Page 1

LYDIA MITITS

Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism Monolingual EFL and Multilingual EFL/L2 Greek Learners in Greek Secondary Education


2

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.

Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism


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 christ.foridis@gmail.com

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: info@saitapublications.gr 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 Definitions and terminology........................................................................................110

5.1.


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 Limitations of the study ...............................................................................................259 Recommendations for future research .......................................................................261

9.1. 9.2.

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 selfregulated 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 & K端pper, 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

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. 1


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

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. 2


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’ stimulusresponse-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 implicitexplicit 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 (PsaltouJoycey, 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 shortterm 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 differences 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, selfdirection, 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 selfregulation 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, metaaffective, and metasocioculturalinteractive): 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: Remembering and processing the L2 Using the Senses to Understand and (constructing, transforming, and applying L2 Remember knowledge) Activating Knowledge Reasoning Conceptualizing with Details Conceptualizing Broadly Going Beyond the Existing Data 2 strategies in the affective dimension: Handling emotions, beliefs, attitudes, and Activating Supportive Emotions, Beliefs, motivation in L2 learning and Attitudes Generating and Maintaining Motivation 3 strategies in the socioculturalinteractive dimension: Interacting to Learn and Communicate Learning Despite Communicative Knowledge Gaps Dealing with Sociocultural Contexts and Identities

Dealing with issues communication, and culture in L2 learning

of

contexts,


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

Definition ‘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 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

for


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 Kßpper (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 Bialystok (1978)

Type of strategy Formal practicing

Functional practicing Monitoring strategies Inferencing strategies

Description 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 Rubin (1981)

Direct strategies

Indirect strategies O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo, and Küpper (1985) O’Malley and Chamot (1990)

Cognitive strategies

Metacognitive strategies

Socioaffective strategies

Assuming what people say, looking for patterns of the target language Interacting with peers when learning, asking for help Clarifying, memorizing, guessing, inductive inferencing, deductive reasoning Creating opportunities for practice, using production tricks, using synonyms 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 selfreport 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 6. Social strategies A. Guessing intelligently A. Asking questions B. Overcoming limitations in speaking and B. Cooperating with others writing 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-toone 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 selfregulatory 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 & Kßpper, 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, Kßpper & 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 & ElDinary, 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 JimĂŠnez (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; LarsenFreeman, 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 selfregulation 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 crosslinguistic 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 selfmanagement. 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 selfdirected 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 crossinfluence. 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 socioeconomic 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 conversationallyoriented 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 nonverbal 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 & PrysJones, 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 TurkishDutch 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 Persianspeaking 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 microcontexts 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 1. SUBMERSION (structured immersion) 2. SUBMERSION (withdrawal classes/ sheltered English 3. SEGREGATIONIST

Typical type of child Language Minority Language Minority

Language Minority

4. TRANSITIONAL

Language Minority

5. MAINSTREAM

Language

Language of the classroom Majority Language Majority Language with ‘pull-out’ lessons Minority Language (forced, no choice) Moves from Minority to Majority Language Majority

Societal and educational aims Assimilation

Aim in language outcome Monolingualism

Assimilation

Monolingualism

Apartheid

Monolingualism

Assimilation

Relative Monolingualism

Limited

Limited


Lydia Mitits

143

with foreign language teaching 6. SEPARATIST

Majority Language Minority

Language with L2/FL lessons Minority Language (out of choice)

Enrichment

Bilingualism

Detachment/ Autonomy

Limited Bilingualism

STRONG FORMS OF EDUCATION FOR BILINGUALISM AND BILITERACY 7. IMMERSION

Language Majority

8. MAINTENANCE/ HERITAGE LANGUAGE

Language Minority

9. TWO-WAY/ DUAL LANGUAGE

Mixed Language Minority & Majority Language Majority

10. MAINSTREAM BILINGUAL

5.8.2.

Bilingual with Pluralism & initial Enrichment emphasis on L2 Bilingual with Maintenance, emphasis on L1 Pluralism & Enrichment

Bilingualism & Biliteracy Bilingualism & Biliteracy

Minority & Majority

Maintenance, Pluralism & Enrichment

Bilingualism & Biliteracy

Two Majority Languages

Maintenance, Pluralism & Enrichment

Bilingualism & biliteracy

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 crosslanguage 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 subsample (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 Turkishspeaking 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

1233

10.,0

Total

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

1239

100.0

Total

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

1239

100.0

Total

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

1239

100.0

Total

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 subsample 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

1227

100.0

Total

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

Frequency

Valid Percent

very important

208

68.2

important

83

27.2

not so important

14

4.6

305

100.0

Total

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.


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

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

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


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 learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 Oxfordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 instrumentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 crossnational 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

documentation of the changes should be provided.

should

be

applied;

and


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 EAffective 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 Cronbachâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 Cronbachâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 PsaltouJoyceyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 bilingualsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 withinsubjects 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 subsamples 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 learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 Social

1237 1237

1.00 1.00

5.00 5.00

3.24 2.94

.84 .85

Cognitive Compensation Memory

1239 1237 1239

1.00 1.00 1.00

5.00 5.00 5.00

2.94 2.82 2.61

.64 .79 .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 Dependent Variable

95% Confidence Interval

Mean

SD

monolinguals

2.47

a

.037

multilinguals monolinguals multilinguals monolinguals

a

2.57 2.77a 2.84a 2.74a

.048 .036 .047 .047

2.48 2.70 2.74 2.65

2.67 2.84 2.93 2.83

multilinguals monolinguals Metacognitive strategies multilinguals monolinguals Affective strategies multilinguals monolinguals Social strategies multilinguals

2.93a 2.96a 3.14a 3.13a

.061 .046 .060 .046

2.81 2.87 3.02 3.04

3.05 3.05 3.26 3.22

3.16a 2.74a 2.84a

.059 .049 .064

3.05 2.65 2.71

3.28 2.84 2.96

monolinguals multilinguals a. Based on modified population marginal mean.

2.79a 2.90a

.031 .040

2.73 2.82

2.85 2.98

Memory strategies Cognitive strategies Compensation strategies

Overall

Lower Bound Upper Bound 2.40 2.55

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 Lower Upper Bound Bound -.218 .020 -.020 .218 -.184 .049

Dependent Variables

Mean Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.d

monolinguals multilinguals monolinguals

multilinguals monolinguals multilinguals

-.099a,b .099a,b -.067a,b

.061 .061 .059

.102 .102 .257

multilinguals

monolinguals

.067a,b

.059

.257

-.049

.184

monolinguals multilinguals monolinguals multilinguals

multilinguals monolinguals multilinguals monolinguals

-.189 .189a,b,* -.177a,b,* .177a,b,*

.077 .077 .076 .076

.015 .015 .021 .021

-.340 .037 -.326 .027

-.037 .340 -,027 .326

monolinguals multilinguals monolinguals multilinguals

multilinguals monolinguals multilinguals monolinguals

-.028a,b .028a,b -.094a,b .094a,b

.075 .075 .081 .081

.705 .705 .245 .245

-.175 -.118 -.253 -.065

.118 .175 .065 .253

monolinguals multilinguals -.106a,b,* multilinguals monolinguals .106a,b,* Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the ,05 level.

.051 .051

.036 .036

-.205 .007

-.007 .205

Memory strategies Cognitive strategies Compensation strategies Metacognitive strategies Affective strategies Social strategies

a,b,*

Overall

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 canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 monolingualsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and multilingualsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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.

