Review of Applied Linguistics 42: 1-47.

Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., Kappler, B., Chi, J. C. & J. P. Lassegard (2002). Maximizing Study Abroad: a Student’s Guide to Strategies for Language and Culture Learning and Use. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.

Paleologou, N. & O. Evangelou (2003). ∆ιαπολιτισµική Παιδαγωγική: Εκπαιδευτικές, ∆ιδακτικές και Ψυχολογικές Προσεγγίσεις. [Intercultural pedagogy. Educational, teaching and psychological approaches.] Athens: Atropos.

Papanis, A. (2008). Stratigikes ekmathisis ton Mousoulmanopaidon tis Thrakis pou mathenoun tin angliki os kseni glossa [Learning strategies of Muslim children in Thrace learning English as a foreign language]. Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of Education of sciences in pre-school Ages, Democritus University of Thrace.

Park, G. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean University students. Foreign Language Annals 30(2): 211-221.

Park, G. (2011). The validation process of the SILL: a confirmatory factor analysis. English Language Teaching 4(4): 21-27.

Paulston, C. B. (1982). Swedish Research and Debate about Bilingualism. Stockholm: Swedish National Board of Education.

Peacock, M. & B. Ho (2003). Student language learning strategies across eight disciplines. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 13(2): 179-200.

Peal, E. & W. Lambert (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs 76: 1-23.

Pedersen, B. R. & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (1983). God, bedre, dansk? – om indvandrerborns integration i Danmark. Kobenhavn: Forlaget Born and Unge.

Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language Learning 53(4): 649-702.


Phillips, V. (1991). A look at learner strategy use and ESL proficiency. CATESOL Journal: 57-67.

Piaget, J. (1954). Construction of reality in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T. & W. McKeachie (1991). A manual for the use of the

motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). National Center for Research to Improve Post secondary Teaching and Learning. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Politzer, R. (1983). An Exploratory Study of Self-reported Language Learning Behaviors and Their Relation to Achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6: 54-65.

Politzer, R. & M. McGroarty (1985). An explanatory study of learning behaviors and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly 19(1): 103-124.

Poulisse, N. & T. Bongaerts (1994). First language use in second language production. Applied Linguistics 15: 36-57.

Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T. & E. Kellerman (1987). The use of retrospective verbal reports in the analysis of compensatory strategies. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (eds), Introspection in Second Language Research. (pp. 213-29). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Psaltou-Joycey, A. (2003). Strategy use by Greek university students of English. In E. Mela-Athanasopoulou (ed), Selected Papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics of the 13th International Symposium of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. (pp. 591-601).

Psaltou-Joycey, A. (2008). Cross-cultural differences in the use of learning strategies by students of Greek as a second language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 29(3): 310-324.

Psaltou-Joycey, A. (2010). Language Learning Strategies in the Foreign Language Classroom. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.

Psaltou-Joycey, A. & Z. Kantaridou (2009a). Plurilingualism, language learning strategy use and learning style preferences. International Journal of Multilingualism 6(4): 460-474.

Psaltou-Joycey, A. & Z. Kantaridou (2009b). Foreign language learning strategy profiles of university students in Greece. Journal of Applied Linguistics 25: 107-127.

Psaltou-Joycey, A. & Z. Kantaridou (2011) Major, minor, and negative learning style preferences of university students. System 39: 103-112.

Psaltou-Joycey, A. & A-M. Sougari (2010). Greek young learners’ perceptions about foreign language learning and teaching. In A. Psaltou-Joycey & M. Matthaioudakis (eds), Advances in research on language acquisition and teaching:

Lydia Mitits 283

Selected Papers (pp. 387-401). Thessaloniki: Greek Applied Linguistics Association.

Purdie, N. & R. Oliver (1999). Language learning strategies used by bilingual school-aged children. System 27: 375-388.

Payne, T. E. (1997). Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rahman, A., Iqbal, Z., Waheed, W. & N. Hussain (2003). Translation and cultural adaptation of health questionnaires. Journal of Pakistan Medical Association, Retrived on March 8, 2012 from http://www.jpma.org.pk/

Ramirez, A. (1986). Language learning strategies used by adolescents studying French in New York schools. Foreign Language Annals 19: 131-141.

Rampton, B., Collins, J., Harris, R., Leung, C., Tremlett, Annabel, Lytra, V. & A. Lefstein (2003). Language and the construction of identities in contemporary Europe: notes towards a research programme. Working Paper. King's College London, London.

Ramsay, R. M. G. (1980). Language-learning approach styles of adult multilinguals and successful language learners. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 75: 73-96.

Rao, Z. (2006). Understanding Chinese students’ use of language learning strategies from cultural and education perspectives. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 27(6): 491-508.

Reese-Miller, J. (1993). A critical appraisal of learner training: Theoretical bases and teaching implications. TESOL Quarterly 27(4): 679-689.

Reese-Miller, J. (1994). The author responds. TESOL Quarterly 28(4): 776-781. Reich, H. H. & H-J. Roth in cooperation with O. Dirim, J. N. JOrgensen, Gundula List,

Gόnther List, U. Neumann, G. Siebert-Ott, U. Steinmόller, F. Teunissen, T. Vallen, V. Wunig. (2002). Spracherwerb zweisprachig aufwachsender Kinder und Jugendlicher. Hamburg: Behorde fόr Bildung und Sport.

Reid, E. & H. H. Reich (1992). Breaking the Boundaries. Migrant Workers’ Children in the EC. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Reid, J. M (1987). Learning Style Preferences ESL Learners. TESOL Quarterly 21(1): 87-111.

Reid, J. M. (1995). Understanding Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Reiss, M. A. (1985). The good language learner: Another look. The Canadian Modern Language Review 41: 511−523.

Reynolds, A. (1991). The cognitive consequences of bilingualism. In A. Reynolds (ed), Bilingualism, Multiculturalism, and Second Language Learning. (pp. 145–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


Ricciardelli, L. (1992). Bilingualism and cognitive development in relation to Threshold Theory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 21: 56–67.

Rigney, J. W. (1978). Learning strategies: A theoretical perspective. In H. F. O’Neil (Jr) (ed), (pp. 165-205).

Ringbom, H. (2007). Cross-linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Rivers, W. P. (2001). Autonomy at all costs: An ethnography of metacognitive self-assessment and self-management among experienced language learners. Modern Language Journal 85: 279-290.

Robbins, J. & E. S. Dadour (1996). University-level strategy instruction to improve speaking ability in Egypt and Japan. In R. L. Oxford (ed), Language Learning Strategies around the World: Cross-cultural perspectives. Manoa: University of Hawaii.

Robson, G. & H. Midorikawa (2001). How reliable and valid is the Japanese version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)? JALT Journal 23: 202-226

Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications and theory. London: Constable.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the "Good Language Learner" Can Teach Us. TESOL Quarterly 9(1): 41-51.

Rubin, J. (2001). Language learner self-management. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 11(1): 25-27.

Rubin, J. & I. Thompson (1994 [1982]). How to Be a More Successful Language Learner. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Safont Jordà, M. P. (2005). Third Language Learners: Pragmatic Production and Awareness. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Sampson, G. (2005). The 'Language Instinct' Debate: Revised Edition. Continuum. Sanders, M. & G. Meijers (1995). English as L3 in the elementary school. ITL Review of

Applied Linguistics 10(7 & 8): 59-78. Sanz, C. (2000). Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence

from Catalonia. Applied Psycholinguistics 27: 23-44. Sarafianou, A. (2013). Language learning strategies: the effect of explicit and

integrated strategy instruction within the framework of an intervention program on Greek upper secondary school EFL students. Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of Greek Language, Democritus University of Thrace.

Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP. Scarcella, R.C. & R. L. Oxford (1992). The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual

in the Communicative Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Schmeck, R. R. (1988). Learning strategies and learning styles. New York: Plenum Press.

Lydia Mitits 285

Schmid, S. (1993). Learning strategies for closely related languages: on the Italian spoken by Spanish immigrants in Switzerland. In B. Kettemann & W. Wieden (eds), Current Issues in European Second Acquisition Research. (pp. 405–19). Tübingen: Narr.

Schmid, S. (1995). Multilingualer Fremdsprachenunterricht: Ein didaktischer Versuch mit Lernstrategien. Multilingua 15: 55-90.

Schmidt, R. & Y. Watanabe (2001). Motivation, strategy use, and pedagogical preferences in foreign language learning. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (eds), Motivation and second language acquisition. (pp. 313-359). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Schmidt, R., Boraie, D. & O. Kassabgy (1996). Foreign language motivation: Internal structure and external connections. In R. Oxford (ed), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp. 9-70). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Schunk, D. H. & P. A. Ertmer (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (eds), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631-649). San Diego: Academic Press.

Schweers, W. (1996). Metalinguistic Awareness and Language Transfer: One Thing Leads to Another. Paper presented at the Conference of the Association of Language Awareness in Dublin, July.

Scribner, S. & M. Cole (1981). The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge MAQ Harvard University Press.

Sella-Mazi, E. (1997). Diglossia kai Oligotero Omiloumenes Glosses stin Ellada [Bilingualism and Lesser Spoken Languages in Greece]. In: Tsitselikis, Κ. & D. Hristopulos (eds), Το Μειονοτικό Φαινόμενο στην Ελλάδα. Μια Συμβολή τον Κοινωνικών Επιστήμον [The Minority phenomenon in Greece. A Social Scientific Approach] Athens, Kritiki (pp. 349-413).

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209-241.

Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage. London: Longman. Shabani, M. B. & S. N. Sarem (2009). The study of learning strategies used by

male/female monolingual and bilingual speakers as EFL learners. ELT Weekly 15 Retrieved from http://eltweekly.com/ELT_Research_Paper_1.pdf

Sharwood Smith, M. (1983). Crosslinguistic aspects of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 4: 192-199.

Shen, H-J. (2003). The role of explicit instruction in ESL/EFL reading. Foreign Language Annals 36(3): 424-433.

Sheorey, R. (1999). An examination of language learning strategy use in the setting of an indigenized variety of English. System 27(1): 173-190.


Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. London and New York: Edward Arnold.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group. Skourtou, E. (2002). ∆ίγλωσσοι Μαθητές στο ελληνικό σχολείο, (Bilingual pupils in

the Greek school. In Damanakis, M. (ed), Epistimes Agogis , special issue on: Intercultural education in Greece. Practical matters and theoretical questions (pp. 11-20).

Skourtou, E. (2008). Linguistic diversity and language learning and teaching: an example from Greece. Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis XLV, 1: 175-194

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981). Bilingualism or Not: The Education of Minorities. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Smeets, R. (2005). Multilingualism for cultural diversity and participation for all in cyberspace. Presentation. UNESCO Activities for the Safeguarding of Endangered Languages. Retrieved from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/159880410/11170987131Rieks-Smeets

Spöttl, C. (2001). Expanding students’ mental lexicons: a multilingual student perspective. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner (eds), Looking Beyond Second Language Acquisition: Studies in Third Language Acquisition and Trilingualism. (pp. 161-75). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

Stern, H. H. (1975). What Can We Learn from the Good Language Learner? Canadian Modern Language Review 31(4): 304-318.

Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching: Historical and Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Applied Linguistic Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching (edited posthumously by Patrick Allen & Birgit Harley). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sung, K.-Y. (2011). Factors Influencing Chinese Language Learners' Strategy Use. International journal of multilingualism 8(2): 117-134.

Sutter, W. (1989). Strategies and styles. Aalborg, Denmark: Danish Refugee Council. Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Rowen, N. & D. Hart (1990). The role of mother tongue literacy

in third language learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum 3: 65-81. Takeuchi, O. (2003). What can we learn from good language learners: A qualitative

study in the Japanese foreign language context. System 31: 385–392. Takeuchi, O. & N. Wakamoto (2001). Language learning strategies used by Japanese

college learners of English: A synthesis of four empirical studies. Language Education & Technology 38: 21-43.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand. New York: Ballentine.

Lydia Mitits 287

Tang, H. N. & D. W. Moore (1992). Effects of cognitive and metacognitive pre-reading activities on the reading comprehension of ESL learners. Educational Psychology 12(3 & 4): 315-331.

Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning 30(2): 417-429.

Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL Quarterly 15(3): 285-295.

