language learning strategies and multilingualism
DESCRIPTION
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.TRANSCRIPT
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
4 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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/
6 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
To my family
8 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
10 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
12 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
14 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
16 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
18 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
20 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
22 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
24 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
26 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
28 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
30 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
32 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
34 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
36 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
38 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
40 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
42 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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)
44 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
46 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
48 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
50 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
52 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
54 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
56 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
58 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
60 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
62 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
64 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
66 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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:
68 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
70 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
72 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
(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.
74 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
76 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
78 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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’
80 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
82 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
84 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
86 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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,
88 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
90 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
92 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
94 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
96 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
98 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
100 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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)
102 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
104 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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-
106 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
108 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
110 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
112 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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 & ´O 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
114 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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)
116 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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:
118 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
… 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
120 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
122 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
124 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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).
126 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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).
128 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
130 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
132 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
134 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
136 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
138 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
140 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
(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
142 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
Bilingualism & Biliteracy
9. TWO-WAY/ DUAL LANGUAGE
Mixed Language Minority
& Majority
Minority & Majority
Maintenance, Pluralism & Enrichment
Bilingualism & Biliteracy
10. MAINSTREAM BILINGUAL
Language Majority
Two Majority Languages
Maintenance, Pluralism & Enrichment
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
144 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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)
146 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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; ´O 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
148 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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 ´O 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
150 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
152 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
154 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
156 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
H0: There are no statistically significant differences between monolingual and
multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to memory strategies.
H1: There are statistically significant differences between monolingual and
multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to memory strategies.
Hypothesis no. 3
H0: There are no statistically significant differences between monolingual and
multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to cognitive strategies.
H1: There are statistically significant differences between monolingual and
multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to cognitive strategies.
Hypothesis no. 4
H0: There are no statistically significant differences between monolingual and
multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to compensation strategies.
H1: There are statistically significant differences between monolingual and
multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to compensation
strategies.
Hypothesis no. 5
H0: There are no statistically significant differences between monolingual and
multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to metacognitive
strategies.
H1: There are statistically significant differences between monolingual and
multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to metacognitive
strategies.
Lydia Mitits 157
Hypothesis no. 6
H0: There are no statistically significant differences between monolingual and
multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to affective strategies.
H1: There are statistically significant differences between monolingual and
multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to affective strategies.
Hypothesis no. 7
H0: There are no statistically significant differences between monolingual and
multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to social strategies.
H1: There are statistically significant differences between monolingual and
multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to social strategies.
Hypothesis no. 8
H0: There are no statistically significant differences between monolingual and
multilingual early adolescent EFL learners with respect to individual strategy
items.
H1: There are statistically significant differences between monolingual and
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.
158 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
adolescent EFL learners.
Hypothesis no. 13
H0: There is no significant effect for gender on metacognitive strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
H1: There is a significant effect for gender on metacognitive strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
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.
160 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
adolescent EFL learners.
H1: There is a significant effect for proficiency level on overall strategy use in early
adolescent EFL learners.
Hypothesis no. 24
H0: There is no significant effect for proficiency level on memory strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
H1: There is a significant effect for proficiency level on memory strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
Hypothesis no. 25
H0: There is no significant effect for proficiency level on cognitive strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
Lydia Mitits 161
H1: There is a significant effect for proficiency level on cognitive strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
Hypothesis no. 26
H0: There is no significant effect for proficiency level on compensation strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
H1: There is a significant effect for proficiency level on compensation strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
Hypothesis no. 27
H0: There is no significant effect for proficiency level on metacognitive strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
H1: There is a significant effect for proficiency level on metacognitive strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
Hypothesis no. 28
H0: There is no significant effect for proficiency level on affective strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
H1: There is a significant effect for proficiency level on affective strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
Hypothesis no. 29
H0: There is no significant effect for proficiency level on social strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
H1: There is a significant effect for proficiency level on social strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
Hypothesis no. 30
H0: There is no significant effect for motivation on overall strategy use in early
adolescent EFL learners.
162 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
H1: There is a significant effect for motivation on overall strategy use in early
adolescent EFL learners.
Hypothesis no. 31
H0: There is no significant effect for motivation on memory strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
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
adolescent EFL learners.
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
adolescent EFL learners.
H1: There is a significant effect for motivation on compensation strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
Hypothesis no. 34
H0: There is no significant effect for motivation on metacognitive strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
H1: There is a significant effect for motivation on metacognitive strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
Hypothesis no. 35
H0: There is no significant effect for motivation on affective strategies in early
adolescent EFL learners.
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.
164 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
strategies in multilingual learners.
H1: There is a significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on cognitive
strategies in multilingual learners.
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
strategies in multilingual learners.
Lydia Mitits 165
H1: There is a significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on affective
strategies in multilingual learners.
Hypothesis no. 46
H0: There is no significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on social
strategies in multilingual learners.
