Language Learning Strategies

Language Learning Strategies: Theoretical issues
and applied perspectives
Edited by Zoe Gavriilidou

Konstandinos Petrogiannis
Maria Platsidou
Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey
Language Learning Strategies: Theoretical issues and
applied perspectives
Edited by
Zoe Gavriilidou
Maria Platsidou
Zoe Gavriilidou, Konstandinos Petrogiannis, Maria Platsidou, Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey (Editors), Language
Learning Strategies: Theoretical issues and applied perspectives
ISBN: 978-618-5147-52-5
June 2017
Proof reading: Lydia Mitits
Cover design www.bianoti.com
Page layout: Iraklis Lampadariou

www.lampadariou.eu
Language parallels: Theory and teaching practice

Series Editor: Zoe Gavriilidou, Professor at Democritus University of Thrace
This study is part of the Thales project MIS 379335 (Coordinator Professor Zoe Gavriilidou). It was held in
the frame of the National Strategic Reference Frame (Ε.Σ.Π.Α) and was co-funded by resources of the
European Union (European Social Fund) and national resources.
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/
Contents
About the Editors .............................................................................................................................................. 8
About the Authors .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 15
Part A - Theoretical and methodological issues
Language Learner Strategies: From Theory to Practice ............................................................................. 22
Andrew D. Cohen
Methodological issues concerning the THALES research project on Language Learning Strategies ..... 41
Alexandra Karousou, Konstantinos Petrogiannis, & Zoe Gavriilidou
Parental involvement and English Language Learning: Parents and students’ reports .......................... 57
Efthymia Penderi, Konstantinos Petrogiannis, & Zoe Gavriilidou
Teachers’ and learners’ reported language learning strategy use: How do they match? ....................... 71
Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Eleni Agathopoulou, Konstantinos Petrogiannis, & Zoe Gavriilidou
Foreign language teachers’ strategy instruction practices in Greek lower secondary education .......... 94
Iris Papadopoulou, Zoe Kantaridou, Maria Platsidou & Ioannis Agaliotis
Profiling learners’ strategy use and teachers’ strategy promotion in minority primary and secondary
schools. Implications for foreign language teaching ................................................................................ 120
Zoe Gavriilidou, Lydia Mitits, Penelope Kambakis-Vougiouklis & Konstandinos Petrogiannis
Part B - Workshops
An introduction to teaching language learning strategies ...................................................................... 145
Athina Vrettou
Activities for Mainstream Primary Schools: Strategies of guessing intelligently and linking with already
known material ............................................................................................................................................ 151
Edgar Joycey
Activities for Mainstream Primary Schools: Self Evaluation Strategy .................................................... 156
Vasilia Kazamia
Encouraging language learning strategies - empowering the learner .................................................... 160
Zoe Kantaridou, Iris Papadopoulou
Στρατηγικές εκμάθησης της ελληνικής για μαθητές των μειονοτικών σχολείων: Δημιουργία
δραστηριοτήτων βασισμένων στην ύλη των σχολικών εγχειριδίων ...................................................... 192
Λύδια Μίτιτς & Γεωργία Χαμζαδάκη
Παράρτημα 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 204
Παράρτημα 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 207
Παράρτημα 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 211

About the Editors
Zoe Gavriilidou (BA, D.E.A., PhD) is a Professor of Linguistics and Head of the Department of
Greek at the Democritus University of Thrace. She has participated in research projects and
was the supervising coordinator of the THALES 379335 Project on Language Learning
Strategies, co-funded by national resources and the EU. She is the author of several
monographs and papers as well as textbooks and member of the experts’ committees for
the revision of curricula in Greece and Cyprus in primary and secondary education. Her
main areas of research interests are applied linguistics, language teaching, linguistic
testing, and pedagogical lexicography.
Konstantinos Petrogiannis (BA, MSc, PhD) is a Professor of Developmental Psychology at the
Hellenic Open University, Greece. He graduated from the Department of Philosophy,
Education & Psychology of the University of Ioannina, Greece. He received his master’s
degree from the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow and his Ph.D. from the University of
Wales-Cardiff. He has worked as a researcher on a number of projects. His main areas of
research interest lie in psychological measurement and research methodology, early child
care and education impact upon children's development, parents-child relationship,
parental involvement, children’s resilience, computer use effects on preschool children’s
socio-emotional development, and language development.
Maria Platsidou is an Associate Professor of Developmental Psychology at the University of
Macedonia, Greece. She holds a M.A. and Ph.D. in Cognitive Development. She spent time as
a Visiting Scholar at Max-Planck Institute in Munich and in Fuller School of Psychology,
USA. She is the co-Director of the Center of Counseling and Psychological Support Services
of the University of Macedonia, member of the Board of Editors or a reviewer in a number
of Greek and international journals. She has participated in research programs funded by
Greek or international grants. Her recent research interests include emotional intelligence,
subjective wellbeing, learning strategies.