Tarone, E. (1983). Some thoughts on the notion of "communication strategy." In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (eds), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 61-74). London: Longman.

Tercanlioglu, L. (2004). Exploring gender effect on adult foreign language learning strategies. Issues In Educational Research 14(2): 181-193.

Thomas, J. (1988). The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third language learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9: 235-246.

Titone, R. (1994). Bilingual education and the development of metalinguistic abilities: A research project. International Journal of Psycholinguistics 10(1): 5–14.

Tragant, E. & M. Victori (2006). Reported strategy use and age. In Munoz, C. (ed), Age and the rate of foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Tran, T. V. (1988). Sex differences in English language acculturation and learning strategies among Vietnamese adults age 40 and over in the United States. Sex Roles 19: 747-758.

Tressou, Ε. & S. Mitakidou (2003). Education of Linguistic Minorities: Educators talk to educators about their experiences. (pp. 35-45). Thessaloniki, Paratiritis.

Triandafyllidou, A. (2002). Negotiating Nationhood in a Changing Europe – Views from the Press, Ceredigion, Wales and Washington D.C.: Edwin Mellen Press.

Triandafyllidou, A. & M. Veikou (2002). The hierarchy of Greekness. Ethnic and national identity considerations in Greek immigration policy. SAGE Publications. London (pp. 189-208).

Trudgill, P. (2001). The Ausbau sociolinguistics of Greek as a minority and majority language. In A. Georgakopoulou & M. Spanaki (eds), A Reader in Greek Sociolinguistics (pp. 23-40). Bern: Peter Lang.

Tseng, W-T, Dörnyei, Z. & N. Schmitt (2006). A New Approach to Assessing Strategic Learning: The Case of Self-Regulation in Vocabulary Acquisition. Applied Linguistics 27: 1.

Tseng, W-T. & N. Schmitt (2008). Towards a self-regulating model of vocabulary learning: A structural equation modeling approach. Language Learning 58: 2.

Tsokalidou, R. (2005). Raising Bilingual Awareness in Greek Primary Schools. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 8(1): 2-13.


Tuncer, U. (2009). How do monolingual and bilingual language learners differ in use of learning strategies while learning a foreign language? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1: 852–856.

Turner, S. M., DeMers S. T., Fox, H. R. & G. M. Reed (2001). APA’s guidelines for test user qualifications: An executive summary. American Psychologist 56(12): 1099-1113.

Tyacke, M. & D. Mendelsohn (1986). Student Needs: Cognitive as Well as Communicative. TESL Canada Journal Special Issue 1: 171-83.

Tzanelli, R. (2006). ‘Not My Flag!’ Citizenship and nationhood in the margins of Europe (Greece, October 2000/2003). Ethnic and Racial Studies 29(1): 27-49 UNICEF (2001) Discrimination – Racism - Xenophobia in the Greek educational system http://www.unicef.gr/reports/racism.php

Tzitzilis, C. (2006). Romani or Armenian Loans? A Case of Contact Ambiguity. Linguistique Balkanique XLV, 2: 279- 289.

Usuki, M. (2000). A new understanding of Japanese students views on classroom learning. Independence 27: 2-6.

Χατζηδάκη, Α. (2005). Μοντέλα διγλωσσικής συμπεριφοράς σε οικογένειες Αλβανών μαθητών: δεδομένα από εμπειρική έρευνα. Στο Α. Χατζηδάκη (επιμ.) Δίγλωσσοι μαθητές στα ελληνικά σχολεία: διδακτικές παρεμβάσεις και θεωρητικά ζητήματα (Θεματικό τεύχος για το 2005 του περιοδικού Επιστήμες Αγωγής (πρώην Σχολείο και Ζωή) (pp. 79-102).

Van de Vijver, F. J. R. & N. K. Tanzer (1997). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment. An overview. European Review of Applied Psychology 47(4): 263-280.

Van de Vijver, F. J. R. & K. Leung (1997a). Methods and data analysis of comparative research. In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortinga, & J. Pandey, (eds), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed., 1, pp. 257-300). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Van de Vijver, F. J. R. & K. Leung (1997b). Methods and data analysis for crosscultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Vance, S. J. (1999). Language learning strategies: Is there a best way to teach them? Unpublished manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 438-716; FL 026-146).

Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) Listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals 30(3): 387-409.

Vann, R. G. & R. J. Abraham (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language Learners. TESOL Quarterly 24(2): 177–198.

Vildomec, V. (1963). Multilingualism. Netherlands: A. W. Sythoff-Leyden. Vogel, T. (1992). English und Deutsch gibt es immer Krieg.

Sprachverarbeitungsprozesse beim Erwerb des Deutschen als Drittsprache. Zielsprache Deutsch 23(2): 95-99.

Lydia Mitits 289

Vrettou, A. (2009). Language learning strategy employment of EFL Greek-speaking learners in junior high school. Journal of Applied Linguistics 25: 85-106.

Vrettou, A. (2011). Patterns of language learning strategy use by Greek-speaking young Learners of English. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wagner, D. A., Spratt J. E. & A. Ezzaki (1989). Does learning to read in a second

language always put the child at a disadvantage? Some counterevidence from Morocco. Applied Psycholinguistics 10: 31-48.

Watanabe, Y. (1990). External variables affecting language learning strategies of Japanese EFL learners: Effects of entrance examination, years spent at college/university, and staying overseas. Unpublished master’s thesis. Lancaster University. Lancaster, U.K.

Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton. Weinstein, C. E. & R. E. Mayer (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C.

Wittrock (ed), Handbook of Research on Teaching. (pp. 315-327). London: Macmillan.

Wenden, A. (1986). What do Second-Language Learners Know about their Language Learning? A Second Look at Retrospective Accounts. Applied Linguistics 7(2): 186-205.

Wenden, A. (1987). Conceptual background and utility. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (eds), Learner Strategies in Language Learning. (pp. 3-12). London:Prentice Hall.

Wenden, A. (1991). Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. London: Prentice Hall International.

Wenden, A. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics 19(4): 515–537.

Wenden, A. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning. System 27: 435–441.

Wenden, A. & J. Rubin (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning 50(2): 203-244.

Wiley, T. G. (1996). Literacy and Language Diversity in the United States. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Williams, S. & B. Hammarberg (1998). Language Switches in L3 Production: Implications for a Polyglot. Applied Linguistics 19(3): 295-333.


Willing, K. (1988). Learning styles in adult migrant education. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.

Willing, K. (1989). Teaching How to Learn: Learning Strategies in ESL. Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.

Wong Fillmore, L. (1979). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In C. Fillmore, D. Kempler & W. Wang (eds), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 203–228). New York: Academic Press.

Wong Fillmore, L. & M. Swain (1984). Child second language development: Views from the field on theory and research. Paper presented at the TESOL Convention on Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages at Houston University, Texas (pp. 21-23).

Yamamori, K., Isoda, T., Hiromori, T. & R. L. Oxford (2003). Using cluster analysis to uncover L2 learner differences in strategy use, will to learn, and achievement over time. IRAL 41: 381–409.

Yang, N-D. (1992). Data on students in an intensive EFL program in Taipei. Unpublished manuscript. National Taiwan University.

Yang, N-D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners beliefs and learning strategy use. System 27: 515-535.

Yang, M-N. (2007). Language learning strategies for junior college students in Taiwan: Investigating ethnicity and proficiency. Asian EFL Journal 9(2): 35-57.

Yelland, G., Pollard, J. & A. Mercuri (1993). The metalinguistic benefits of limited contact with a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics 14(1): 423–44.

Zapp, F.-J. (1983). Sprachbetrachtung im lexikalisch-semantischen Bereich: eine Hilfe beim Zweit- und Drittspracherwerb. Der fremdsprachliche Unterricht 17: 193–9.

Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory into practice 41(2): 64-71.

Zobl, H. (1992). Grammaticality intuitions of unilingual and multilingual nonprimary language learners. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (eds), Language transfer in language learning (rev. ed., pp. 176-172). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Lydia Mitits 291

Index

´

Ó Laoire · 112, 146, 148, 255, 263, 279

A

Abraham · 47, 140, 192, 263, 288 Akerman · 46, 268 Alexander · 51, 263 Ambridge · 30, 263 Anderson · 38, 39, 60, 67, 72, 83, 243, 263 Aronin · 20, 112, 263, 275 Ayaduray · 100, 252, 263

B

Bachman · 117, 263 Baker · 111, 114, 116, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 126,

129, 141, 142, 263 Balke-Aurell · 132 Barnhardt · 42, 265 Beaton · 180, 182, 183, 184, 192, 264 Bejarano · 99, 264 Benson · 44, 45, 264 Bialystok · 19, 36, 41, 54, 57, 58, 59, 66, 75, 96, 104,

124, 135, 140, 242, 264, 275 Bild · 131, 264 Blackledge · 148, 267 Blanc · 112, 119, 122, 271 Blau · 240, 278 Bobanovic · 139, 235, 275 Boekaerts · 46, 285 Bongaerts · 135, 282 Boraie · 85, 285 Braun · 146, 264 Briggs · 14, 89 Brown · 32, 42, 64, 264 Bruen · 83, 243, 264 Bruner · 28, 29, 30, 265, 277 Burry-Stock · 19, 68, 70, 72, 281 Burt · 31, 41, 268 Butler · 43, 265

C

Canale · 36, 117, 265 Caverly · 51, 269 Cenoz · 20, 105, 131, 133, 265, 267, 268, 270, 272, 273,

279, 286 Chamot · 19, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59,

60, 62, 63, 66, 67, 72, 75, 78, 83, 91, 93, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 103, 191, 232, 242, 243, 250, 252, 253, 265, 275, 280

Chang · 91, 250, 266 Chi · 43, 71, 139, 281 Chomsky · 30, 31, 33, 266 Cline · 145, 266 Clyne · 133, 146, 255, 266 Cohen · 43, 45, 51, 56, 58, 64, 65, 66, 67, 71, 100, 101,

139, 165, 239, 243, 252, 253, 266, 281 Cook · 33, 42, 100, 111, 117, 122, 252, 266, 267 Corder · 35 Creese · 148, 267 Crookall · 55, 57, 63, 69, 72, 75, 241, 280 Cummins · 37, 119, 124, 128, 129, 144, 146, 147, 255,

266, 267, 271

D

Dadour · 100, 252, 284 Dam · 44, 268 Damanakis · 149, 151, 286 De Angelis · 20, 105, 111, 115, 130, 133, 134, 177, 250,

268 Demirel · 191, 268 Dewaele · 105, 266, 268 Dickinson · 44, 45, 47, 268 Dörnyei · 43, 47, 67, 71, 85, 87, 88, 89, 102, 244, 260,

268, 285, 287 Duckworth · 46, 268 Dulay · 31, 41, 268

E

Edelsky · 129, 268 Ehrman · 19, 43, 47, 77, 85, 89, 97, 99, 191, 240, 244,

268, 269, 280, 281 El-Dib · 78, 240, 269 El-Dinary · 42, 83, 243, 265


Ellis · 34, 35, 39, 41, 43, 54, 62, 64, 75, 96, 239, 269 Ertmer · 46, 285 Ervin · 126, 269 Eslinger · 101, 269 Eun-Young · 93, 94, 269 Evangelou · 152, 281

F

Faerch · 135, 269, 282, 287 Fillmore · 290 Flavell · 43, 269 Flippo · 51, 269 Frederickson · 145, 266 Fröhlich · 40, 41, 278

G

Garcia · 148, 255, 282 Gass · 260, 276, 277, 290 Gavriilidou · 19, 24, 43, 69, 75, 78, 101, 176, 178, 241,

253, 260, 270, 274, 278 Genesee · 125, 131, 270 George · 200 Georgoyannis · 151, 270 Gkaintartzi · 151, 270 Gogonas · 149, 150, 152, 270 Green · 71, 77, 79, 80, 83, 94, 231, 240, 243, 250, 270 Greenstreet · 95, 250, 275 Grenfell · 20, 101, 147, 253, 255, 270, 271, 272 Griffiths · 40, 42, 43, 51, 53, 62, 63, 65, 78, 90, 92, 99,