(3 memo) I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or monolingual 919 2.78 1.362 .018 picture of the word to help remember the word. multilingual 304 2.99 1.288 (4 memo) I use rhymes to remember new English words.

monolingual 925 1.96 1.208 multilingual 300 2.48 1.238

(5 memo) I use flashcards to remember new English words.

monolingual 929 1.51

.979

multilingual 305 1.78 1.168

.000 .000

(8 memo) I remember new English words or phrases by remembering monolingual 919 3.39 1.294 .001 their location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign. multilingual 299 3.11 1.277 (10 cog) I try to talk like native English speakers.

monolingual 914 3.25 1.368 multilingual 305 3.53 1.385

(14 cog) I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in English.

monolingual 909 3.37 1.415

(15 cog) I read for pleasure in English.

monolingual 928 2.17 1.276

multilingual 297 2.88 1.498 multilingual 306 2.54 1.404

(22 cog) I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English.

monolingual 923 2.43 1.271

(24 comp) To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses.

monolingual 928 3.08 1.437

multilingual 303 2.80 1.361 multilingual 307 3.47 1.417

(25 comp) When I canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures.

monolingual 929 2.32 1.386

(26 comp) I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English.

monolingual 923 2.41 1.413

(28 comp) I try to guess what the other person will say next in English.

monolingual 926 2.52 1.312

(29 comp) If I canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing.

monolingual 922 3.78 1.247

(36 meta) I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English.

monolingual 913 2.56 1.255

(38 meta) I think about my progress in learning English.

monolingual 905 3.61 1.252

multilingual 307 2.62 1.418 multilingual 299 2.92 1.415 multilingual 304 2.81 1.225 multilingual 307 3.41 1.273 multilingual 301 2.80 1.293 multilingual 297 3.41 1.252

(44 aff) I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English.

monolingual 918 2.21 1.259

(47 soc) I practice English with other students.

monolingual 922 2.47 1.315

multilingual 302 2.54 1.367 multilingual 303 2.77 1.351

(50 soc) I try to learn about the culture of English speakers.

monolingual 929 2.51 1.415 multilingual 307 2.77 1.381

.002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .007 .014 .000 .001 .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 Dependent Variable

Mean

Std. Error

Memory strategies Cognitive strategies Compensation strategies Metacognitive strategies Affective strategies

2.508a 2.545a 2.697a 2.919a 2.712a 2.962a 2.948a 3.155a 3.019a 3.294a 2.681a

.039 .046 .038 .045 .049 .058 .049 .058 .048 .057 .052

Social

boy girl boy girl boy girl boy girl boy girl boy

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 2.432 2.583 2.455 2.635 2.623 2.771 2.830 3.007 2.616 2.809 2.847 3.077 2.853 3.044 3.041 3.268 2.926 3.113 3.183 3.405 2.579 2.782


210

Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism strategies overall

girl 2.913a .061 a boy 2.750 .032 a girl 2.953 .038 a. Based on modified population marginal mean.

2.793 2.687 2.877

3.033 2.813 3.028

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 learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 1415 (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

Memory strategies

Cognitive strategies Compensation strategies

EFL achievement

N

Mean

SD

10-12 13-15 16-18 19-20 10-12 13-15 16-18

81 138 393 590 81 138 393

2.41 2.57 2.58 2.69 2.69 2.75 2.88

.667 .707 .624 .602 .625 .692 .619

19-20 10-12

590 81

3.08 2.75

.621 .892

F

Sig.

6.397

.000

19.950

.000

.831

.477


212

Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism

Metacognitive strategies

Affective strategies

Social strategies

Overall strategy use

13-15 16-18

138 392

2.78 2.81

.850 .800

19-20 10-12 13-15

589 81 138

2.86 2.86 3.01

.755 .850 .875

16-18 19-20 10-12 13-15 16-18

392 589 81 138 392

3.15 3.44 3.03 3.09 3.24

.840 .804 .932 .890 .830

19-20 10-12 13-15

589 81 138

3.43 2.68 2.80

.732 .825 .934

16-18 19-20 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-20

392 589 81 138 393 590

2.87 3.07 2.72 2.82 2.91 3.10

.862 .823 .602 .637 .563 .523

22.041

.000

12.468

.000

9.759

.000

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 1920 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

Dependent Variable Memory strategies

very important

important not so important

important

very important not so important

not so important Cognitive strategies

very important important

very important important important not so important very important not so important

Mean Difference (IJ)

Std. Error

Sig.d

.244*,b,c

.063

.426*,b,c

95% Confidence Interval for Differenced Lower Bound

Upper Bound

.000

.093

.395

.081

.000

.232

.620

-.244*,b,c

.063

.000

-.395

-.093

.182b,c

.080

.068

-.009

.373

-.426*,b,c

.081

.000

-.620

-.232

-.182b,c .210*,b,c

.080 .062

.068 .002

-.373 .062

.009 .359

.480*,b,c

.080

.000

.289

.670

-.210*,b,c

.062

.002

-.359

-.062

.269*,b,c

.079

.002

.081

.457


Lydia Mitits

215

not so important Compensation strategies

very important important important not so important very important

-.480*,b,c -.269*,b,c .167b,c .239b,c -.167b,c

.080 .079 .081 .103 .081

.000 .002 .111 .062 .111

-.670 -.457 -.026 -.008 -.360

-.289 -.081 .360 .486 .026

not so important very important important important not so important very important not so important very important

.072b,c -.239b,c -.072b,c .420*,b,c .958*,b,c -.420*,b,c .538*,b,c -.958*,b,c

.102 .103 .102 .080 .102 .080 .101 .102

.861 .062 .861 .000 0.000 .000 .000 0.000

-.172 -.486 -.316 .230 .714 -.611 .297 -1.202

.316 .008 .172 .611 1.202 -.230 .779 -.714

important

-.538*,b,c

.101

.000

-.779

-.297

very important

important not so important

*,b,c

.322 .626*,b,c

.078 .100

.000 .000

.136 .387

.509 .865

important

very important not so important very important important important not so important

-.322*,b,c .304*,b,c -.626*,b,c -.304*,b,c .398*,b,c .724*,b,c

.078 .099 .100 .099 .085 .109

.000 .006 .000 .006 .000 .000

-.509 .068 -.865 -.540 .196 .465

-.136 .540 -.387 -.068 .601 .984

very important

-.398*,b,c

.085

.000

-.601

-.196

not so important very important important important not so important very important not so important

*,b,c

.326 -.724*,b,c -.326*,b,c .284*,b,c .574*,b,c -.284*,b,c .290*,b,c

.107 .109 .107 .053 .068 .053 .067

.007 .000 .007 .000 .000 .000 .000

.070 -.984 -.582 .158 .412 -.410 .130

.582 -.465 -.070 .410 .736 -.158 .450

very important important

-.574*,b,c -.290*,b,c

.068 .067

.000 .000

-.736 -.450

-.412 -.130

very important important not so important

Metacognitive strategies

very important important not so important

Affective strategies

not so important Social strategies

very important important not so important

overall

very important important not so important

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 Affective strategies

N Min. Max. Mean SD 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 learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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) gender boys girls

Mean

Std. Error

SILL for English

2.82

SILL for Greek

95% Confidence Interval

.050

Lower Bound 2.730

Upper Bound 2.928

3.01

.058

2.899

3.128

SILL for English

3.16

.044

3.084

3.255

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 boysâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 speakersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 Oxfordâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 femalesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; superiority over malesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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). Girlsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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-Dibâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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

womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to self-manage their learning better than men. On the other hand, Gavriilidou and Papanisâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (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 studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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; Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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. Dรถrnyei (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 learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; strategy use is of higher frequency compared to foreign language learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (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

8.2.2.

251

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 learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 (Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 inservice 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 & Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 multilingualsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;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 multilingualsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; teaching of strategies matches their studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 crosslinguistic 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): 2658. 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. 43â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 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). Selfregulated 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: 8595. 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): 389411. 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 Crosscurricular 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 KoreanChinese 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: 125â&#x20AC;&#x201C;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. 31â&#x20AC;&#x201C;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): 427435. 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 selfefficacy. 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): 439469. 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: 221244. 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 46). 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: 404419. 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: Crosscultural 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: 107127. 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 learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; 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 schoolaged 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 selfassessment 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: selfefficacy 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: 209241. 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. 1120). 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: 235246. 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): 10991113. 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 crosscultural 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) Š 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Αγγλικά. Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας αγγλικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα. Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Αγγλικά μου.

1

2

3

4

5

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 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. 9. Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. 10. Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Αγγλική μητρική τους γλώσσα. 11. Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των αγγλικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω.

1

2

3

4

5

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

12. 13. 14. 15.

Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις. Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά. Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Αγγλικά. Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για ευχαρίστηση.

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

16. Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Αγγλικά. 17. Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο αγγλικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά. 18. Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες αγγλικές λέξεις.