H1: There is a significant effect for gender by second vs. foreign language on social
strategies in multilingual learners.
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
166 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
168 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
(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
170 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
10. Greek and German 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
15. Greek and German 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
172 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
174 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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).
176 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
178 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
180 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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).
182 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
184 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
186 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
188 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
190 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
192 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
194 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
196 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
198 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
200 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
Research question 1: Do factors such as multilingualism, gender, age, proficiency level and
motivation influence language learning strategy use of early
adolescent EFL learners?
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).
202 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
204 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
206 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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).
208 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
210 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
adolescent EFL learners.
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
212 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
In order to determine which means are statistically different from one another
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
214 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
are based on the level of motivation to learn English and that students tend to use
compensation strategies regardless of how motivated they are.
In order to determine which means are statistically different from one another
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
not so important important -.304*,b,c .099 .006 -.540 -.068 important .398*,b,c .085 .000 .196 .601 very important
not so important .724*,b,c .109 .000 .465 .984 very important -.398*,b,c .085 .000 -.601 -.196 important
not so important .326*,b,c .107 .007 .070 .582 very important -.724*,b,c .109 .000 -.984 -.465
Social strategies
not so important important -.326*,b,c .107 .007 -.582 -.070 important .284*,b,c .053 .000 .158 .410 very important
not so important .574*,b,c .068 .000 .412 .736 very important -.284*,b,c .053 .000 -.410 -.158 important
not so important .290*,b,c .067 .000 .130 .450 very important -.574*,b,c .068 .000 -.736 -.412
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)
216 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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,
218 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
Research question 2: Do multilingual early adolescent language learners transfer language
learning strategies from their L2 Greek to FL English?
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
220 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
Compensation strategies 309 1.00 5.00 3.01 .841
Memory strategies 308 1.00 5.00 2.73 .732
Overall strategy use 309 1.12 5.00 3.10 .676
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
Overall strategy use 307 1.24 4.47 3.02 .603
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.
222 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
224 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
226 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
228 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
230 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
Research question 1: Do factors such as multilingualism, gender, age, proficiency level and
motivation influence language learning strategy use of early
adolescent EFL learners?
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.
232 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
234 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
236 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
238 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
240 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
242 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
244 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
Research question 2: Do multilingual early adolescent language learners transfer language
learning strategies from their L2 Greek to FL English?
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
246 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
248 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
250 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
252 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
254 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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; ´O 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
256 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
258 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
260 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
262 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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. ´O 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.
264 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
266 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
268 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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).
270 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
272 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
274 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
276 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
278 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
280 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
282 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
284 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
286 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
288 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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.
290 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
´
´O 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
292 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
294 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
296 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
298 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
300 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
302 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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; ______________________________________________________________________
304 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
306 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
308 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
310 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
312 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
29 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση .
922 1.00 5.00 3.78 1.247
314 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά.
925 1.00 5.00 3.74 1.237
31 metacognitive Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Αγγλικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα.
922 1.00 5.00 3.71 1.248
38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Αγγλικά.
905 1.00 5.00 3.61 1.252
33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Αγγλικά.
892 1.00 5.00 3.60 1.253
40 affective Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Αγγλικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος.
926 1.00 5.00 3.58 1.339
42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά.
906 1.00 5.00 3.56 1.382
45 social Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Αγγλικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε.
909 1.00 5.00 3.53 1.283
37 metacognitive Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Αγγλικά μου.
924 1.00 5.00 3.51 1.261
41 affective Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Αγγλικά.
928 1.00 5.00 3.51 1.395
17 cognitive Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο αγγλικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά.
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
11 cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των αγγλικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω.
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
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.
919 1.00 5.00 3.39 1.294
14 cognitive Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Αγγλικά.
909 1.00 5.00 3.37 1.415
10 cognitive Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Αγγλική μητρική τους γλώσσα.
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
12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις.
904 1.00 5.00 3.20 1.284
30 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Αγγλικά .
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
24 compensation Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Αγγλικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν.
928 1.00 5.00 3.08 1.437
2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι.
929 1.00 5.00 3.07 1.270
1 memory Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Αγγλικά.
918 1.00 5.00 3.05 1.191
48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά. 921 1.00 5.00 3.03 1.326 16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Αγγλικά.
915 1.00 5.00 2.93 1.318
18 cognitive Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες αγγλικές λέξεις.
925 1.00 5.00 2.91 1.402
21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη.
924 1.00 5.00 2.85 1.411
46 social Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Αγγλικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω.
925 1.00 5.00 2.82 1.430
3 memory Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας αγγλικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα.
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
34 metacognitive Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Αγγλικά.
912 1.00 5.00 2.64 1.271
36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά.
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
28 compensation Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Αγγλικά.
926 1.00 5.00 2.52 1.312
27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό.
913 1.00 5.00 2.51 1.415
50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Αγγλικά.
929 1.00 5.00 2.51 1.415
47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου.