102, 250, 271 Griggs · 135, 271 Grosjean · 111, 120, 121, 271 Gu · 50, 101, 271

H

Haastrup · 148, 271 Hambleton · 179, 271 Hamers · 112, 119, 122, 271 Hammarberg · 133, 289 Harley · 121, 271, 286 Harlow · 71, 264, 265, 272, 280 Harris · 20, 101, 147, 253, 255, 270, 271, 272, 277 Haugen · 110 Hawkins · 146, 254, 272 Herdina · 20, 109, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123,

128, 130, 133, 135, 272 Hetmar · 145, 272

Hinkel · 51, 263 Ho · 98, 281 Hoffmann · 128, 141, 263, 272 Holec · 19, 44, 45, 272 Hombitzer · 146, 272 Hong-Nam · 20, 58, 83, 137, 235, 243, 247, 272 Horwitz · 87, 273 Hsiao · 67, 273 Hufeisen · 20, 130, 133, 263, 265, 268, 273, 275, 279,

286 Hyltenstam · 145, 273

I

Impink-Hernandez · 75, 265 Ito · 77, 280

J

Jacob · 99, 273 Jacobs · 100, 252, 263 James · 128, 146, 147, 254, 272, 273 Jespersen · 122, 273 Jessner · 19, 20, 105, 109, 110, 111, 114, 116, 117, 118,

120, 121, 122, 123, 128, 130, 133, 135, 140, 146, 147, 149, 237, 254, 256, 265, 267, 268, 272, 273, 274, 279, 286

Jiménez · 93, 94, 269 Johnson · 99, 140, 271, 274 Jorgensen · 143, 144

K

Kambakis Vougiouklis · 24, 88 Kantaridou · 19, 79, 82, 86, 90, 98, 106, 231, 234, 243,

244, 247, 282 Kappler · 43, 281 Kasper · 135, 269, 275, 282, 287 Kassabgy · 85, 285 Kaylani · 77, 240, 275 Kazamia · 19, 83, 178, 186, 231, 234, 243, 247, 275 Keatley · 95, 250, 275 Kellerman · 135, 146, 275, 282 Kemp · 106, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 237, 250, 275 Klein · 104, 236, 275 Kostic-Bobanovic · 139, 235, 275 Krashen · 31, 32, 33, 41, 232, 268, 275 Kskes · 124 Kupferberg · 147, 255, 276 Küpper · 19, 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 72, 75, 265, 280

Lydia Mitits 293

L

Lambert · 119, 122, 125, 127, 270, 276, 281 Lan · 231, 276 Larsen-Freeman · 100, 252, 276 Lassegard · 43, 281 Leavell · 20, 83, 137, 243, 272 Leaver · 47, 99, 100, 101, 252, 253, 269, 281 Lee · 231, 276 Lewis · 146, 276 Lieven · 30, 263 Lightbown · 31, 34, 276 Lindblad · 132, 263 Litilewood · 44 LoCastro · 193, 276 Long · 33, 276

M

Macaro · 43, 46, 47, 51, 53, 66, 67, 68, 193, 266, 276, 277

MacGregor · 46, 268 MacIntyre · 56, 85, 277 Magiste · 104, 132, 277 Malakoff · 124, 277 Mallery · 200 Manion · 165, 266 Manoli · 101, 252, 253, 261 Manzanares · 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 280 Martin-Jones · 129, 277 Mattson · 99, 273 Mayer · 55, 57, 101, 289 McCarthy · 147, 277 McDonough · 50, 165, 277 McGroarty · 19, 91, 97, 98, 250, 277, 282 McLaughlin · 34, 37, 137, 277, 278, 279 McLeod · 28, 29, 37, 277, 278 Meijers · 132, 284 Meißner · 148, 278 Mendelsohn · 75, 103, 242, 288 Messick · 192, 278 Midorikawa · 71, 284 Mißler · 148, 278 Mitakidou · 151, 287 Mitits · 139, 176, 270, 278 Mizumoto · 47, 278 Mochizuki · 91, 98, 231, 250, 278 Moore · 103, 106, 237, 254, 278, 287 Morrison · 165, 266 Mulac · 240, 278 Myers · 14, 89, 111, 278

N

Naiman · 40, 41, 278 Nayak · 137, 279 Nikolaou · 151, 152, 279 Nisbet · 55, 57 Noels · 85, 277 Nunan · 42, 65, 100, 101, 252, 253, 279 Nyikos · 19, 71, 77, 79, 83, 84, 88, 97, 99, 103, 191,

240, 243, 244, 279, 280

O

O’Brien · 31, 32, 279 O’Malley · 35, 37, 38, 41, 43, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60,

62, 63, 66, 67, 72, 75, 83, 100, 101, 103, 232, 243, 252, 253, 265, 279, 280

Oh · 77, 94, 191, 250, 279, 280 Olivares-Cuhat · 95, 250, 279 Oliver · 19, 79, 81, 88, 243, 283 Olshtain · 147, 255, 276 Osgood · 126, 269 Oxford · 19, 26, 27, 29, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, 51,

55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 88, 89, 90, 94, 95, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 139, 175, 176, 177, 178, 185, 186, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 201, 231, 232, 238, 239, 240, 241, 243, 244, 250, 252, 253, 263, 264, 266, 268, 269, 270, 272, 273, 275, 276, 278, 279, 280, 281, 284, 285, 286, 290, 297

P

Paige · 43, 281 Paleologou · 152, 281 Palmer · 117, 263 Papanis · 19, 78, 79, 101, 178, 240, 241, 253, 270, 281 Papp · 124, 275 Park · 19, 71, 77, 280, 281, 288 Parks · 19 Patsula · 179, 271 Paulston · 145, 281 Payne · 119 Peacock · 98, 281 Pedersen · 145, 281 Phillips · 19, 282 Piaget · 27, 29, 278, 282 Pintrich · 19, 46, 71, 282, 285 Politzer · 19, 75, 77, 91, 95, 97, 99, 240, 242, 250, 282 Poulisse · 135, 282


Psaltou-Joycey · 19, 24, 32, 33, 34, 37, 40, 43, 69, 75, 76, 79, 82, 85, 86, 90, 92, 97, 98, 106, 191, 231, 234, 242, 243, 244, 247, 250, 270, 282

Purdie · 19, 79, 81, 88, 243, 283

Q

Quist · 143, 144, 274

R

Rahman · 180, 283 Ramirez · 19, 283 Ramsey · 136 Raymond · 19 Rees-Miller · 100 Reich · 144, 254, 283 Reid · 43, 91, 144, 250, 283 Reinfried · 148, 278 Reiss · 41, 283 Reynolds · 121, 283 Ricciardelli · 125, 284 Rigney · 54, 56, 57, 284 Ringbom · 133 Rivers · 105, 237, 284 Robbins · 42, 100, 252, 265, 284 Robinson · 71 Rogers · 19, 284 Romaine · 129, 277 Rubin · 19, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 53, 54, 56, 59, 60, 62, 64,

65, 66, 67, 263, 279, 284, 289 Russo · 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 280

S

Safont Jordà · 125 Salter · 46, 268 Sanders · 132, 284 Sanz · 132, 284 Sarafianou · 25, 101, 139, 241, 253, 261, 278, 284 Sarem · 20, 139, 285 Saville-Troike · 111, 284 Schmeck · 55, 57, 284 Schmid · 148, 285 Schmidt · 85, 244, 285 Schmitt · 47, 71, 102, 287 Schunk · 46, 285 Schweers · 146, 285 Selinker · 35, 64, 127, 128, 133, 234, 268, 285, 290 Shabani · 20, 139, 285

Sharwood Smith · 121 Shen · 100, 252, 285 Shucksmith · 55, 57, 279 Sinclair · 43, 265, 269 Skinner · 27, 30, 266, 286 Skourtou · 151, 286 Skutnabb-Kangas · 113, 120, 128, 145, 269, 281, 286 Sougari · 19, 76, 234, 242, 282 Spada · 31, 34, 276 Spokane · 95, 250, 275 Spöttl · 148, 286 Stern · 19, 31, 40, 41, 53, 54, 65, 67, 278, 286 Stewner · 53, 54, 57, 59, 60, 280 Studley · 240, 278 Sumrall · 77, 280 Sung · 107, 286 Sutter · 66, 286 Swain · 36, 38, 117, 131, 264, 265, 271, 278, 286, 290

T

Takeuchi · 83, 100, 252, 286 Tannen · 240, 286 Tanzer · 180, 288 Tarone · 64, 66, 287 Tercanlioglu · 77, 92, 240, 250, 287 Thomas · 104, 132, 236, 287 Thompson · 43, 284 Titone · 124, 287 Todesco · 40, 41, 278 Toohey · 41, 279 Tragant · 76, 242, 287 Tressou · 151, 287 Triandafyllidou · 150, 287 Tseng · 47, 71, 102, 287 Tsokalidou · 149, 151, 270, 287 Tucker · 125, 270 Tuncer · 20, 138, 235, 288 Turner · 190, 288 Tyacke · 75, 103, 242, 288

U

Usuki · 91, 288

V

Van de Vijver · 180, 288 Vance · 101, 288 Vandergrift · 77, 240, 288

Lydia Mitits 295

Vann · 47, 140, 192, 263, 288 Veikou · 150, 287 Victori · 76, 242, 287 Vildomec · 110, 288 Vogel · 135, 271, 288 Voller · 44, 264 Vorhaus · 46, 268 Vrettou · 19, 78, 86, 178, 186, 231, 234, 240, 244, 247,

289 Vygotsky · 28, 29, 47, 277, 289

W

Wagner · 132, 289 Wakamoto · 100, 252, 286 Watanabe · 85, 191, 244, 285, 289 Weinreich · 110, 126, 127, 289 Weinstein · 55, 57, 101, 289 Wenden · 27, 42, 43, 44, 45, 54, 87, 102, 263, 268, 279,

289

Wharton · 19, 77, 78, 83, 84, 92, 94, 95, 104, 231, 236, 240, 243, 244, 247, 250, 289

Wiley · 129, 289 Williams · 133, 289 Willing · 42, 65, 90, 290 Winne · 51, 263 Wong Fillmore · 38, 41, 58, 60, 290

Y

Yamamori · 85, 290 Yang · 19, 71, 92, 191, 231, 247, 250, 290 Yelland · 146, 255, 290

Z

Zapp · 149, 256, 290 Zeidner · 46, 285 Zimmerman · 46, 290 Zobl · 104, 236, 290


Appendices

Lydia Mitits 297

Appendix 1 The English version of the SILL 7.0

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)

Version 7.0 (ESL/EFL) © R. Oxford. 1989

Directions

This form of the STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING (SILL) is for students of English as a second or foreign language. On the separate worksheet, write the response ( l, 2, 3, 4 or 5) that tells HOW TRUE OF YOU THE STATEMENT IS. l. Never or almost never true of me 2. Usually not true of me 3. Somewhat true of me 4. Usually true of me 5. Always or almost always true of me

NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER TRUE OF ME means that the statement is very rarely true of you. USUALLY NOT TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true less than half the time. SOMEWHAT TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true of you about half the time. USUALLY TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true more than half the time. ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE OF ME means that the statement is true of you almost always. Answer in terms of how well the statement describes YOU. Do not answer how you think you should be, or what other people do. There are no right or wrong answers to these statements. Put your answers on the separate Worksheet. Please make no marks on the items. Work as quickly as you can without being careless. This usually takes about 20-30 minutes to complete. If you have any questions, let the teacher know immediately. EXAMPLE I actively seek out opportunities to talk with native speakers in English. On this page, put an "X" in the blank underneath the statement that best describes what you actually do in regard to English now. Do not make any marks on the Worksheet yet. l. Never or almost never true of me 2. Usually not true of me 3. Somewhat true of me 4. Usually true of me 5. Always or almost always true of me ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ If you have answered the question above, you have just completed the example item. Now wait for the teacher to give you the signal to go on to the other items. When you answer the questions, work carefully but quickly. Mark the rest of your answers on the Worksheet, starting with item 1. l. Never or almost never true of me 2. Usually not true of me


3. Somewhat true of me 4. Usually true of me 5. Always or almost always true of me (Write answers on Worksheet) Part A 1. I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in English. 2. I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them. 3. I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to help remember

the word. 4. I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might

be used. 5. I use rhymes to remember new English words. 6. I use flashcards to remember new English words. 7. I physically act out new English words. 8. I review English lessons often. 9. I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their location on the page, on the

board, or on a street sign. Part B 10. I say or write new English words several times. 11. I try to talk like native English speakers. 12. I practice the sounds of English. 13. I use the English words I know in different ways. 14. I start conversations in English. 15. I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in English. 16. I read for pleasure in English. 17. I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English. 18. I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back and read carefully. 19. I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English. 20. I try to find patterns in English. 21. I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I understand. 22. I try not to translate word-for-word. 23. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English. Part C 24. To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses. 25. When I can't think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures. 26. I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English. 27. I read English without looking up every new word. 28. I try to guess what the other person will say next in English. 29. If I can't think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing. Part D 30. I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English. 31. I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better.