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

1

2

3

4

5

19. Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της αγγλικής γλώσσας. 20. Βρίσκω τη σημασία της αγγλικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω.

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 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. 23. Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Αγγλικών.

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

24. Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Αγγλικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν. 25. Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες. 26. Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Αγγλικά. 27. Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό.

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

28. Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Αγγλικά. 29. Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη ή φράση . 30. Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Αγγλικά . 31. Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Αγγλικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα.

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

32. Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. 33. Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Αγγλικά.

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

34. Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Αγγλικά. 35. Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Αγγλικά.

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά. Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Αγγλικά μου. Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Αγγλικά. Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά. Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Αγγλικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος. 41. Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Αγγλικά. 42. Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά. 43. Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη.

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

44. Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Αγγλικά.

1

2

3

4

5


Lydia Mitits

301

45. Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Αγγλικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε. 46. Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Αγγλικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω. 47. Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. 48. Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά.

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

49. Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 50. Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Αγγλικά.

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

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. 1.

Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Ελληνικά.

1

2

3

4

5

2. 3.

Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας ελληνικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα. Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Ελληνικά μου. 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 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5

Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Ελληνική μητρική τους γλώσσα. Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των ελληνικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω. Χρησιμοποιώ τις ελληνικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις. Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Ελληνικά. Παρακολουθώ ελληνικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Ελληνικά. Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Ελληνικά για ευχαρίστηση. Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Ελληνικά. Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο ελληνικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά.

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.


302

Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism

18. Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες ελληνικές λέξεις. 19. Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της ελληνικής γλώσσας.

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

20. Βρίσκω τη σημασία της ελληνικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω. 21. Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη.

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

22. Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Ελληνικά. 23. Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Ελληνικών. 24. Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Ελληνικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν. 25. Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Ελληνικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες. 26. Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Ελληνικά.

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

27. Όταν διαβάζω Ελληνικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. 28. Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Ελληνικά. 29. Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Ελληνικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση.

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

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. 32. 33. 34. 35.

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5

36. Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Ελληνικά . 37. Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Ελληνικά μου.

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

38. Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Ελληνικά. 39. Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Ελληνικά. 40. Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Ελληνικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος. 41. Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Ελληνικά.

1 1 1

2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4

5 5 5

1

2

3

4

5

42. Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Ελληνικά. 43. Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη. 44. Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Ελληνικά. 45. Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Ελληνικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε. 46. Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Ελληνικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω.

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

1

2

3

4

5

47. 48. 49. 50.

1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Ελληνικά, ώστε να τα μάθω καλύτερα. Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Ελληνικά τον ακούω προσεκτικά. Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Ελληνικά. Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Ελληνικά. Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Ελληνικά.

Κάνω εξάσκηση των Ελληνικών με τους συμμαθητές μου. Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Ελληνικά. Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Ελληνικά. Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Ελληνικά. ΕΥΧΑΡΙΣΤΩ ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΧΡΟΝΟ ΣΟΥ !


Lydia Mitits

303

Appendix 4 Individual background questionnaire (IBQ) 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Τάξη ___________________________________ Φύλο ____________________________________ Μητρική γλώσσα ___________________________ Γλώσσα/γλώσσες που μιλάτε στο σπίτι __________________________________________ Πόσο σημαντικό είναι για σένα να μιλάς άπταιστα Αγγλικά; (κύκλωσε την απάντηση που σου ταιριάζει) πολύ σημαντικό

6.

7.

8. 9.

σημαντικό

όχι και τόσο σημαντικό

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 _____________________________________________ Σου αρέσει να μαθαίνεις ξένες γλώσσες; (κύκλωσε την απάντηση που σου ταιριάζει) ναι όχι Ποιες άλλες γλώσσες μαθαίνεις; ______________________________________________ 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

Cronbachâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Alpha

N of items

memory cognitive compensation

.620 .768 .601

8 15 6

metacognitive affective social

.853 .669 .712

9 6 6

Reliability analysis for the SILL for Greek (six sub-scales) Strategy category memory cognitive

Cronbachâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Alpha .738 .844

N of items 8 15

compensation metacognitive

.687 .853

6 9

affective social

.768 .752

6 6


306

Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism

Appendix 7 Frequency of use of individual items on SILL for English (all valid cases)

1 memory Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Αγγλικά. 2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. 3 memory Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας αγγλικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα. 4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Αγγλικά μου. 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. 9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. 10 cognitive Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Αγγλική μητρική τους γλώσσα.

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

%

11.02

22.69

29.71

23.18

13.39

100.00

n

153

289

275

329

190

1236

%

12.38

23.38

22.25

26.62

15.37

100.00

n

245

309

252

236

181

1223

%

20.03

25.27

20.61

19.30

14.80

100.00

n

539

306

195

104

81

1225

%

44.00

24.98

15.92

8.49

6.61

100.00

n

840

208

94

45

47

1234

%

68.07

16.86

7.62

3.65

3.81

100.00

n

890

158

70

61

45

1224

%

72.71

12.91

5.72

4.98

3.68

100.00

n

91

198

319

293

296

1197

%

7.60

16.54

26.65

24.48

24.73

100.00

n

129

210

306

283

290

1218

%

10.59

17.24

25.12

23.23

23.81

100.00

n

130

273

291

263

275

1232

%

10.55

22.16

23.62

21.35

22.32

100.00

n

154

226

245

259

335

1219

%

12.63

18.54

20.10

21.25

27.48

100.00

11 cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των αγγλικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω.

n

108

210

285

279

349

1231

%

8.77

17.06

23.15

22.66

28.35

100.00

12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις.

n

133

230

311

312

219

1205

%

11.04

19.09

25.81

25.89

18.17

100.00

n

250

323

262

237

143

1215

%

20.58

26.58

21.56

19.51

11.77

100.00

n

220

176

205

286

319

1206

%

18.24

14.59

17.00

23.71

26.45

100.00

13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 14 cognitive Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Αγγλικά. 15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για ευχαρίστηση.

n

479

306

198

141

110

1234

%

38.82

24.80

16.05

11.43

8.91

100.00

16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Αγγλικά.

n

216

298

235

263

199

1211

%

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

18 cognitive Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες αγγλικές λέξεις.

n

263

266

263

230

210

1232

%

21.35

21.59

21.35

18.67

17.05

100.00

n

508

290

202

127

95

1222

%

41.57

23.73

16.53

10.39

7.77

100.00

n

284

296

266

221

146

1213

%

23.41

24.40

21.93

18.22

12.04

100.00

n

267

288

261

189

225

1230

%

21.71

23.41

21.22

15.37

18.29

100.00

19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της αγγλικής γλώσσας. 20 cognitive Βρίσκω τη σημασία της αγγλικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω. 21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προςλέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη. 22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Αγγλικά.

n

341

321

275

160

129

1226

%

27.81

26.18

22.43

13.05

10.52

100.00

23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Αγγλικών.

n

240

216

228

231

323

1238

%

19.39

17.45

18.42

18.66

26.09

100.00

n

211

215

266

234

308

1234

%

17.10

17.42

21.56

18.96

24.96

100.00

n

462

275

189

165

145

1236

%

37.38

22.25

15.29

13.35

11.73

100.00

24 compensation Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Αγγλικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν. 25 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες. 26 compensation Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Αγγλικά. 27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. 28 compensation Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Αγγλικά. 29 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση . 30 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Αγγλικά . 31 metacognitive Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Αγγλικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα. 32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. 33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Αγγλικά. 34 metacognitive Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Αγγλικά. 35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Αγγλικά. 36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά.

n

408

262

209

170

173

1222

%

33.39

21.44

17.10

13.91

14.16

100.00

n

396

259

224

176

157

1212

%

32.67

21.37

18.48

14.52

12.95

100.00

n

315

307

293

187

128

1230

%

25.61

24.96

23.82

15.20

10.41

100.00

n

96

133

255

317

428

1229

%

7.81

10.82

20.75

25.79

34.83

100.00

n

136

267

303

266

248

1220

%

11.15

21.89

24.84

21.80

20.33

100.00

n

74

165

247

279

464

1229

%

6.02

13.43

20.10

22.70

37.75

100.00

n

81

136

238

304

471

1230

%

6.59

11.06

19.35

24.72

38.29

100.00

n

81

164

258

292

386

1181

%

6.86

13.89

21.85

24.72

32.68

100.00

n

268

304

317

200

126

1215

%

22.06

25.02

26.09

16.46

10.37

100.00

n

320

321

273

182

127

1223

%

26.17

26.25

22.32

14.88

10.38

100.00

n

277

338

278

203

118

1214

%

22.82

27.84

22.90

16.72

9.72

100.00


308 37 metacognitive Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Αγγλικά μου. 38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Αγγλικά. 39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά. 40 affective Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Αγγλικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος. 41 affective Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Αγγλικά. 42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά. 43 affective Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη. 44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Αγγλικά. 45 social Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Αγγλικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε. 46 social Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Αγγλικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω. 47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. 48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά. 49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Αγγλικά.

Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism n

94

190

302

291

350

1227

%

7.66

15.48

24.61

23.72

28.52

100.00

n

95

157

274

322

353

1201

%

7.91

13.07

22.81

26.81

29.39

100.00

n

163

159

217

283

395

1217

%

13.39

13.06

17.83

23.25

32.46

100.00

n

129

154

242

320

384

1229

%

10.50

12.53

19.69

26.04

31.24

100.00

n

139

178

220

278

414

1229

%

11.31

14.48

17.90

22.62

33.69

100.00

n

135

153

258

241

409

1196

%

11.29

12.79

21.57

20.15

34.20

100.00

n

123

186

299

315

284

1207

%

10.19

15.41

24.77

26.10

23.53

100.00

n

442

320

225

123

110

1220

%

36.23

26.23

18.44

10.08

9.02

100.00

n

114

162

270

317

345

1208

%

9.44

13.41

22.35

26.24

28.56

100.00

n

324

227

252

212

217

1232

%

26.30

18.43

20.45

17.21

17.61

100.00

n

349

304

262

174

136

1225

%

28.49

24.82

21.39

14.20

11.10

100.00

n

203

254

282

288

198

1225

%

16.57

20.73

23.02

23.51

16.16

100.00

n

151

218

312

290

261

1232

%

12.26

17.69

25.32

23.54

21.19

100.00

n

367

302

231

165

170

1235

%

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)

1 memory Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Ελληνικά.

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

%

9.12

15.64

29.32

26.38

19.54

100.00


Lydia Mitits 2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. 3 memory Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας ελληνικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα. 4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. 5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις.

309 n

31

67

69

82

58

307

%

10.10

21.82

22.48

26.71

18.89

100.00

n

50

79

76

69

30

304

%

16.45

25.99

25.00

22.70

9.87

100.00

n

82

82

70

45

28

307

%

26.71

26.71

22.80

14.66

9.12

100.00

n

171

78

25

23

10

307

%

55.70

25.41

8.14

7.49

3.26

100.00

6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις.

n

181

52

33

22

17

305

%

59.34

17.05

10.82

7.21

5.57

100.00

7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Ελληνικά μου.

n

33

54

68

67

78

300

%

11.00

18.00

22.67

22.33

26.00

100.00

n

41

61

89

66

47

304

%

13.49

20.07

29.28

21.71

15.46

100.00

n

44

72

75

62

53

306

%

14.38

23.53

24.51

20.26

17.32

100.00

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. 9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. 10 cognitive Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Ελληνική μητρική τους γλώσσα.

n

20

32

52

61

137

302

%

6.62

10.60

17.22

20.20

45.36

100.00

11 cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των ελληνικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω.

n

41

56

69

72

66

304

%

13.49

18.42

22.70

23.68

21.71

100.00

n

25

59

100

69

48

301

%

8.31

19.60

33.22

22.92

15.95

100.00

n

24

55

87

56

83

305

%

7.87

18.03

28.52

18.36

27.21

100.00

12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις ελληνικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις. 13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Ελληνικά. 14 cognitive Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Ελληνικά.

n

44

53

67

62

77

303

%

14.52

17.49

22.11

20.46

25.41

100.00

15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Ελληνικά για ευχαρίστηση.

n

23

54

76

61

90

304

%

7.57

17.76

25.00

20.07

29.61

100.00

n

21

44

62

65

106

298

%

7.05

14.77

20.81

21.81

35.57

100.00

n

24

44

85

75

77

305

%

7.87

14.43

27.87

24.59

25.25

100.00

n

55

88

63

45

55

306

%

17.97

28.76

20.59

14.71

17.97

100.00

n

94

79

60

46

27

306

%

30.72

25.82

19.61

15.03

8.82

100.00

n

51

66

88

66

31

302

%

16.89

21.85

29.14

21.85

10.26

100.00

n

66

68

78

51

43

306

%

21.57

22.22

25.49

16.67

14.05

100.00

16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Ελληνικά. 17 cognitive Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο ελληνικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά. 18 cognitive Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες ελληνικές λέξεις. 19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της ελληνικής γλώσσας. 20 cognitive Βρίσκω τη σημασία της ελληνικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω. 21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προςλέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη.


310 22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Ελληνικά. 23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Ελληνικών. 24 compensation Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Ελληνικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν. 25 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Ελληνικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες. 26 compensation Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Ελληνικά. 27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Ελληνικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. 28 compensation Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Ελληνικά. 29 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Ελληνικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση . 30 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Ελληνικά. 31 metacognitive Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Ελληνικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα. 32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Ελληνικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. 33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Ελληνικά. 34 metacognitive Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Ελληνικά. 35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Ελληνικά. 36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Ελληνικά.

Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism n

49

75

81

63

39

307

%

15.96

24.43

26.38

20.52

12.70

100.00

n

63

63

59

54

68

307

%

20.52

20.52

19.22

17.59

22.15

100.00

n

47

43

77

76

65

308

%

15.26

13.96

25.00

24.68

21.10

100.00

n

69

72

64

55

49

309

%

22.33

23.30

20.71

17.80

15.86

100.00

n

73

61

53

57

61

305

%

23.93

20.00

17.38

18.69

20.00

100.00

n

57

61

93

50

42

303

%

18.81

20.13

30.69

16.50

13.86

100.00

n

61

60

78

65

43

307

%

19.87

19.54

25.41

21.17

14.01

100.00

n

23

62

78

72

72

307

%

7.49

20.20

25.41

23.45

23.45

100.00

n

23

56

86

67

74

306

%

7.52

18.30

28.10

21.90

24.18

100.00

n

12

32

64

82

116

306

%

3.92

10.46

20.92

26.80

37.91

100.00

n

23

41

63

57

121

305

%

7.54

13.44

20.66

18.69

39.67

100.00

n

31

44

54

72

92

293

%

10.58

15.02

18.43

24.57

31.40

100.00

n

67

58

85

58

33

301

%

22.26

19.27

28.24

19.27

10.96

100.00

n

48

53

71

68

66

306

%

15.69

17.32

23.20

22.22

21.57

100.00

n

36

70

88

53

57

304

%

11.84

23.03

28.95

17.43

18.75

100.00

37 metacognitive Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Ελληνικά μου.

n

22

46

68

80

89

305

%

7.21

15.08

22.30

26.23

29.18

100.00

38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Ελληνικά.

n

28

55

81

76

58

298

%

9.40

18.46

27.18

25.50

19.46

100.00

n

58

41

53

76

78

306

%

18.95

13.40

17.32

24.84

25.49

100.00

39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Ελληνικά. 40 affective Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Ελληνικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος.

n

37

45

66

80

78

306

%

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

42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Ελληνικά.

n

31

42

76

64

83

296

%

10.47

14.19

25.68

21.62

28.04

100.00

n

36

63

76

84

48

307

%

11.73

20.52

24.76

27.36

15.64

100.00

n

90

62

79

40

30

301

%

29.90

20.60

26.25

13.29

9.97

100.00

n

47

71

68

73

47

306

%

15.36

23.20

22.22

23.86

15.36

100.00

n

67

66

67

52

55

307

%

21.82

21.50

21.82

16.94

17.92

100.00

n

68

60

68

55

56

307

%

22.15

19.54

22.15

17.92

18.24

100.00

n

75

54

69

73

37

308

%

24.35

17.53

22.40

23.70

12.01

100.00

n

36

48

51

78

92

305

%

11.80

15.74

16.72

25.57

30.16

100.00

n

49

46

65

68

80

308

%

15.91

14.94

21.10

22.08

25.97

100.00

43 affective Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη. 44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Ελληνικά. 45 social Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Ελληνικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε. 46 social Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Ελληνικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω. 47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Ελληνικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. 48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Ελληνικά. 49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Ελληνικά. 50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Ελληνικά.