922 1.00 5.00 2.47 1.315
22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Αγγλικά.
923 1.00 5.00 2.43 1.271
26 compensation Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Αγγλικά.
923 1.00 5.00 2.41 1.413
25 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες.
929 1.00 5.00 2.32 1.386
44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Αγγλικά.
918 1.00 5.00 2.21 1.259
15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για ευχαρίστηση.
928 1.00 5.00 2.17 1.276
316 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της αγγλικής γλώσσας.
919 1.00 5.00 2.16 1.293
4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις.
925 1.00 5.00 1.96 1.208
5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις.
929 1.00 5.00 1.51 .979
6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 919 1.00 5.00 1.50 1.005
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
31 metacognitive Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Αγγλικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα.
307 1.00 5.00 3.75 1.291
33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Αγγλικά.
289 1.00 5.00 3.69 1.266
41 affective Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Αγγλικά.
301 1.00 5.00 3.58 1.313
10 cognitive Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Αγγλική μητρική τους γλώσσα.
305 1.00 5.00 3.53 1.385
11 cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των αγγλικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω.
304 1.00 5.00 3.50 1.218
24 compensation Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Αγγλικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν.
307 1.00 5.00 3.47 1.417
45 social Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Αγγλικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε.
299 1.00 5.00 3.45 1.297
37 metacognitive Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Αγγλικά μου.
304 1.00 5.00 3.45 1.268
42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά.
291 1.00 5.00 3.44 1.318
40 affective Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Αγγλικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος.
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
38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Αγγλικά.
297 1.00 5.00 3.41 1.252
29 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση .
307 1.00 5.00 3.41 1.273
17 cognitive Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο αγγλικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά.
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
12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις.
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
30 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Αγγλικά .
303 1.00 5.00 3.16 1.243
2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι.
307 1.00 5.00 3.14 1.253
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.
299 1.00 5.00 3.11 1.277
1 memory Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Αγγλικά.
307 1.00 5.00 3.05 1.215
3 memory Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας αγγλικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα.
304 1.00 5.00 2.99 1.288
48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά. 304 1.00 5.00 2.97 1.318 16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Αγγλικά.
296 1.00 5.00 2.95 1.458
26 compensation Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Αγγλικά.
299 1.00 5.00 2.92 1.415
14 cognitive Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Αγγλικά.
297 1.00 5.00 2.88 1.498
21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη.
306 1.00 5.00 2.83 1.378
28 compensation Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Αγγλικά.
304 1.00 5.00 2.81 1.225
22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Αγγλικά.
303 1.00 5.00 2.80 1.361
18 cognitive Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες αγγλικές λέξεις.
307 1.00 5.00 2.80 1.341
36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά.
301 1.00 5.00 2.80 1.293
34 metacognitive Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Αγγλικά.
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
46 social Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Αγγλικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω.
307 1.00 5.00 2.79 1.480
47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου.
303 1.00 5.00 2.77 1.351
50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Αγγλικά.
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
318 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
25 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες.
307 1.00 5.00 2.62 1.418
27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό.
299 1.00 5.00 2.60 1.369
35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Αγγλικά.
303 1.00 5.00 2.60 1.300
44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Αγγλικά.
302 1.00 5.00 2.54 1.367
15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για ευχαρίστηση.
306 1.00 5.00 2.54 1.404
4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις.
300 1.00 5.00 2.48 1.238
19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της αγγλικής γλώσσας.
303 1.00 5.00 2.27 1.272
5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις.
305 1.00 5.00 1.78 1.168
6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 305 1.00 5.00 1.63 1.173
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
320 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη.
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
322 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
324 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
Pearson Correlation .399**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 Memory strategies
English N 307
Cognitive strategies Greek
Pearson Correlation .459**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Cognitive strategies English
N 307
Compensation strategies Greek
Pearson Correlation .409**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Compensation strategies English
N 307
Metacognitive strategies Greek
Pearson Correlation .336**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
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
2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι.
3.15 306 1.251 .071
Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι.
3.22 306 1.264 .072
3 memory Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας αγγλικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα.
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
4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις.
2.48 299 1.240 .071
Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις.
2.53 299 1.280 .074
5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις.
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
326 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για ευχαρίστηση.
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
18 cognitive Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες αγγλικές λέξεις.
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
19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της αγγλικής γλώσσας.
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
21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη.
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
24 compensation Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Αγγλικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν.
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
25 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες.
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
26 compensation Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Αγγλικά.
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
29 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση .
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
30 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Αγγλικά .
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
31 metacognitive Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Αγγλικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα.
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
35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Αγγλικά.
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
37 metacognitive Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Αγγλικά μου.
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
328 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
40 affective Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Αγγλικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος.
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
44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Αγγλικά.
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
46 social Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Αγγλικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω.
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
330 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
332 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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
334 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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!
336 Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism
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