Lydia Mitits 299

32. I pay attention when someone is speaking English. 33. I try to find out how to be a better learner of English. 34. I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English. 35. I look for people I can talk to in English. 36. I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English. 37. I have clear goals for improving my English skills. 38. I think about my progress in learning English. Part E 39. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English. 40. I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake. 4l. I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English. 42. I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English. 43. I write down my feelings in a language learning diary. 44. I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English. Part F 45. If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again. 46. I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk. 47. I practice English with other students. 48. I ask for help from English speakers. 49. I ask questions in English. 50. I try to learn about the culture of English speakers.

Appendix 2 The SILL for English (Greek adaptation)

Τι από τα παρακάτω είναι αλήθεια όταν μαθαίνεις Αγγλικά. Απάντησε σύμφωνα με το τι κάνεις εσύ. Μην απαντάς τι πιστεύεις ότι θα έπρεπε να κάνεις ή τι κάνουν οι άλλοι. Δεν υπάρχουν σωστές η λάθος απαντήσεις. Κύκλωσε τον αριθμό που σε εκφράζει.

1. Ποτέ ή σχεδόν ποτέ δεν το κάνω. 2. Σπάνια το κάνω. 3. Συνήθως το κάνω . 4. Συχνά το κάνω . 5. Πάντα το κάνω.

1. Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Αγγλικά.

1 2 3 4 5

2. Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας αγγλικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για

να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα. 1 2 3 4 5

4. Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Αγγλικά μου. 1 2 3 4 5


8. Θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις και φράσεις επειδή θυμάμαι να τις έχω δει τυπωμένες σε μια σελίδα βιβλίου, στον πίνακα η σε μια πινακίδα στο δρόμο.

1 2 3 4 5

9. Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Αγγλική μητρική τους γλώσσα. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των αγγλικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5 14. Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5 15. Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για ευχαρίστηση. 1 2 3 4 5 16. Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5 17. Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο αγγλικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω

προσεκτικά. 1 2 3 4 5

18. Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες αγγλικές λέξεις. 1 2 3 4 5 19. Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της αγγλικής γλώσσας. 1 2 3 4 5 20. Βρίσκω τη σημασία της αγγλικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω. 1 2 3 4 5 21. Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη. 1 2 3 4 5 22. Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5 23. Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Αγγλικών. 1 2 3 4 5 24. Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Αγγλικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι

σημαίνουν. 1 2 3 4 5

25. Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες.

1 2 3 4 5

26. Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5 27. Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. 1 2 3 4 5 28. Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα

Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5

29. Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη ή φράση .

1 2 3 4 5

30. Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Αγγλικά .

1 2 3 4 5

31. Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Αγγλικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα. 1 2 3 4 5 32. Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. 1 2 3 4 5 33. Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5 34. Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5 35. Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5 36. Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5 37. Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Αγγλικά μου. 1 2 3 4 5 38. Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5 39. Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5 40. Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Αγγλικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω

λάθος. 1 2 3 4 5

41. Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5 42. Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5 43. Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί

να κάνω κάποια λάθη. 1 2 3 4 5

44. Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5

Lydia Mitits 301

ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΩ ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΧΡΟΝΟ ΣΟΥ !

Appendix 3 The SILL for Greek (Greek adaptation)

Τι από τα παρακάτω είναι αλήθεια όταν μαθαίνεις Ελληνικά. Απάντησε σύμφωνα με το τι κάνεις εσύ. Μην απαντάς τι πιστεύεις ότι θα έπρεπε να κάνεις ή τι κάνουν οι άλλοι. Δεν υπάρχουν σωστές η λάθος απαντήσεις. Κύκλωσε τον αριθμό που σε εκφράζει.

1. Ποτέ ή σχεδόν ποτέ δεν το κάνω. 2. Σπάνια το κάνω. 3. Συνήθως το κάνω . 4. Συχνά το κάνω . 5. Πάντα το κάνω.

45. Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Αγγλικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε.

1 2 3 4 5

46. Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Αγγλικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω.

1 2 3 4 5

47. Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. 1 2 3 4 5 48. Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5 49. Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5 50. Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5

1. Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Ελληνικά.

1 2 3 4 5

2. Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας ελληνικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για

να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα. 1 2 3 4 5

4. Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Ελληνικά μου. 1 2 3 4 5 8. Θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις και φράσεις επειδή θυμάμαι να τις έχω δει

τυπωμένες σε μια σελίδα βιβλίου, στον πίνακα η σε μια πινακίδα στο δρόμο. 1 2 3 4 5

9. Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Ελληνική μητρική τους γλώσσα. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των ελληνικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Χρησιμοποιώ τις ελληνικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5 14. Παρακολουθώ ελληνικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5 15. Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Ελληνικά για ευχαρίστηση. 1 2 3 4 5 16. Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5 17. Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο ελληνικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω

προσεκτικά. 1 2 3 4 5


ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΩ ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΧΡΟΝΟ ΣΟΥ !

18. Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες ελληνικές λέξεις. 1 2 3 4 5 19. Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της ελληνικής γλώσσας. 1 2 3 4 5 20. Βρίσκω τη σημασία της ελληνικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που

καταλαβαίνω. 1 2 3 4 5

21. Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη. 1 2 3 4 5 22. Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5 23. Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Ελληνικών. 1 2 3 4 5 24. Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Ελληνικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι

σημαίνουν. 1 2 3 4 5

25. Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Ελληνικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες.

1 2 3 4 5

26. Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5 27. Όταν διαβάζω Ελληνικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. 1 2 3 4 5 28. Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα

Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5

29. Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Ελληνικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση.

1 2 3 4 5

30. Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Ελληνικά.

1 2 3 4 5

31. Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Ελληνικά, ώστε να τα μάθω καλύτερα. 1 2 3 4 5 32. Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Ελληνικά τον ακούω προσεκτικά. 1 2 3 4 5 33. Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5 34. Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5 35. Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5 36. Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Ελληνικά . 1 2 3 4 5 37. Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Ελληνικά μου. 1 2 3 4 5 38. Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5 39. Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5 40. Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Ελληνικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω

λάθος. 1 2 3 4 5

41. Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5 42. Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5 43. Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί

να κάνω κάποια λάθη. 1 2 3 4 5

44. Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5 45. Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Ελληνικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο

σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε. 1 2 3 4 5

46. Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Ελληνικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω.

1 2 3 4 5

47. Κάνω εξάσκηση των Ελληνικών με τους συμμαθητές μου. 1 2 3 4 5 48. Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5 49. Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5 50. Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Ελληνικά. 1 2 3 4 5

Lydia Mitits 303

Appendix 4 Individual background questionnaire (IBQ) 1

1. Τάξη ___________________________________ 2. Φύλο ____________________________________ 3. Μητρική γλώσσα ___________________________ 4. Γλώσσα/γλώσσες που μιλάτε στο σπίτι

__________________________________________ 5. Πόσο σημαντικό είναι για σένα να μιλάς άπταιστα Αγγλικά; (κύκλωσε την απάντηση που σου

ταιριάζει) πολύ σημαντικό σημαντικό όχι και τόσο σημαντικό

6. Ποιοι είναι οι λόγοι για τους οποίους θέλεις να μάθεις Αγγλικά; (βάλε √ σ’ αυτά που σου ταιριάζουν) με ενδιαφέρει η γλώσσα____________ με ενδιαφέρει o αγγλικός πολιτισμός___________ έχω φίλους που μιλάνε τηv γλώσσα__________ είναι υποχρεωτικό μάθημα__________ μου χρειάζεται για να βρω δουλεία_____________ για να μπορώ να ταξιδεύω_____________ άλλοι λόγοι _____________________________________________

7. Σου αρέσει να μαθαίνεις ξένες γλώσσες; (κύκλωσε την απάντηση που σου ταιριάζει) ναι όχι

8. Ποιες άλλες γλώσσες μαθαίνεις; ______________________________________________

9. Τι σε ευχαριστεί περισσότερο όταν μαθαίνεις μια γλώσσα;

______________________________________________

10. Ποια είναι η βαθμολογία σου στα Αγγλικά ;

ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΩ ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΧΡΟΝΟ ΣΟΥ!

Appendix 5 Individual background questionnaire (IBQ) 2

1. Τάξη _______ 2. Φύλο (κύκλωσε την απάντηση που σου ταιριάζει): Αγόρι Κορίτσι 3. Μητρική γλώσσα _______________________________________________________________ 4. Πώς έμαθες την μητρική σου γλώσσα και πόσο καλά τη γνωρίζεις; ______________________________________________________________________


5. Πόσες γλώσσες μιλάς; ______________________________________________________________________ 6. Με ποια σειρά έμαθες τις γλώσσες που μιλάς; Πρώτη________________________________________________________________ Δεύτερη_______________________________________________________________ Τρίτη_________________________________________________________________ 7. Ποια γλώσσα/γλώσσες μιλάτε στο σπίτι;

_____________________________________________________________________ 8. Σε ποιες γλώσσες ξέρεις να γράφεις και να διαβάζεις; _____________________________________________________________________ 9. Ποιες γλώσσες καταλαβαίνεις αλλά δεν τις μιλάς πολύ; _____________________________________________________________________ 10. Σου αρέσει να μαθαίνεις ξένες γλώσσες; (κύκλωσε την απάντηση που σου ταιριάζει)

ναι όχι 11. Ποιες άλλες γλώσσες μαθαίνεις;

_____________________________________________________________________ 12. Τι σε ευχαριστεί περισσότερο όταν μαθαίνεις μια γλώσσα;

_____________________________________________________________________ 13. Σε ποια ηλικία έμαθες Ελληνικά; _____________________________________________________________________ 14. Πόσο καλά πιστεύεις ότι γνωρίζεις Ελληνικά σε σχέση με τους συμμαθητές σου; (κύκλωσε την

απάντηση που σου ταιριάζει) άριστα πολύ καλά μέτρια ανεπαρκώς

15. Πόσο σημαντικό είναι για σένα να μιλάς άπταιστα Ελληνικά; (κύκλωσε την απάντηση που σου ταιριάζει) πολύ σημαντικό σημαντικό όχι και τόσο σημαντικό

16. Ποιοι είναι οι λόγοι για του οποίους θέλεις να μάθεις τα ελληνικά; (βάλε √ σ’ αυτά που σου ταιριάζουν) με ενδιαφέρει η γλώσσα___________ με ενδιαφέρει η ελληνική κουλτούρα___________ έχω φίλους που μιλάνε τη γλώσσα__________ είναι υποχρεωτικό μάθημα__________ μου χρειάζεται για να βρω δουλεία__________ για να μπορώ να ταξιδεύω__________ άλλοι λόγοι _____________________________________________________________________

17. Πού μιλάς ή ακούς Ελληνικά; _____________________________________________________________________

18. Ποια είναι η βαθμολογία σου στα Ελληνικά; 2-9 10-12 13-15 16-17 18-20 19. Τι δουλειά κάνει ο πατέρας σου;

______________________________________________________________________ 20. Τι δουλειά κάνει η μητέρα σου;

______________________________________________________________________ ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΩ ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΧΡΟΝΟ ΣΟΥ!