Appendix 9 Descriptive statistics for SILL for English All valid cases

32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. 31 metacognitive Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Αγγλικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα. 29 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση . 33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Αγγλικά. 38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Αγγλικά. 40 affective Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Αγγλικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος. 42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά.

N

Min.

Max.

Mean

Std. Deviation

1230

1.00

5.00

3.77

1.249

1229

1.00

5.00

3.72

1.258

1229

1.00

5.00

3.69

1.263

1181

1.00

5.00

362

1.256

1202

1.00

5.00

3.56

1.254

1229

1.00

5.00

3.55

1.324

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. 45 social Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Αγγλικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε. 37 metacognitive Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Αγγλικά μου. 39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά. 17 cognitive Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο αγγλικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά. 11 cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των αγγλικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω.

1229

1.00

5.00

3.52

1.375

1208

1.00

5.00

3.51

1.287

1228

1.00

5.00

3.50

1.262

1217

1.00

5.00

3.48

1.401

1224

1.00

5.00

3.47

1.354

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

1218

1.00

5.00

3.32

1.294

1219

1.00

5.00

3.32

1.378

1206

1.00

5.00

3.25

1.451

1232

1.00

5.00

3.23

1.302

1232

1.00

5.00

3.22

1.303

1205

1.00

5.00

3.21

1.255

1220

1.00

5.00

3.18

1,289

1235

1.00

5.00

3.17

1.442

1238

1.00

5.00

3.14

1.469

1236

1.00

5.00

3.09

1.266

1225

1.00

5.00

3.05

1.197

1225

1.00

5.00

3.01

1.323

1211

1.00

5.00

2.94

1.353

1232

1.00

5.00

2.88

1.388

1230

1.00

5.00

2.85

1.402

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 cognitive Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Αγγλική μητρική τους γλώσσα. 14 cognitive Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Αγγλικά. 49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. 12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις. 30 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Αγγλικά . 24 compensation Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Αγγλικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν. 23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Αγγλικών. 2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. 1 memory Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Αγγλικά. 48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά. 16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Αγγλικά. 18 cognitive Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες αγγλικές λέξεις. 21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη.


Lydia Mitits

313

3 memory Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας αγγλικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα. 46 social Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Αγγλικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω. 13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 20 cognitive Βρίσκω τη σημασία της αγγλικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω. 34 metacognitive Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Αγγλικά. 36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά. 28 compensation Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Αγγλικά. 50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Αγγλικά. 35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Αγγλικά 47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. 26 compensation Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Αγγλικά. 27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. 22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Αγγλικά. 25 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες. 44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Αγγλικά. 15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για ευχαρίστηση. 19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της αγγλικής γλώσσας. 4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις.

1223

1.00

5.00

2.83

1.346

1232

1.00

5.00

2.81

1.442

1215

1.00

5.00

2.75

1.301

1213

1.00

5.00

2.71

1.327

1215

1.00

5.00

2.68

1.269

1214

1.00

5.00

2.62

1.268

1230

1.00

5.00

2.59

1.297

1236

1.00

5.00

2.57

1.410

1223

1.00

5.00

2.57

1.300

1225

1.00

5.00

2.54

1.330

1222

1.00

5.00

2.54

1.430

1212

1.00

5.00

2.53

1.404

1226

1.00

5.00

2.52

1.303

1236

1.00

5.00

239

1.399

1220

1.00

5.00

2.29

1.294

1234

1.00

5.00

2.26

1.318

1222

1.00

5.00

2.19

1.288

1225

1.00

5.00

2.08

1.235

1234

1.00

5.00

1.58

1.035

1224

1.00

5.00

1.54

1.050

All valid monolingual cases

29 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση .

N

Min.

Max.

Mean

Std. Deviation

922

1.00

5.00

3.78

1.247


314

Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism

32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. 31 metacognitive Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Αγγλικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα. 38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Αγγλικά. 33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Αγγλικά. 40 affective Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Αγγλικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος. 42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά. 45 social Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Αγγλικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε. 37 metacognitive Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Αγγλικά μου. 41 affective Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Αγγλικά. 17 cognitive Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο αγγλικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά. 39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά. 11 cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των αγγλικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω. 7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Αγγλικά μου. 43 affective Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη. 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. 14 cognitive Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Αγγλικά. 10 cognitive Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Αγγλική μητρική τους γλώσσα. 49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. 12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις. 30 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Αγγλικά . 23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Αγγλικών.

925

1.00

5.00

3.74

1.237

922

1.00

5.00

3.71

1.248

905

1.00

5.00

3.61

1.252

892

1.00

5.00

3.60

1.253

926

1.00

5.00

3.58

1.339

906

1.00

5.00

3.56

1.382

909

1.00

5.00

3.53

1.283

924

1.00

5.00

3.51

1.261

928

1.00

5.00

3.51

1.395

923

1.00

5.00

3.51

1.373

916

1.00

5.00

3.50

1.418

927

1.00

5.00

3.42

1.322

903

1.00

5.00

3.41

1.236

911

1.00

5.00

3.39

1.271

919

1.00

5.00

3.39

1.294

909

1.00

5.00

3.37

1.415

914

1.00

5.00

3.25

1.368

927

1.00

5.00

3.25

1.297

926

1.00

5.00

3.23

1.306

904

1.00

5.00

3.20

1.284

917

1.00

5.00

3.18

1.305

932

1.00

5.00

3.13

1.479


Lydia Mitits 24 compensation Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Αγγλικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν. 2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. 1 memory Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Αγγλικά. 48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά. 16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Αγγλικά. 18 cognitive Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες αγγλικές λέξεις. 21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη. 46 social Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Αγγλικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω. 3 memory Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας αγγλικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα. 13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 20 cognitive Βρίσκω τη σημασία της αγγλικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω. 34 metacognitive Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Αγγλικά. 36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά. 35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Αγγλικά. 28 compensation Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Αγγλικά. 27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. 50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Αγγλικά. 47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. 22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Αγγλικά. 26 compensation Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Αγγλικά. 25 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες. 44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Αγγλικά. 15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για ευχαρίστηση.

315

928

1.00

5.00

3.08

1.437

929

1.00

5.00

3.07

1.270

918

1.00

5.00

3.05

1.191

921

1.00

5.00

3.03

1.326

915

1.00

5.00

2.93

1.318

925

1.00

5.00

2.91

1.402

924

1.00

5.00

2.85

1.411

925

1.00

5.00

2.82

1.430

919

1.00

5.00

2.78

1.362

914

1.00

5.00

2.77

1.312

911

1.00

5.00

2.68

1.334

912

1.00

5.00

2.64

1.271

913

1.00

5.00

2.56

1.255

920

1.00

5.00

2.56

1.300

926

1.00

5.00

2.52

1.312

913

1.00

5.00

2.51

1.415

929

1.00

5.00

2.51

1.415

922

1.00

5.00

2.47

1.315

923

1.00

5.00

2.43

1.271

923

1.00

5.00

2.41

1.413

929

1.00

5.00

2.32

1.386

918

1.00

5.00

2.21

1.259

928

1.00

5.00

2.17

1.276


316

Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism

19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της αγγλικής γλώσσας. 4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις.

919

1.00

5.00

2.16

1.293

925

1.00

5.00

1.96

1.208

929

1.00

5.00

1.51

.979

919

1.00

5.00

1.50

1.005

N

Min.

Max.

Mean

Std. Deviation

305

1.00

5.00

3.84

1.282

307

1.00

5.00

3.75

1.291

289

1.00

5.00

3.69

1.266

301

1.00

5.00

3.58

1.313

305

1.00

5.00

3.53

1.385

304

1.00

5.00

3.50

1.218

307

1.00

5.00

3.47

1.417

299

1.00

5.00

3.45

1.297

304

1.00

5.00

3.45

1.268

291

1.00

5.00

3.44

1.318

303

1.00

5.00

3.43

1.271

294

1.00

5.00

3.43

1.233

301

1.00

5.00

3.42

1.351

297

1.00

5.00

3.41

1.252

307

1.00

5.00

3.41

1.273

301

1.00

5.00

3.37

1.291

296

1.00

5.00

3.31

1.285

All valid multilingual cases

32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. 31 metacognitive Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Αγγλικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα. 33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Αγγλικά. 41 affective Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Αγγλικά. 10 cognitive Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Αγγλική μητρική τους γλώσσα. 11 cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των αγγλικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω. 24 compensation Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Αγγλικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν. 45 social Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Αγγλικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε. 37 metacognitive Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Αγγλικά μου. 42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά. 40 affective Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Αγγλικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος. 7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Αγγλικά μου. 39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά. 38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Αγγλικά. 29 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση . 17 cognitive Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο αγγλικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά. 43 affective Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη.


Lydia Mitits 12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις. 9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. 49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Αγγλικών. 30 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Αγγλικά . 2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. 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. 1 memory Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Αγγλικά. 3 memory Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας αγγλικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα. 48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά. 16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Αγγλικά. 26 compensation Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Αγγλικά. 14 cognitive Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Αγγλικά. 21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη. 28 compensation Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Αγγλικά. 22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Αγγλικά. 18 cognitive Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες αγγλικές λέξεις. 36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά. 34 metacognitive Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Αγγλικά. 20 cognitive Βρίσκω τη σημασία της αγγλικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω. 46 social Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Αγγλικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω. 47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. 50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Αγγλικά. 13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά.

317

301

1.00

5.00

3.23

1.162

306

1.00

5.00

3.21

1.297

305

1.00

5.00

3.19

1.315

306

1.00

5.00

3.17

1.440

303

1.00

5.00

3.16

1.243

307

1.00

5.00

3.14

1.253

299

1.00

5.00

3.11

1.277

307

1.00

5.00

3.05

1.215

304

1.00

5.00

2.99

1.288

304

1.00

5.00

2.97

1.318

296

1.00

5.00

2.95

1.458

299

1.00

5.00

2.92

1.415

297

1.00

5.00

2.88

1.498

306

1.00

5.00

2.83

1.378

304

1.00

5.00

2.81

1.225

303

1.00

5.00

2.80

1.361

307

1.00

5.00

2.80

1.341

301

1.00

5.00

2.80

1.293

303

1.00

5.00

2.79

1.259

302

1.00

5.00

2.79

1.305

307

1.00

5.00

2.79

1.480

303

1.00

5.00

2.77

1.351

307

1.00

5.00

2.77

1.381

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. 27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. 35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Αγγλικά. 44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Αγγλικά. 15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για ευχαρίστηση. 4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της αγγλικής γλώσσας. 5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις.

307

1.00

5.00

2.62

1.418

299

1.00

5.00

2.60

1.369

303

1.00

5.00

2.60

1.300

302

1.00

5.00

2.54

1.367

306

1.00

5.00

2.54

1.404

300

1.00

5.00

2.48

1.238

303

1.00

5.00

2.27

1.272

305

1.00

5.00

1.78

1.168

305

1.00

5.00

1.63

1.173

Appendix 10 Descriptive statistics for SILL for Greek N

Min.

Max.

Mean

Std. Deviation

302

1.00

5.00

3.87

1.278

306

1.00

5.00

3.84

1.157

305

1.00

5.00

3.69

1.316

298

1.00

5.00

3.64

1.290

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

305

1.00

5.00

3.44

1.232

296

1.00

5.00

3.42

1.312

305

1.00

5.00

3.39

1.272

10 cognitive Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Ελληνική μητρική τους γλώσσα. 31 metacognitive Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Ελληνικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα. 32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Ελληνικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. 16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Ελληνικά. 37 metacognitive Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Ελληνικά μου.

17 cognitive Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο ελληνικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά. 42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Ελληνικά. 13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Ελληνικά.


Lydia Mitits 40 affective Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Ελληνικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος. 30 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Ελληνικά. 29 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Ελληνικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση . 7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Ελληνικά μου. 1 memory Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Ελληνικά. 41 affective Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Ελληνικά. 50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Ελληνικά. 38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Ελληνικά. 14 cognitive Παρακολουθώ ελληνικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Ελληνικά. 39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Ελληνικά. 2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. 24 compensation Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Ελληνικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν. 11 cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των ελληνικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω. 12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις ελληνικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις. 35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Ελληνικά. 43 affective Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη. 36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Ελληνικά. 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. 9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. 45 social Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα

319

306

1.00

5.00

3.38

1.330

306

1.00

5.00

3.36

1.240

307

1.00

5.00

3.35

1.247

300

1.00

5.00

3.34

1.330

307

1.00

5.00

3.31

1.213

302

1.00

5.00

3.29

1.378

308

1.00

5.00

3.27

1.406

298

1.00

5.00

3.27

1.234

303

1.00

5.00

3.24

1.386

306

1.00

5.00

3.24

1.451

307

1.00

5.00

3.22

1.264

308

1.00

5.00

3.22

1.340

304

1.00

5.00

3.21

1.337

301

1.00

5.00

3.18

1.168

306

1.00

5.00

3.16

1.365

307

1.00

5.00

3.14

1.247

305

1.00

5.00

3.11

1.418

304

1.00

5.00

3.05

1.256

306

1.00

5.00

3.02

1.307

306

1.00

5.00

3.00

1.305


320 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. 26 compensation Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Ελληνικά. 47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Ελληνικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. 28 compensation Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Ελληνικά. 22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Ελληνικά. 46 social Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Ελληνικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω. 20 cognitive Βρίσκω τη σημασία της ελληνικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω. 27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Ελληνικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. 18 cognitive Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες ελληνικές λέξεις. 3 memory Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας ελληνικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα. 25 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Ελληνικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες. 48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Ελληνικά. 21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προςλέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη. 34 metacognitive Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Ελληνικά. 44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Ελληνικά. 4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. 19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της ελληνικής γλώσσας. 6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. 5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις.

Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism

307

1.00

5.00

3.00

1.447

305

1.00

5.00

2.90

1.463

307

1.00

5.00

2.90

1.409

307

1.00

5.00

2.89

1.325

307

1.00

5.00

2.89

1.261

307

1.00

5.00

2.87

1.401

302

1.00

5.00

2.86

1.229

303

1.00

5.00

2.86

1.288

306

1.00

5.00

2.85

1.363

304

1.00

5.00

2.83

1.231

309

1.00

5.00

2.81

1.382

308

1.00

5.00

2.81

1.355

306

1.00

5.00

2.79

1.333

301

1.00

5.00

2.77

1.291

301

1.00

5.00

2.52

1.310

307

1.00

5.00

2.52

1.276

306

1.00

5.00

2.42

1.303

305

1.00

5.00

1.82

1.210

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

1 memory Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Αγγλικά.

monolingual multilingual

918 307

3.05 3.05

Std. Deviatio n 1.191 1.215

2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι.

monolingual

929

3.07

1.270

multilingual

307

3.14

1.253

3 memory Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας αγγλικής λέξης με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα.

monolingual

919

2.78

1.362

multilingual

304

2.99

1.288

4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις.

monolingual

925

1.96

1.208

multilingual

300

2.48

1.238

5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις.

monolingual

929

1.51

.979

multilingual

305

1.78

1.168

6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις.

monolingual multilingual

919 305

1.50 1.63

1.005 1.173

.088

7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Αγγλικά μου.

monolingual multilingual

903 294

3.41 3.43

1.236 1.233

.872

monolingual

919

3.39

1.294

Case type

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.