Lydia Mitits 305

Appendix 6 SILL reliability analysis

Reliability analysis for the SILL for English (the whole scale)

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.920 50

Reliability analysis for the SILL for Greek (the whole scale)

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.947 50

Reliability analysis for the SILL for English (six sub-scales)

Strategy category Cronbach’s Alpha N of items

memory .620 8 cognitive .768 15

compensation .601 6 metacognitive .853 9

affective .669 6 social .712 6

Reliability analysis for the SILL for Greek (six sub-scales)

Strategy category Cronbach’s Alpha N of items

memory .738 8 cognitive .844 15

compensation .687 6 metacognitive .853 9

affective .768 6 social .752 6


Appendix 7 Frequency of use of individual items on SILL for English (all valid cases)

Ποτέ ή σχεδόν

ποτέ δεν το κάνω

Σπάνια το

κάνω

Συνήθως το κάνω

Συχνά το

κάνω

Πάντα το

κάνω Total

n 135 278 364 284 164 1225 1 memory Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Αγγλικά.

% 11.02 22.69 29.71 23.18 13.39 100.00

n 153 289 275 329 190 1236 2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. % 12.38 23.38 22.25 26.62 15.37 100.00

n 245 309 252 236 181 1223 3 memory Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας αγγλικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα.

% 20.03 25.27 20.61 19.30 14.80 100.00

n 539 306 195 104 81 1225 4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. % 44.00 24.98 15.92 8.49 6.61 100.00

n 840 208 94 45 47 1234 5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. % 68.07 16.86 7.62 3.65 3.81 100.00

n 890 158 70 61 45 1224 6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. % 72.71 12.91 5.72 4.98 3.68 100.00

n 91 198 319 293 296 1197 7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Αγγλικά μου.

% 7.60 16.54 26.65 24.48 24.73 100.00

n 129 210 306 283 290 1218 8 memory Θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις και φράσεις επειδή θυμάμαι να τις έχω δει τυπωμένες σε μια σελίδα βιβλίου, στον πίνακα η σε μια πινακίδα στο δρόμο.

% 10.59 17.24 25.12 23.23 23.81 100.00

n 130 273 291 263 275 1232 9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. % 10.55 22.16 23.62 21.35 22.32 100.00

n 154 226 245 259 335 1219 10 cognitive Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Αγγλική μητρική τους γλώσσα. % 12.63 18.54 20.10 21.25 27.48 100.00

n 108 210 285 279 349 1231 11 cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των αγγλικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω. % 8.77 17.06 23.15 22.66 28.35 100.00

n 133 230 311 312 219 1205 12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις. % 11.04 19.09 25.81 25.89 18.17 100.00

n 250 323 262 237 143 1215 13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά. % 20.58 26.58 21.56 19.51 11.77 100.00

n 220 176 205 286 319 1206 14 cognitive Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Αγγλικά. % 18.24 14.59 17.00 23.71 26.45 100.00

n 479 306 198 141 110 1234 15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για ευχαρίστηση. % 38.82 24.80 16.05 11.43 8.91 100.00

n 216 298 235 263 199 1211 16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Αγγλικά. % 17.84 24.61 19.41 21.72 16.43 100.00 17 cognitive Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο n 138 175 255 276 380 1224

Lydia Mitits 307

αγγλικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά. % 11.27 14.30 20.83 22.55 31.05 100.00

n 263 266 263 230 210 1232 18 cognitive Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες αγγλικές λέξεις. % 21.35 21.59 21.35 18.67 17.05 100.00

n 508 290 202 127 95 1222 19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της αγγλικής γλώσσας. % 41.57 23.73 16.53 10.39 7.77 100.00

n 284 296 266 221 146 1213 20 cognitive Βρίσκω τη σημασία της αγγλικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω. % 23.41 24.40 21.93 18.22 12.04 100.00

n 267 288 261 189 225 1230 21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη. % 21.71 23.41 21.22 15.37 18.29 100.00

n 341 321 275 160 129 1226 22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Αγγλικά. % 27.81 26.18 22.43 13.05 10.52 100.00

n 240 216 228 231 323 1238 23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Αγγλικών. % 19.39 17.45 18.42 18.66 26.09 100.00

n 211 215 266 234 308 1234 24 compensation Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Αγγλικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν.

% 17.10 17.42 21.56 18.96 24.96 100.00

n 462 275 189 165 145 1236 25 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες.

% 37.38 22.25 15.29 13.35 11.73 100.00

n 408 262 209 170 173 1222 26 compensation Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Αγγλικά. % 33.39 21.44 17.10 13.91 14.16 100.00

n 396 259 224 176 157 1212 27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. % 32.67 21.37 18.48 14.52 12.95 100.00

n 315 307 293 187 128 1230 28 compensation Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Αγγλικά.

% 25.61 24.96 23.82 15.20 10.41 100.00

n 96 133 255 317 428 1229 29 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση .

% 7.81 10.82 20.75 25.79 34.83 100.00

n 136 267 303 266 248 1220 30 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Αγγλικά .

% 11.15 21.89 24.84 21.80 20.33 100.00

n 74 165 247 279 464 1229 31 metacognitive Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Αγγλικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα. % 6.02 13.43 20.10 22.70 37.75 100.00

n 81 136 238 304 471 1230 32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. % 6.59 11.06 19.35 24.72 38.29 100.00

n 81 164 258 292 386 1181 33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Αγγλικά. % 6.86 13.89 21.85 24.72 32.68 100.00

n 268 304 317 200 126 1215 34 metacognitive Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Αγγλικά. % 22.06 25.02 26.09 16.46 10.37 100.00

n 320 321 273 182 127 1223 35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Αγγλικά. % 26.17 26.25 22.32 14.88 10.38 100.00

n 277 338 278 203 118 1214 36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά. % 22.82 27.84 22.90 16.72 9.72 100.00


n 94 190 302 291 350 1227 37 metacognitive Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Αγγλικά μου. % 7.66 15.48 24.61 23.72 28.52 100.00

n 95 157 274 322 353 1201 38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Αγγλικά. % 7.91 13.07 22.81 26.81 29.39 100.00

n 163 159 217 283 395 1217 39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά. % 13.39 13.06 17.83 23.25 32.46 100.00

n 129 154 242 320 384 1229 40 affective Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Αγγλικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος. % 10.50 12.53 19.69 26.04 31.24 100.00

n 139 178 220 278 414 1229 41 affective Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Αγγλικά. % 11.31 14.48 17.90 22.62 33.69 100.00

n 135 153 258 241 409 1196 42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά. % 11.29 12.79 21.57 20.15 34.20 100.00

n 123 186 299 315 284 1207 43 affective Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη.

% 10.19 15.41 24.77 26.10 23.53 100.00

n 442 320 225 123 110 1220 44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Αγγλικά. % 36.23 26.23 18.44 10.08 9.02 100.00

n 114 162 270 317 345 1208 45 social Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Αγγλικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε. % 9.44 13.41 22.35 26.24 28.56 100.00

n 324 227 252 212 217 1232 46 social Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Αγγλικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω.

% 26.30 18.43 20.45 17.21 17.61 100.00

n 349 304 262 174 136 1225 47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. % 28.49 24.82 21.39 14.20 11.10 100.00

n 203 254 282 288 198 1225 48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά. % 16.57 20.73 23.02 23.51 16.16 100.00

n 151 218 312 290 261 1232 49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά.

% 12.26 17.69 25.32 23.54 21.19 100.00 n 367 302 231 165 170 1235 50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των

ανθρώπων που μιλούν Αγγλικά. % 29.72 24.45 18.70 13.36 13.77 100.00

Appendix 8 Frequency of use of individual items on SILL for Greek (all valid multilingual cases)

Ποτέ ή σχεδόν

ποτέ δεν το κάνω

Σπάνια το κάνω

Συνήθως το κάνω

Συχνά το

κάνω

Πάντα το

κάνω Total

n 28 48 90 81 60 307 1 memory Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Ελληνικά. % 9.12 15.64 29.32 26.38 19.54 100.00

Lydia Mitits 309

n 31 67 69 82 58 307 2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. % 10.10 21.82 22.48 26.71 18.89 100.00

n 50 79 76 69 30 304 3 memory Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας ελληνικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα.

% 16.45 25.99 25.00 22.70 9.87 100.00

n 82 82 70 45 28 307 4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. % 26.71 26.71 22.80 14.66 9.12 100.00

n 171 78 25 23 10 307 5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. % 55.70 25.41 8.14 7.49 3.26 100.00

n 181 52 33 22 17 305 6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. % 59.34 17.05 10.82 7.21 5.57 100.00

n 33 54 68 67 78 300 7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Ελληνικά μου. % 11.00 18.00 22.67 22.33 26.00 100.00

n 41 61 89 66 47 304 8 memory Θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις και φράσεις επειδή θυμάμαι να τις έχω δει τυπωμένες σε μια σελίδα βιβλίου, στον πίνακα η σε μια πινακίδα στο δρόμο.

% 13.49 20.07 29.28 21.71 15.46 100.00

n 44 72 75 62 53 306 9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. % 14.38 23.53 24.51 20.26 17.32 100.00

n 20 32 52 61 137 302 10 cognitive Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Ελληνική μητρική τους γλώσσα. % 6.62 10.60 17.22 20.20 45.36 100.00

n 41 56 69 72 66 304 11 cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των ελληνικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω. % 13.49 18.42 22.70 23.68 21.71 100.00

n 25 59 100 69 48 301 12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις ελληνικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις. % 8.31 19.60 33.22 22.92 15.95 100.00

n 24 55 87 56 83 305 13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Ελληνικά. % 7.87 18.03 28.52 18.36 27.21 100.00

n 44 53 67 62 77 303 14 cognitive Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Ελληνικά. % 14.52 17.49 22.11 20.46 25.41 100.00

n 23 54 76 61 90 304 15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Ελληνικά για ευχαρίστηση. % 7.57 17.76 25.00 20.07 29.61 100.00

n 21 44 62 65 106 298 16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Ελληνικά. % 7.05 14.77 20.81 21.81 35.57 100.00

n 24 44 85 75 77 305 17 cognitive Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο ελληνικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά.

% 7.87 14.43 27.87 24.59 25.25 100.00

n 55 88 63 45 55 306 18 cognitive Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες ελληνικές λέξεις. % 17.97 28.76 20.59 14.71 17.97 100.00

n 94 79 60 46 27 306 19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της ελληνικής γλώσσας. % 30.72 25.82 19.61 15.03 8.82 100.00

n 51 66 88 66 31 302 20 cognitive Βρίσκω τη σημασία της ελληνικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω.

% 16.89 21.85 29.14 21.85 10.26 100.00

n 66 68 78 51 43 306 21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη. % 21.57 22.22 25.49 16.67 14.05 100.00


n 49 75 81 63 39 307 22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Ελληνικά. % 15.96 24.43 26.38 20.52 12.70 100.00

n 63 63 59 54 68 307 23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Ελληνικών. % 20.52 20.52 19.22 17.59 22.15 100.00

n 47 43 77 76 65 308 24 compensation Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Ελληνικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν.

% 15.26 13.96 25.00 24.68 21.10 100.00

n 69 72 64 55 49 309 25 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Ελληνικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες.

% 22.33 23.30 20.71 17.80 15.86 100.00

n 73 61 53 57 61 305 26 compensation Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Ελληνικά. % 23.93 20.00 17.38 18.69 20.00 100.00

n 57 61 93 50 42 303 27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Ελληνικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό.

% 18.81 20.13 30.69 16.50 13.86 100.00

n 61 60 78 65 43 307 28 compensation Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Ελληνικά.

% 19.87 19.54 25.41 21.17 14.01 100.00

n 23 62 78 72 72 307 29 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Ελληνικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση .

% 7.49 20.20 25.41 23.45 23.45 100.00

n 23 56 86 67 74 306 30 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Ελληνικά.