N

Mean

multilingual

299

3.11

1.277

9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές.

monolingual

926

3.23

1.306

multilingual

306

3.21

1.297

10 cognitive Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την Αγγλική μητρική τους γλώσσα.

monolingual

914

3.25

1368

multilingual

305

3.53

1.385

11 cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των αγγλικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω.

monolingual

927

3.42

1.322

multilingual

304

3.50

1.218

12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις.

monolingual

904

3.20

1.284

multilingual

301

3.23

1.162

13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά.

monolingual

914

2.77

1.312

multilingual

301

2.68

1.268

14 cognitive Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά να δω ταινίες στα Αγγλικά.

monolingual

909

3.37

1.415

multilingual

297

2.88

1.498

15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για ευχαρίστηση.

monolingual

928

2.17

1.276

multilingual

306

2.54

1.404

16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Αγγλικά.

monolingual

915

2.93

1.318

multilingual

296

2.95

1.458

17 cognitive Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο αγγλικό κείμενο και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά.

monolingual

923

3.51

1.373

multilingual

301

3.37

1.291

Sig. .958 .355 .018 .000 .000

.001

.857 .002 .315 .715 .307 .000 .000 .820 .119


322

Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism

18 cognitive Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις καινούργιες αγγλικές λέξεις.

monolingual

925

2.91

1.402

multilingual

307

2.80

1.341

19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της αγγλικής γλώσσας.

monolingual

919

2.16

1.293

multilingual

303

2.27

1.272

20 cognitive Βρίσκω τη σημασία της αγγλικής λέξης με το να την χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω.

monolingual

911

2.68

1.334

multilingual

302

2.79

1.305

21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη.

monolingual

924

2.85

1.411

multilingual

306

2.83

1.378

22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Αγγλικά.

monolingual

923

2.43

1.271

multilingual

303

2.80

1.361

23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Αγγλικών.

monolingual

932

3.13

1.479

multilingual

306

3.17

1.440

24 compensation Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Αγγλικά, προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν.

monolingual

928

3.08

1.437

multilingual

307

3.47

1.417

25 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες.

monolingual

929

2.32

1.386

multilingual

307

2.62

1.418

26 compensation Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι στα Αγγλικά.

monolingual

923

2.41

1.413

multilingual

299

2.92

1.415

27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό.

monolingual

913

2.51

1.415

multilingual

299

2.60

1.369

28 compensation Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Αγγλικά.

monolingual

926

2.52

1.312

multilingual

304

2.81

1.225

29 compensation Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά, χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη η φράση .

monolingual

922

3.78

1.247

multilingual

307

3.41

1.273

30 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Αγγλικά .

monolingual

917

3.18

1.305

multilingual

303

3.16

1.243

31 metacognitive Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Αγγλικά, ώστε να τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα.

monolingual

922

3.71

1.248

multilingual

307

3.75

1.291

32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά.

monolingual

925

3.74

1.237

multilingual

305

3.84

1.282

33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Αγγλικά.

monolingual

892

3.60

1.253

multilingual

289

3.69

1.266

34 metacognitive Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό χρόνο για να μελετώ Αγγλικά.

monolingual

912

2.64

1.271

multilingual

303

2.79

1.259

35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Αγγλικά.

monolingual

920

2.56

1.300

multilingual

303

2.60

1.300

36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά.

monolingual

913

2.56

1.255

multilingual

301

2.80

1.293

37 metacognitive Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα Αγγλικά μου.

monolingual

924

3.51

1.261

multilingual

304

3.45

1.268

38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα

monolingual

905

3.61

1.252

.214 .174 .182 .758 .000 .641 .000 .001 .000 .302 .000

.000 .737 .619 .234 0,299 .061 .644 .007 .419 .014


Lydia Mitits

323

Αγγλικά.

multilingual

297

3.41

1.252

39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά.

monolingual

916

3.50

1.418

multilingual

301

3.42

1.351

40 affective Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Αγγλικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος.

monolingual

926

3.58

1.339

multilingual

303

3.43

1.271

41 affective Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Αγγλικά.

monolingual

928

3.51

1.395

multilingual

301

3.58

1.313

42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά.

monolingual

906

3.56

1.382

multilingual

291

3.44

1.318

43 affective Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη.

monolingual

911

3.39

1.271

multilingual

296

3.31

1.285

44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Αγγλικά.

monolingual

918

2.21

1.259

multilingual

302

2.54

1.367

45 social Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Αγγλικά, ζητώ από το συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει αυτό που είπε. 46 social Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα είναι τα Αγγλικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω.

monolingual

909

3.53

1.283

multilingual

299

3.45

1.297

monolingual

925

2.82

1.430

multilingual

307

2.79

1.480

47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου.

monolingual

922

2.47

1.315

multilingual

303

2.77

1.351

48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά.

monolingual

921

3.03

1.326

multilingual

304

2.97

1.318

monolingual

927

3.25

1.297

multilingual

305

3.19

1.315

monolingual

929

2.51

1.415

multilingual

307

2.77

1.381

49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Αγγλικά.

.425 .085 .432 .184 .332 .000 .362

.756 .001 .517 .536 .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 SILL for English overall

Pearson Correlation

.489**

Sig.

.000

N

307

Strategy categories on the SILL for English and the SILL for Greek Memory strategies Greek Memory strategies English

Pearson Correlation

.399**

Sig. (2-tailed) N

.000 307 Cognitive strategies Greek

Cognitive strategies English

Pearson Correlation

.459**

Sig. (2-tailed) N

.000 307 Compensation strategies Greek

Compensation strategies English

Pearson Correlation

.409**

Sig. (2-tailed) N

.000 307 Metacognitive strategies Greek

Metacognitive strategies English

Affective strategies English

Social strategies English

Pearson Correlation

.336**

Sig. (2-tailed) N

.000

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

307 Affective strategies Greek .269** .000 307

Social strategies Greek .340** .000 307


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

1memory 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. 2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. 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. 4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. 5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. 6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. 7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Αγγλικά μου. Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Ελληνικά μου. 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. 9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. 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. 11cognitive Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των αγγλικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω. Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των ελληνικών λέξεων για να τις μάθω. 12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις.

Mean

N

SD

3.05

306

1.218

Std. Error Mean .069

3.31

306

1.215

.069

3.15

306

1.251

.071

3.22

306

1.264

.072

2.97

300

1.285

.074

2.84

300

1.235

.071

2.48

299

1.240

.071

2.53

299

1.280

.074

1.77

304

1.156

.066

1.76 1.62 1.83 3.41 3.35 3.12

304 302 302 287 287 296

1.090 1.162 1.215 1.240 1.329 1.275

.062 .066 .069 .073 .078 .074

3.06

296

1.258

.073

3.19 3.01 3.55

304 304 299

1.289 1.307 1.375

.073 .074 .079

3.87

299

1.278

.073

3.50

300

1.233

.071

3.20 3.23

300 294

1.340 1.167

.077 .068


326

Language Learning Strategies and Multilingualism

Χρησιμοποιώ τις ελληνικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις. 13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά. Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Ελληνικά. 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. 15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για ευχαρίστηση. Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Ελληνικά για ευχαρίστηση. 16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Αγγλικά. Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Ελληνικά. 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. 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. 19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της αγγλικής γλώσσας. Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της ελληνικής γλώσσας. 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. 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. 22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Αγγλικά. Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Ελληνικά. 23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Αγγλικών. Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Ελληνικών. 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. 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.

3.18

294

1.181

.068

2.68 3.39 2.89

298 298 292

1.266 1.277 1.502

.073 .074 .087

3.25

292

1.393

.081

2.53

302

1.408

.081

3.47 2.95

302 288

1.282 1.460

.073 .086

3.62 3.36

288 298

1.295 1.293

.076 .074

3.44

298

1.238

.071

2.80

305

1.341

.076

2.86

305

1.364

.078

2.26

301

1.268

.073

2.45 2.80

301 296

1.304 1.296

.075 .075

2.88

296

1.230

.071

2.84

304

1.382

.079

2.80 2.80

304 302

1.332 1.363

.076 .078

2.90 3.17

302 305

1.263 1.443

.072 .082

3.01

305

1.446

.082

3.48

307

1.417

.080

3.22

307

1.342

.076

2.63

307

1.415

.080

2.81

307

1.377

.078


Lydia Mitits 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. 27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, δεν ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. Όταν διαβάζω Ελληνικά, δεν ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. 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. 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 . 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. 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. 32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Ελληνικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. 33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Αγγλικά. Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Ελληνικά. 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. 35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Αγγλικά. Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Ελληνικά. 36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά. Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Ελληνικά. 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. 38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Αγγλικά. Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Ελληνικά. 39 affective Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά. Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να μιλήσω στα Ελληνικά.

327 2.93

297

1.416

.082

2.88 2.61

297 295

1.459 1.372

.084 .079

2.84 2.82

295 303

1.283 1.232

.074 .070

2.89

303

1.331

.076

3.41

306

1.273

.072

3.35

306

1.246

.071

3.16

301

1.245

.071

3.37

301

1.238

.071

3.76

305

1.294

.074

3.84

305

1.154

.066

3.84 3.70 3.69

302 302 276

1.285 1.312 1.254

.073 .075 .075

3.52 2.80

276 297

1.376 1.261

.082 .073

2.76

297

1.287

.074

2.60

302

1.301

.074

3.16 2.79

302 299

1.372 1.295

.078 .074

3.10

299

1.426

.082

3.44

302

1.268

.073

3.55 3.40 3.28 3.44

302 288 288 300

1.252 1.262 1.227 1.343

.072 .074 .072 .077

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. Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Ελληνικά ακόμα και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος. 41affective Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Αγγλικά. Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Ελληνικά. 42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά. Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Ελληνικά. 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. 44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Αγγλικά. Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Ελληνικά. 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. 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. 47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Ελληνικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. 48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά. Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Ελληνικά. 49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά. Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Ελληνικά. 50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Αγγλικά. Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Ελληνικά.

3.45

302

1.263

.072

3.39

302

1.334

.076

3.60 3.29 3.45

295 295 280

1.305 1.386 1.324

.075 .080 .079

3.40 3.30

280 295

1.324 1.281

.079 .074

3.15

295

1.232

.071

2.52

297

1.368

.079

2.52 3.44

297 297

1.317 1.298

.076 .075

3.01

297

1.306

.075

2.80

306

1.478

.084

2.87

306

1.404

.080

2.77 2.90 2.98 2.81 3.19 3.45 2.76

302 302 304 304 302 302 307

1.353 1.410 1.317 1.356 1.314 1.372 1.384

.077 .081 .075 .077 .075 .078 .079

3.27

307

1.408

.080

Mean

N

SD

Memory strategies English Memory strategies Greek Cognitive strategies English Cognitive strategies Greek Compensation strategies English Compensation strategies Greek

2.70 2.73 2.97 3.16 2.98 3.01

307 307 307 307 307 307

.653 .733 .655 .720 .799 .834

Std. Error Mean .037 .041 .037 .041 .045 .047

Metacognitive strategies English Metacognitive strategies Greek Affective strategies English Affective strategies Greek

3.28 3.38 3.28 3.16

307 307 307 307

.833 .905 .825 .913

.047 .051 .047 .052


Lydia Mitits

329

Social strategies English Social strategies Greek

2.99 3.05

307 307

.912 .926

.052 .052

.

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

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. 2 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. -Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις για να τις θυμάμαι. 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. 4 memory Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. - Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. 5 memory Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. - Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. 6 memory Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις. 7 memory Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Αγγλικά μου. - Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Ελληνικά μου. 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. 9 cognitive Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. - Λέω ή γράφω καινούριες ελληνικές λέξεις αρκετές φορές. 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.

Mean -.258

SD 1.551

t -2.910

df 305

Sig. .004

-.075

1.514

-.868

305

.386

.133

1.563

1.477

299

.141

-.053

1.441

-.642

298

.521

.006

1.302

.088

303

.930

-.205

1.406

-2.537

301

.012

.066

1.548

.724

286

.469

.060

1.510

.693

295

.489

.177

1.498

2.067

303

.040

-.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. 12 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις. - Χρησιμοποιώ τις ελληνικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε διαφορετικές προτάσεις. 13 cognitive Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά. Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Ελληνικά. 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. 15 cognitive Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για ευχαρίστηση. - Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Ελληνικά για ευχαρίστηση. 16 cognitive Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Αγγλικά. - Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες στα Ελληνικά. 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. 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. 19 cognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της αγγλικής γλώσσας. - Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της ελληνικής γλώσσας. 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. 21 cognitive Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη. - Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προςλέξη από τη μια γλώσσα στην άλλη. 22 cognitive Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Αγγλικά. - Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα Ελληνικά. 23 cognitive Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Αγγλικών. - Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη χρήση των Ελληνικών. 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.

.293

1.705

2.978

299

.003

.051

1.487

.588

293

.557

-.708

1.709

-7.151

297

.000

-.352

1.818

-3.314

291

.001

-.933

1.758

-9.228

301

.000

-.670

1.871

-6.075

287

.000

-.083

1.551

-.933

297

.351

-.062

1.589

-.685

304

.494

-.192

1.468

-2.277

300

.024

-.074

1.569

-.815

295

.416

.046

1.674

.480

303

.632

-.099

1.706

-1.011

301

.313

.157

1.624

1.692

304

.092

.260

.562

2.922

306

.004


Lydia Mitits 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. 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. 27 compensation Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, δεν ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. - Όταν διαβάζω Ελληνικά, δεν ψάχνω κάθε άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό. 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. 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 . 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. 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. 32 metacognitive Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. - Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Ελληνικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. 33 metacognitive Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Αγγλικά. - Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα Ελληνικά. 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. 35 metacognitive Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Αγγλικά. - Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να μιλήσω Ελληνικά. 36 metacognitive Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά. - Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν περισσότερο στα Ελληνικά. 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. 38 metacognitive Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Αγγλικά. - Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Ελληνικά.

331 -.182

1.693

-1.887

306

.060

.050

1.623

.536

296

.592

-.237

1.617

-2.519

294

.012

-.062

1.548

-.705

302

.481

.062

1.479

.734

305

.463

-.205

1.619

-2.206

300

.028

-.088

1.451

-1.065

304

.288

.139

1.644

1.470

301

.143

.163

1.683

1.609

275

.109

.033

1.432

.405

296

.686

-.556

1.712

-5.646

301

.000

-.307

1.696

-3.136

298

.002

-.112

1.591

-1.230

301

.220

.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. 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. 41 affective Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Αγγλικά. - Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα Ελληνικά. 42 affective Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά. - Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή χρησιμοποιώ Ελληνικά. 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. 44 affective Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Αγγλικά. - Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω Ελληνικά. 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. 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. 47 social Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. - Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Ελληνικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. 48 social Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά. Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Ελληνικά. 49 social Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά. - Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Ελληνικά. 50 social Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Αγγλικά. - Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων που μιλούν Ελληνικά. Memory strategies English – Memory strategies Greek Cognitive strategies English – Cognitive strategies Greek Compensation strategies English – Compensation strategies Greek Metacognitive strategies English – Metacognitive strategies Greek Affective strategies English – Affective strategies Greek Social strategies English – Social strategies Greek

.203

1.838

1.916

299

.056

.056

1.640

.596

301

.551

.305

1.627

3.220

294

.001

.046

1.718

.452

279

.652

.152

1.628

1.608

294

.109

.000

1.531

.000

296

1.000

.427

1.659

4.442

296

.000

-.075

1.822

-.721

305

.471

-.129

1.638

-1.370

301

.172

.164

1.622

1.767

303

.078

-.258

1.721

-2.608

301

.010

-.504

1.819

-4.863

306

.000

-.037 -.191 -.023

.763 .721 .890

-.863 -4.655 -.457

306 306 306

.389 .000 .648

-.105

1.006

-1.836

306

.067

.119 -.059

1.055 1.056

1.981 -.988

306 306

.049 .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 publicationsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; aim is to redefine the relationship between publisherauthor-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 teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; awareness of issues related to multilingualism and language learning strategies in Greek schools.

ISBN: 978-618-5147-26-6

Language learning strategies and multilingualism  

This book adds to the delineation of the strategic profiles of monolingual and multilingual EFL learners, especially in relation to their ge...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you