% 7.52 18.30 28.10 21.90 24.18 100.00

n 12 32 64 82 116 306 31 metacognitive Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Ελληνικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα. % 3.92 10.46 20.92 26.80 37.91 100.00

n 23 41 63 57 121 305 32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Ελληνικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. % 7.54 13.44 20.66 18.69 39.67 100.00

n 31 44 54 72 92 293 33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Ελληνικά. % 10.58 15.02 18.43 24.57 31.40 100.00

n 67 58 85 58 33 301 34 metacognitive Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Ελληνικά. % 22.26 19.27 28.24 19.27 10.96 100.00

n 48 53 71 68 66 306 35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Ελληνικά. % 15.69 17.32 23.20 22.22 21.57 100.00

n 36 70 88 53 57 304 36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Ελληνικά. % 11.84 23.03 28.95 17.43 18.75 100.00

n 22 46 68 80 89 305 37 metacognitive Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Ελληνικά μου. % 7.21 15.08 22.30 26.23 29.18 100.00

n 28 55 81 76 58 298 38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Ελληνικά. % 9.40 18.46 27.18 25.50 19.46 100.00

n 58 41 53 76 78 306 39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Ελληνικά. % 18.95 13.40 17.32 24.84 25.49 100.00

n 37 45 66 80 78 306 40 affective Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Ελληνικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος. % 12.09 14.71 21.57 26.14 25.49 100.00 41 affective Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω n 43 46 73 60 80 302

Lydia Mitits 311

καλά στα Ελληνικά. % 14.24 15.23 24.17 19.87 26.49 100.00

n 31 42 76 64 83 296 42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Ελληνικά. % 10.47 14.19 25.68 21.62 28.04 100.00

n 36 63 76 84 48 307 43 affective Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη.

% 11.73 20.52 24.76 27.36 15.64 100.00

n 90 62 79 40 30 301 44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Ελληνικά. % 29.90 20.60 26.25 13.29 9.97 100.00

n 47 71 68 73 47 306 45 social Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Ελληνικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε.

% 15.36 23.20 22.22 23.86 15.36 100.00

n 67 66 67 52 55 307 46 social Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Ελληνικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω.

% 21.82 21.50 21.82 16.94 17.92 100.00

n 68 60 68 55 56 307 47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Ελληνικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. % 22.15 19.54 22.15 17.92 18.24 100.00

n 75 54 69 73 37 308 48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Ελληνικά. % 24.35 17.53 22.40 23.70 12.01 100.00

n 36 48 51 78 92 305 49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Ελληνικά.

% 11.80 15.74 16.72 25.57 30.16 100.00

n 49 46 65 68 80 308 50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Ελληνικά. % 15.91 14.94 21.10 22.08 25.97 100.00

Appendix 9 Descriptive statistics for SILL for English

All valid cases

N Min. Max. Mean Std.

Deviation 32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά.

1230 1.00 5.00 3.77 1.249

31 metacognitive Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Αγγλικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα.

1229 1.00 5.00 3.72 1.258

29 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση .

1229 1.00 5.00 3.69 1.263

33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Αγγλικά.

1181 1.00 5.00 362 1.256

38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Αγγλικά.

1202 1.00 5.00 3.56 1.254

40 affective Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Αγγλικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος.

1229 1.00 5.00 3.55 1.324

42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά.

1197 1.00 5.00 3.53 1.367


41 affective Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Αγγλικά.

1229 1.00 5.00 3.52 1.375

45 social Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Αγγλικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε.

1208 1.00 5.00 3.51 1.287

37 metacognitive Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Αγγλικά μου.

1228 1.00 5.00 3.50 1.262

39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά.

1217 1.00 5.00 3.48 1.401

17 cognitive Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο αγγλικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά.

1224 1.00 5.00 3.47 1.354

11 cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των αγγλικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω.

1231 1.00 5.00 3.44 1.297

7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Αγγλικά μου. 1197 1.00 5.00 3.42 1.235 43 affective Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη.

1207 1.00 5.00 3.37 1.274

8 memory Θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις και φράσεις επειδή θυμάμαι να τις έχω δει τυπωμένες σε μια σελίδα βιβλίου, στον πίνακα η σε μια πινακίδα στο δρόμο.

1218 1.00 5.00 3.32 1.294

10 cognitive Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Αγγλική μητρική τους γλώσσα.

1219 1.00 5.00 3.32 1.378

14 cognitive Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Αγγλικά.

1206 1.00 5.00 3.25 1.451

49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 1232 1.00 5.00 3.23 1.302 9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές.

1232 1.00 5.00 3.22 1.303

12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις.

1205 1.00 5.00 3.21 1.255

30 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Αγγλικά .

1220 1.00 5.00 3.18 1,289

24 compensation Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Αγγλικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν.

1235 1.00 5.00 3.17 1.442

23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Αγγλικών.

1238 1.00 5.00 3.14 1.469

2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι.

1236 1.00 5.00 3.09 1.266

1 memory Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Αγγλικά.

1225 1.00 5.00 3.05 1.197

48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά. 1225 1.00 5.00 3.01 1.323 16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Αγγλικά.

1211 1.00 5.00 2.94 1.353

18 cognitive Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες αγγλικές λέξεις.

1232 1.00 5.00 2.88 1.388

21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη.

1230 1.00 5.00 2.85 1.402

Lydia Mitits 313

3 memory Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας αγγλικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα.

1223 1.00 5.00 2.83 1.346

46 social Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Αγγλικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω.

1232 1.00 5.00 2.81 1.442

13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 1215 1.00 5.00 2.75 1.301 20 cognitive Βρίσκω τη σημασία της αγγλικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω.

1213 1.00 5.00 2.71 1.327

34 metacognitive Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Αγγλικά.

1215 1.00 5.00 2.68 1.269

36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά.

1214 1.00 5.00 2.62 1.268

28 compensation Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Αγγλικά.

1230 1.00 5.00 2.59 1.297

50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Αγγλικά.

1236 1.00 5.00 2.57 1.410

35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Αγγλικά

1223 1.00 5.00 2.57 1.300

47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου.

1225 1.00 5.00 2.54 1.330

26 compensation Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Αγγλικά.

1222 1.00 5.00 2.54 1.430

27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό.

1212 1.00 5.00 2.53 1.404

22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Αγγλικά.

1226 1.00 5.00 2.52 1.303

25 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες.

1236 1.00 5.00 239 1.399

44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Αγγλικά.

1220 1.00 5.00 2.29 1.294

15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για ευχαρίστηση.

1234 1.00 5.00 2.26 1.318

19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της αγγλικής γλώσσας.

1222 1.00 5.00 2.19 1.288

4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις.

1225 1.00 5.00 2.08 1.235

5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις.

1234 1.00 5.00 1.58 1.035

6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 1224 1.00 5.00 1.54 1.050

All valid monolingual cases

N Min. Max. Mean

Std. Deviation


922 1.00 5.00 3.78 1.247


32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά.

925 1.00 5.00 3.74 1.237


922 1.00 5.00 3.71 1.248


905 1.00 5.00 3.61 1.252


892 1.00 5.00 3.60 1.253


926 1.00 5.00 3.58 1.339


906 1.00 5.00 3.56 1.382


909 1.00 5.00 3.53 1.283


924 1.00 5.00 3.51 1.261


928 1.00 5.00 3.51 1.395


923 1.00 5.00 3.51 1.373

39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά.

916 1.00 5.00 3.50 1.418


927 1.00 5.00 3.42 1.322

7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Αγγλικά μου. 903 1.00 5.00 3.41 1.236 43 affective Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη.

911 1.00 5.00 3.39 1.271


919 1.00 5.00 3.39 1.294


909 1.00 5.00 3.37 1.415


914 1.00 5.00 3.25 1.368

49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 927 1.00 5.00 3.25 1.297 9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές.

926 1.00 5.00 3.23 1.306


904 1.00 5.00 3.20 1.284


917 1.00 5.00 3.18 1.305

23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Αγγλικών.

932 1.00 5.00 3.13 1.479

Lydia Mitits 315


928 1.00 5.00 3.08 1.437


929 1.00 5.00 3.07 1.270


918 1.00 5.00 3.05 1.191


915 1.00 5.00 2.93 1.318


925 1.00 5.00 2.91 1.402


924 1.00 5.00 2.85 1.411


925 1.00 5.00 2.82 1.430


919 1.00 5.00 2.78 1.362

13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 914 1.00 5.00 2.77 1.312 20 cognitive Βρίσκω τη σημασία της αγγλικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω.

911 1.00 5.00 2.68 1.334


912 1.00 5.00 2.64 1.271


913 1.00 5.00 2.56 1.255

35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Αγγλικά.

920 1.00 5.00 2.56 1.300


926 1.00 5.00 2.52 1.312


913 1.00 5.00 2.51 1.415


929 1.00 5.00 2.51 1.415


922 1.00 5.00 2.47 1.315


923 1.00 5.00 2.43 1.271


923 1.00 5.00 2.41 1.413


929 1.00 5.00 2.32 1.386


918 1.00 5.00 2.21 1.259


928 1.00 5.00 2.17 1.276



919 1.00 5.00 2.16 1.293


925 1.00 5.00 1.96 1.208


929 1.00 5.00 1.51 .979


All valid multilingual cases

N Min. Max. Mean

Std. Deviation

32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά.

305 1.00 5.00 3.84 1.282


307 1.00 5.00 3.75 1.291


289 1.00 5.00 3.69 1.266


301 1.00 5.00 3.58 1.313


305 1.00 5.00 3.53 1.385


304 1.00 5.00 3.50 1.218


307 1.00 5.00 3.47 1.417


299 1.00 5.00 3.45 1.297


304 1.00 5.00 3.45 1.268


291 1.00 5.00 3.44 1.318


303 1.00 5.00 3.43 1.271

7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Αγγλικά μου. 294 1.00 5.00 3.43 1.233 39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά.

301 1.00 5.00 3.42 1.351


297 1.00 5.00 3.41 1.252


307 1.00 5.00 3.41 1.273


301 1.00 5.00 3.37 1.291

43 affective Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη.

296 1.00 5.00 3.31 1.285

Lydia Mitits 317


301 1.00 5.00 3.23 1.162

9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές.

306 1.00 5.00 3.21 1.297

49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 305 1.00 5.00 3.19 1.315 23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Αγγλικών.

306 1.00 5.00 3.17 1.440


303 1.00 5.00 3.16 1.243


307 1.00 5.00 3.14 1.253


299 1.00 5.00 3.11 1.277


307 1.00 5.00 3.05 1.215


304 1.00 5.00 2.99 1.288


296 1.00 5.00 2.95 1.458


299 1.00 5.00 2.92 1.415


297 1.00 5.00 2.88 1.498


306 1.00 5.00 2.83 1.378


304 1.00 5.00 2.81 1.225


303 1.00 5.00 2.80 1.361


307 1.00 5.00 2.80 1.341


301 1.00 5.00 2.80 1.293


303 1.00 5.00 2.79 1.259

20 cognitive Βρίσκω τη σημασία της αγγλικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω.

302 1.00 5.00 2.79 1.305


307 1.00 5.00 2.79 1.480


303 1.00 5.00 2.77 1.351


307 1.00 5.00 2.77 1.381

13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 301 1.00 5.00 2.68 1.268



307 1.00 5.00 2.62 1.418


299 1.00 5.00 2.60 1.369


303 1.00 5.00 2.60 1.300


302 1.00 5.00 2.54 1.367


306 1.00 5.00 2.54 1.404


300 1.00 5.00 2.48 1.238


303 1.00 5.00 2.27 1.272


305 1.00 5.00 1.78 1.168


Appendix 10 Descriptive statistics for SILL for Greek

N Min. Max. Mean Std.

Deviation 10 cognitive Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Ελληνική μητρική τους γλώσσα.

302 1.00 5.00 3.87 1.278

31 metacognitive Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Ελληνικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα.

306 1.00 5.00 3.84 1.157

32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Ελληνικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά.

305 1.00 5.00 3.69 1.316

16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Ελληνικά.

298 1.00 5.00 3.64 1.290

37 metacognitive Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Ελληνικά μου.

305 1.00 5.00 3.55 1.253

33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Ελληνικά.

294 1.00 5.00 3.52 1.371

49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Ελληνικά. 305 1.00 5.00 3.46 1.371 15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Ελληνικά για ευχαρίστηση.

304 1.00 5.00 3.46 1.286

17 cognitive Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο ελληνικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά.

305 1.00 5.00 3.44 1.232

42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Ελληνικά.

296 1.00 5.00 3.42 1.312

13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Ελληνικά.

305 1.00 5.00 3.39 1.272

Lydia Mitits 319

40 affective Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Ελληνικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος.

306 1.00 5.00 3.38 1.330

30 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Ελληνικά.

306 1.00 5.00 3.36 1.240

29 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Ελληνικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση .

307 1.00 5.00 3.35 1.247

7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Ελληνικά μου.

300 1.00 5.00 3.34 1.330

1 memory Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Ελληνικά.

307 1.00 5.00 3.31 1.213

41 affective Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Ελληνικά.

302 1.00 5.00 3.29 1.378

50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Ελληνικά.

308 1.00 5.00 3.27 1.406

38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Ελληνικά.

298 1.00 5.00 3.27 1.234

14 cognitive Παρακολουθώ ελληνικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Ελληνικά.

303 1.00 5.00 3.24 1.386

39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Ελληνικά.

306 1.00 5.00 3.24 1.451

2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι.

307 1.00 5.00 3.22 1.264

24 compensation Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Ελληνικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν.

308 1.00 5.00 3.22 1.340

11 cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των ελληνικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω.

304 1.00 5.00 3.21 1.337

12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις ελληνικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις.

301 1.00 5.00 3.18 1.168

35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Ελληνικά.

306 1.00 5.00 3.16 1.365

43 affective Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη.

307 1.00 5.00 3.14 1.247

36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Ελληνικά.

305 1.00 5.00 3.11 1.418

8 memory Θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις και φράσεις επειδή θυμάμαι να τις έχω δει τυπωμένες σε μια σελίδα βιβλίου, στον πίνακα η σε μια πινακίδα στο δρόμο.

304 1.00 5.00 3.05 1.256

9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές.

306 1.00 5.00 3.02 1.307

45 social Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα 306 1.00 5.00 3.00 1.305


Ελληνικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε. 23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Ελληνικών.

307 1.00 5.00 3.00 1.447

26 compensation Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Ελληνικά.

305 1.00 5.00 2.90 1.463

47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Ελληνικά με τους συμμαθητές μου.

307 1.00 5.00 2.90 1.409

28 compensation Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Ελληνικά.

307 1.00 5.00 2.89 1.325

22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Ελληνικά.

307 1.00 5.00 2.89 1.261

46 social Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Ελληνικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω.

307 1.00 5.00 2.87 1.401

20 cognitive Βρίσκω τη σημασία της ελληνικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω.

302 1.00 5.00 2.86 1.229

27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Ελληνικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό.

303 1.00 5.00 2.86 1.288

18 cognitive Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες ελληνικές λέξεις.

306 1.00 5.00 2.85 1.363

3 memory Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας ελληνικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα.

304 1.00 5.00 2.83 1.231

25 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Ελληνικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες.

309 1.00 5.00 2.81 1.382

48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Ελληνικά.

308 1.00 5.00 2.81 1.355


306 1.00 5.00 2.79 1.333

34 metacognitive Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Ελληνικά.

301 1.00 5.00 2.77 1.291

44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Ελληνικά.

301 1.00 5.00 2.52 1.310

4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις.

307 1.00 5.00 2.52 1.276

19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της ελληνικής γλώσσας.

306 1.00 5.00 2.42 1.303

6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις.

305 1.00 5.00 1.82 1.210

5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις.

307 1.00 5.00 1.77 1.087

Lydia Mitits 321

Appendix 11 Independent samples t- test – Comparison of means for monolingual and multilingual cases on SILL for English

Individual strategy items

Case type N Mean

Std. Deviatio

n Sig.

monolingual 918 3.05 1.191 1 memory Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Αγγλικά. multilingual 307 3.05 1.215

.958

monolingual 929 3.07 1.270 2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. multilingual 307 3.14 1.253

.355

monolingual 919 2.78 1.362 3 memory Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας αγγλικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα.

multilingual 304 2.99 1.288 .018

monolingual 925 1.96 1.208 4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. multilingual 300 2.48 1.238

.000

monolingual 929 1.51 .979 5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. multilingual 305 1.78 1.168

.000

monolingual 919 1.50 1.005 6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. multilingual 305 1.63 1.173

.088

monolingual 903 3.41 1.236 7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Αγγλικά μου.

multilingual 294 3.43 1.233 .872

monolingual 919 3.39 1.294 8 memory Θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις και φράσεις επειδή θυμάμαι να τις έχω δει τυπωμένες σε μια σελίδα βιβλίου, στον πίνακα η σε μια πινακίδα στο δρόμο.

multilingual 299 3.11 1.277 .001

monolingual 926 3.23 1.306 9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. multilingual 306 3.21 1.297

.857

monolingual 914 3.25 1368 10 cognitive Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Αγγλική μητρική τους γλώσσα. multilingual 305 3.53 1.385

.002

monolingual 927 3.42 1.322 11 cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των αγγλικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω. multilingual 304 3.50 1.218

.315

monolingual 904 3.20 1.284 12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις. multilingual 301 3.23 1.162

.715

monolingual 914 2.77 1.312 13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά. multilingual 301 2.68 1.268

.307

monolingual 909 3.37 1.415 14 cognitive Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Αγγλικά. multilingual 297 2.88 1.498

.000

monolingual 928 2.17 1.276 15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για ευχαρίστηση. multilingual 306 2.54 1.404

.000

monolingual 915 2.93 1.318 16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Αγγλικά. multilingual 296 2.95 1.458

.820

monolingual 923 3.51 1.373 17 cognitive Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο αγγλικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά. multilingual 301 3.37 1.291

.119


monolingual 925 2.91 1.402 18 cognitive Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες αγγλικές λέξεις. multilingual 307 2.80 1.341

.214

monolingual 919 2.16 1.293 19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της αγγλικής γλώσσας. multilingual 303 2.27 1.272

.174

monolingual 911 2.68 1.334 20 cognitive Βρίσκω τη σημασία της αγγλικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω. multilingual 302 2.79 1.305

.182

monolingual 924 2.85 1.411 21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη. multilingual 306 2.83 1.378

.758

monolingual 923 2.43 1.271 22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Αγγλικά. multilingual 303 2.80 1.361

.000

monolingual 932 3.13 1.479 23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Αγγλικών. multilingual 306 3.17 1.440

.641

monolingual 928 3.08 1.437 24 compensation Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Αγγλικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν. multilingual 307 3.47 1.417

.000

monolingual 929 2.32 1.386 25 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες.

multilingual 307 2.62 1.418 .001

monolingual 923 2.41 1.413 26 compensation Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Αγγλικά. multilingual 299 2.92 1.415

.000

monolingual 913 2.51 1.415 27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. multilingual 299 2.60 1.369

.302

monolingual 926 2.52 1.312 28 compensation Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Αγγλικά. multilingual 304 2.81 1.225

.000

monolingual 922 3.78 1.247 29 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση . multilingual 307 3.41 1.273

.000

monolingual 917 3.18 1.305 30 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Αγγλικά . multilingual 303 3.16 1.243

.737

monolingual 922 3.71 1.248 31 metacognitive Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Αγγλικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα. multilingual 307 3.75 1.291

.619

monolingual 925 3.74 1.237 32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. multilingual 305 3.84 1.282

.234

monolingual 892 3.60 1.253 33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Αγγλικά. multilingual 289 3.69 1.266

0,299

monolingual 912 2.64 1.271 34 metacognitive Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Αγγλικά. multilingual 303 2.79 1.259

.061

monolingual 920 2.56 1.300 35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Αγγλικά. multilingual 303 2.60 1.300

.644

monolingual 913 2.56 1.255 36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά. multilingual 301 2.80 1.293

.007

monolingual 924 3.51 1.261 37 metacognitive Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Αγγλικά μου. multilingual 304 3.45 1.268

.419

38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα monolingual 905 3.61 1.252 .014

Lydia Mitits 323

Αγγλικά. multilingual 297 3.41 1.252 monolingual 916 3.50 1.418 39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που

φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά. multilingual 301 3.42 1.351 .425

monolingual 926 3.58 1.339 40 affective Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Αγγλικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος. multilingual 303 3.43 1.271

.085

monolingual 928 3.51 1.395 41 affective Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Αγγλικά. multilingual 301 3.58 1.313

.432

monolingual 906 3.56 1.382 42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά. multilingual 291 3.44 1.318

.184

monolingual 911 3.39 1.271 43 affective Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη. multilingual 296 3.31 1.285

.332

monolingual 918 2.21 1.259 44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Αγγλικά. multilingual 302 2.54 1.367

.000

monolingual 909 3.53 1.283 45 social Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Αγγλικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε. multilingual 299 3.45 1.297

.362

monolingual 925 2.82 1.430 46 social Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Αγγλικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω. multilingual 307 2.79 1.480

.756

monolingual 922 2.47 1.315 47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. multilingual 303 2.77 1.351

.001

monolingual 921 3.03 1.326 48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά. multilingual 304 2.97 1.318

.517

monolingual 927 3.25 1.297 49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά.

multilingual 305 3.19 1.315 .536

monolingual 929 2.51 1.415 50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Αγγλικά. multilingual 307 2.77 1.381

.005


Appendix 12 Pearson r correlation coefficient for correlation of strategy use on SILL for English and SILL for Greek

Overall

SILL for Greek

overall

Pearson Correlation .489**

Sig. .000 SILL for English

overall N 307

Strategy categories on the SILL for English and the SILL for Greek Memory strategies Greek


Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Memory strategies

English N 307

Cognitive strategies Greek


Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Cognitive strategies English

N 307

Compensation strategies Greek



Compensation strategies English

N 307

Metacognitive strategies Greek



Metacognitive strategies English

N 307

Affective strategies Greek

Pearson Correlation .269** Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Affective strategies English

N 307

Social strategies Greek

Pearson Correlation .340** Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Social strategies English

N 307

Lydia Mitits 325

Appendix 13 Paired-samples statistics – Comparison of means on individual items and strategy categories on SILL for English and SILL for Greek

Mean N SD Std.

Error Mean

1memory Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Αγγλικά.

3.05 306 1.218 .069

Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Ελληνικά.

3.31 306 1.215 .069


3.15 306 1.251 .071

Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι.

3.22 306 1.264 .072


2.97 300 1.285 .074

Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας ελληνικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα.

2.84 300 1.235 .071


2.48 299 1.240 .071

Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις.

2.53 299 1.280 .074


1.77 304 1.156 .066

Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. 1.76 304 1.090 .062 6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 1.62 302 1.162 .066 Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. 1.83 302 1.215 .069 7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Αγγλικά μου. 3.41 287 1.240 .073 Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Ελληνικά μου. 3.35 287 1.329 .078 8 memory Θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις και φράσεις επειδή θυμάμαι να τις έχω δει τυπωμένες σε μια σελίδα βιβλίου, στον πίνακα η σε μια πινακίδα στο δρόμο.

3.12 296 1.275 .074

Θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις και φράσεις επειδή θυμάμαι να τις έχω δει τυπωμένες σε μια σελίδα βιβλίου, στον πίνακα η σε μια πινακίδα στο δρόμο.

3.06 296 1.258 .073

9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. 3.19 304 1.289 .073 Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. 3.01 304 1.307 .074 10 cognitive Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Αγγλική μητρική τους γλώσσα.

3.55 299 1.375 .079

Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Ελληνική μητρική τους γλώσσα.

3.87 299 1.278 .073

11cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των αγγλικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω.

3.50 300 1.233 .071

Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των ελληνικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω. 3.20 300 1.340 .077 12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις.

3.23 294 1.167 .068


Χρησιμοποιώ τις ελληνικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις.

3.18 294 1.181 .068

13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 2.68 298 1.266 .073 Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Ελληνικά. 3.39 298 1.277 .074 14 cognitive Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Αγγλικά.

2.89 292 1.502 .087

Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Ελληνικά.

3.25 292 1.393 .081


2.53 302 1.408 .081

Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Ελληνικά για ευχαρίστηση. 3.47 302 1.282 .073 16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Αγγλικά.

2.95 288 1.460 .086

Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Ελληνικά. 3.62 288 1.295 .076 17 cognitive Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο αγγλικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά.

3.36 298 1.293 .074

Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο ελληνικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά.

3.44 298 1.238 .071


2.80 305 1.341 .076

Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες ελληνικές λέξεις.

2.86 305 1.364 .078


2.26 301 1.268 .073

Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της ελληνικής γλώσσας. 2.45 301 1.304 .075 20 cognitive Βρίσκω τη σημασία της αγγλικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω.

2.80 296 1.296 .075

Βρίσκω τη σημασία της ελληνικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω.

2.88 296 1.230 .071


2.84 304 1.382 .079

Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη. 2.80 304 1.332 .076 22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Αγγλικά.

2.80 302 1.363 .078

Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Ελληνικά. 2.90 302 1.263 .072 23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Αγγλικών.

3.17 305 1.443 .082

Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Ελληνικών.

3.01 305 1.446 .082


3.48 307 1.417 .080

Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Ελληνικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν.

3.22 307 1.342 .076


2.63 307 1.415 .080

Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Ελληνικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες.

2.81 307 1.377 .078

Lydia Mitits 327


2.93 297 1.416 .082

Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Ελληνικά. 2.88 297 1.459 .084 27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, δεν ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό.

2.61 295 1.372 .079

Όταν διαβάζω Ελληνικά, δεν ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. 2.84 295 1.283 .074 28 compensation Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Αγγλικά.

2.82 303 1.232 .070

Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Ελληνικά.

2.89 303 1.331 .076


3.41 306 1.273 .072

Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Ελληνικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση .

3.35 306 1.246 .071


3.16 301 1.245 .071

Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Ελληνικά.

3.37 301 1.238 .071


3.76 305 1.294 .074

Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Ελληνικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα.

3.84 305 1.154 .066

32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. 3.84 302 1.285 .073 Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Ελληνικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. 3.70 302 1.312 .075 33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Αγγλικά.

3.69 276 1.254 .075

Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Ελληνικά. 3.52 276 1.376 .082 34 metacognitive Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Αγγλικά.

2.80 297 1.261 .073

Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Ελληνικά.

2.76 297 1.287 .074


2.60 302 1.301 .074

Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Ελληνικά. 3.16 302 1.372 .078 36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά.

2.79 299 1.295 .074

Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Ελληνικά.

3.10 299 1.426 .082


3.44 302 1.268 .073

Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Ελληνικά μου. 3.55 302 1.252 .072 38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Αγγλικά. 3.40 288 1.262 .074 Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Ελληνικά. 3.28 288 1.227 .072 39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά.

3.44 300 1.343 .077

Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Ελληνικά.

3.23 300 1.458 .084



3.45 302 1.263 .072

Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Ελληνικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος.

3.39 302 1.334 .076

41affective Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Αγγλικά. 3.60 295 1.305 .075 Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Ελληνικά. 3.29 295 1.386 .080 42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά.

3.45 280 1.324 .079

Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Ελληνικά. 3.40 280 1.324 .079 43 affective Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη.

3.30 295 1.281 .074

Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη.

3.15 295 1.232 .071


2.52 297 1.368 .079

Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Ελληνικά. 2.52 297 1.317 .076 45 social Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Αγγλικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε.

3.44 297 1.298 .075

Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Ελληνικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε.

3.01 297 1.306 .075


2.80 306 1.478 .084

Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Ελληνικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω.

2.87 306 1.404 .080

47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. 2.77 302 1.353 .077 Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Ελληνικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. 2.90 302 1.410 .081 48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά. 2.98 304 1.317 .075 Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Ελληνικά. 2.81 304 1.356 .077 49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 3.19 302 1.314 .075 Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Ελληνικά. 3.45 302 1.372 .078 50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Αγγλικά.

2.76 307 1.384 .079

Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Ελληνικά.

3.27 307 1.408 .080

Mean N SD Std. Error Mean

Memory strategies English 2.70 307 .653 .037 Memory strategies Greek 2.73 307 .733 .041 Cognitive strategies English 2.97 307 .655 .037 Cognitive strategies Greek 3.16 307 .720 .041 Compensation strategies English 2.98 307 .799 .045 Compensation strategies Greek 3.01 307 .834 .047 Metacognitive strategies English 3.28 307 .833 .047 Metacognitive strategies Greek 3.38 307 .905 .051 Affective strategies English 3.28 307 .825 .047 Affective strategies Greek 3.16 307 .913 .052

Lydia Mitits 329

Social strategies English 2.99 307 .912 .052 Social strategies Greek 3.05 307 .926 .052

.

Appendix 14 Paired-Samples t- test - Comparison of means on individual items and strategy categories for SILL for English and SILL for Greek

Mean SD t df Sig. 1 memory Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Αγγλικά. - Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Ελληνικά.

-.258 1.551 -2.910 305 .004

2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. -Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι.

-.075 1.514 -.868 305 .386

3 memory Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας αγγλικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα. - Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας ελληνικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα.

.133 1.563 1.477 299 .141

4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. - Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις.

-.053 1.441 -.642 298 .521

5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. - Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις.

.006 1.302 .088 303 .930

6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. - Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις.

-.205 1.406 -2.537 301 .012

7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Αγγλικά μου. - Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Ελληνικά μου.

.066 1.548 .724 286 .469

8 memory Θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις και φράσεις επειδή θυμάμαι να τις έχω δει τυπωμένες σε μια σελίδα βιβλίου, στον πίνακα η σε μια πινακίδα στο δρόμο. - Θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις και φράσεις επειδή θυμάμαι να τις έχω δει τυπωμένες σε μια σελίδα βιβλίου, στον πίνακα η σε μια πινακίδα στο δρόμο.

.060 1.510 .693 295 .489

9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. - Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές.

.177 1.498 2.067 303 .040

10 cognitive Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Αγγλική μητρική τους γλώσσα. - Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Ελληνική μητρική τους γλώσσα.

-.317 1.635 -3.360 298 .001


11cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των αγγλικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω. - 11 cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των ελληνικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω.

.293 1.705 2.978 299 .003

12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις. - Χρησιμοποιώ τις ελληνικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις.

.051 1.487 .588 293 .557

13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά. - Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Ελληνικά.

-.708 1.709 -7.151 297 .000

14 cognitive Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Αγγλικά. - Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Ελληνικά.

-.352 1.818 -3.314 291 .001

15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για ευχαρίστηση. - Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Ελληνικά για ευχαρίστηση.

-.933 1.758 -9.228 301 .000

16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Αγγλικά. - Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Ελληνικά.

-.670 1.871 -6.075 287 .000

17 cognitive Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο αγγλικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά. - Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο ελληνικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά.

-.083 1.551 -.933 297 .351

18 cognitive Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες αγγλικές λέξεις. - Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες ελληνικές λέξεις.

-.062 1.589 -.685 304 .494

19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της αγγλικής γλώσσας. - Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της ελληνικής γλώσσας.

-.192 1.468 -2.277 300 .024

20 cognitive Βρίσκω τη σημασία της αγγλικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω. - Βρίσκω τη σημασία της ελληνικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω.

-.074 1.569 -.815 295 .416

21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη. - Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη.

.046 1.674 .480 303 .632

22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Αγγλικά. - Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Ελληνικά.

-.099 1.706 -1.011 301 .313

23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Αγγλικών. - Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Ελληνικών.

.157 1.624 1.692 304 .092

24 compensation Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Αγγλικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν. - Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Ελληνικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν.

.260 .562 2.922 306 .004

Lydia Mitits 331

25 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες. - Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Ελληνικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες.

-.182 1.693 -1.887 306 .060

26 compensation Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Αγγλικά. - Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Ελληνικά.

.050 1.623 .536 296 .592

27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, δεν ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. - Όταν διαβάζω Ελληνικά, δεν ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό.

-.237 1.617 -2.519 294 .012

28 compensation Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Αγγλικά. - Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Ελληνικά.

-.062 1.548 -.705 302 .481

29 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση . - Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Ελληνικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση .

.062 1.479 .734 305 .463

30 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Αγγλικά . - Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Ελληνικά.

-.205 1.619 -2.206 300 .028

31 metacognitive Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Αγγλικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα. - Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Ελληνικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα.

-.088 1.451 -1.065 304 .288

32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. - Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Ελληνικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά.

.139 1.644 1.470 301 .143

33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Αγγλικά. - Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Ελληνικά.

.163 1.683 1.609 275 .109

34 metacognitive Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Αγγλικά. - Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Ελληνικά.

.033 1.432 .405 296 .686

35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Αγγλικά. - Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Ελληνικά.

-.556 1.712 -5.646 301 .000

36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά. - Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Ελληνικά.

-.307 1.696 -3.136 298 .002

37 metacognitive Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Αγγλικά μου. - Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Ελληνικά μου.

-.112 1.591 -1.230 301 .220

38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Αγγλικά. - Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Ελληνικά.

.128 1.514 1.440 287 .151


39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά. - Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Ελληνικά.

.203 1.838 1.916 299 .056

40 affective Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Αγγλικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος. - Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Ελληνικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος.

.056 1.640 .596 301 .551

41 affective Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Αγγλικά. - Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Ελληνικά.

.305 1.627 3.220 294 .001

42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά. - Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Ελληνικά.

.046 1.718 .452 279 .652

43 affective Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη. - Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη.

.152 1.628 1.608 294 .109

44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Αγγλικά. - Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Ελληνικά.

.000 1.531 .000 296 1.000

45 social Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Αγγλικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε. - Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Ελληνικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε.

.427 1.659 4.442 296 .000

46 social Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Αγγλικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω. - Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Ελληνικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω.

-.075 1.822 -.721 305 .471

47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. - Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Ελληνικά με τους συμμαθητές μου.

-.129 1.638 -1.370 301 .172

48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά. - Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Ελληνικά.

.164 1.622 1.767 303 .078

49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά. - Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Ελληνικά.

-.258 1.721 -2.608 301 .010

50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Αγγλικά. - Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Ελληνικά.

-.504 1.819 -4.863 306 .000

Memory strategies English – Memory strategies Greek -.037 .763 -.863 306 .389 Cognitive strategies English – Cognitive strategies Greek -.191 .721 -4.655 306 .000 Compensation strategies English – Compensation strategies Greek

-.023 .890 -.457 306 .648

Metacognitive strategies English – Metacognitive strategies Greek

-.105 1.006 -1.836 306 .067

Affective strategies English – Affective strategies Greek .119 1.055 1.981 306 .049 Social strategies English – Social strategies Greek -.059 1.056 -.988 306 .324

Lydia Mitits 333


Lydia Mitits 335

The idea of Saita publications emerged in July 2012, having as a primary goal to create a web space where new authors can interact with the readers directly and free. Saita publications’ aim is to redefine the relationship between publisher-author-reader, by cultivating a true dialogue, and by establishing an effective communication channel for authors and readers alike. Saita publications stay far away from profit, exploitation and commercialization of literary property.

The strong wind of passion for reading, the sweet breeze of creativity,

the zephyr of innovation, sirocco of imagination,

the levanter of persistence, the deep power of vision,

guide the saita of our publications.

We invite you to let books fly free!


Greek secondary education has witnessed some important changes in the last couple of decades with a significant influx of immigrants whose children attend Greek mainstream education. Moreover, there are the Muslim minority students in Thrace, many of whom also attend public junior high schools. However, the number of bilingual/multilingual students in secondary education is unidentified. While the situation is clearer with the Muslim minority students whose cultural and linguistic identity is known, those students who come from versatile cultural backgrounds and have a strong need to assimilate are very often reluctant to reveal their knowledge of other languages. Moreover, teachers in junior high schools are generally unaware of the presence of such bilingual/multilingual learners and are not trained to take advantage of this asset in the learning/teaching process. Language learning strategies have been recognized as having the potential to enhance the process of learning a second/foreign language. Prior language learning and metacognitive linguistic awareness based on the experience of learning languages have shown to produce a positive change in quality and quantity of the strategies multilinguals use when learning a language. As a result, investigation of multilingual language learning strategies is of prime interest in our world of growing multilingualism. This book adds to the delineation of the strategic profiles of monolingual and multilingual EFL learners, especially in relation to their gender, age, language proficiency level and motivation to learn English while, at the same time, it searches to find any possible differences between the two groups of learners. It also aims at discovering a possible variation within the multilingual group when they learn Greek and English. By discovering what paths learners take towards achieving proficiency in a language, we can enhance their awareness of how to be more successful language learners as well as provide strategic instruction in teaching materials in order to raise teachers’ awareness of issues related to multilingualism and language learning strategies in Greek schools.

ISBN: 978-618-5147-26-6

Documents

Language learning strategies and multilingualism