Contributors [9]
Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey (BA, Dipl. TEFL, MA, PhD) is Professor Emerita of Applied
Linguistics, School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Her academic and
research interests and her publications are on SLA, Language Learning Strategies and
Styles, English/Greek as an S/FL, Interlanguage Studies, and Multilingualism. In the field of
Theoretical Linguistics her interests focus on Tense/Aspect. She has authored Language
Learning Strategies in the Foreign Language Classroom (2010), co-authored The Temporal
System of Modern Greek: Studies from the Perspective of Greek as a Foreign Language [in
Greek] (2011), co-edited Cross-Curricular Approaches to Language Education (2014) and
edited Foreign Language Learning Strategy Instruction: A Teacher’s Guide (2015). She has
published her work in books, international journals, and conference proceedings. She is the
editor-in-chief of the Journal of Applied Linguistics (JAL) and sits on the editorial boards of
Greek and international academic journals. During 1998-2013 she was the elected president
of the Greek Applied Linguistics Association (GALA), the national affiliate of AILA.
About the Authors
Ioannis Agaliotis is a Professor at Department οf Educational & Social Policy Department of
Educational and Social Policy, School of Social Sciences, Humanities and Arts University of
Macedonia. Academic qualifications: B.A. in Education, Pedagogical Academy of
Thessaloniki, 1979. B.A. in Special Education, Marasleio Didaskaleio University of Athens,
1990. M.Ed. in Special Education, University of Wales, 1993. Ph.D. in Special Education,
Department of Primary Education University of Athens, 1997. Research Interests:
Educational Assessment and adaptive instruction for students with special needs or/and
disabilities. Inclusive programs for students with learning and behavior problems. Teaching
Mathematics to students with disabilities. Social-emotional dimensions of mild disabilities -
Assessment and Instruction. Assessment and remediation of Reading and Writing
Difficulties.
Edgar Joycey has been appointed as a Foreign Language Instructor of the Department of
Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, School of English, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki since 1995. He holds a B.Sc. in Physics, Mathematics and Statistics
from the University of London, a Post-Graduate Certificate in Education from the Institute
of Education, University of London, a Royal Society of Arts Diploma in the Teaching of
English to Multicultural Groups, an M.Ed. from the University of Leeds and a Ph.D. on
Lifelong Learning and EFL teaching from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. His
interests revolve around helping prospective teachers learn about and cope with the
different decisions they will have to make, integrating all aspects of a lesson and the effect
of holding a lifelong-learning stance towards teaching and training.
Eleni Agathopoulou is an Associate Professor at the Department of Theoretical and Applied
Linguistics, School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. She holds an M.A. in
Applied Linguistics from the University of Reading, U.K. and a PhD in Linguistics from the
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. She is interested in various aspects of applied
linguistics, particularly in second language acquisition and teaching. She has published and
Contributors [11]
presented papers on second language morphology, focus-on-form instruction and learning
strategies.
Andrew D. Cohen, Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota, lives in Oakland, CA, and is
currently learning his 13th language, Mandarin. He co-edited Language learning strategies
with Ernesto Macaro (Oxford University Press, 2007), co-authored Teaching and learning
pragmatics with Noriko Ishihara (Routledge, 2014, translated into Japanese and Arabic), and
authored Strategies in learning and using a second language (Routledge, 2011). His
forthcoming book with Multilingual Matters is entitled Learning pragmatics from native
and non-native teachers. He has also published many book chapters and journal articles.
Copies of most of his papers are available for download on his website:
https://z.umn.edu/adcohen.
Penelope Kambakis-Vougiouklis is a Professor of Linguistics, Department of Greek,
Democritus University. She holds a BA in English, Aristotle University (1976) and an MA and
PhD from the University of Wales (1988 and 1992). Her scientific interests include
mathematical models in language teaching, communication strategies with emphasis on
guessing as a processing and/or a learning as well as confidence as a factor of success in
communication, and, finally Modern Greek dialectology.
Zoe Kantaridou (MA in Linguistics, University of Leeds, UK and PhD in Applied Linguistics,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece). She is a teacher of English for Academic
Purposes in the University of Macedonia, Greece. She has extensive experience in teaching
English at various levels and to students of different disciplines in tertiary education. Her
research interests lie in the areas of motivation to learn, curriculum design, task-based
teaching, learning styles and strategies and intercultural communication. She has authored
two textbooks, one on teaching reading and academic vocabulary in English and another on
Business English for Higher education students in Greece.
Alexandra Karousou is an Assistant Professor of Cognitive and Language development at the
Preschool Education Department of Democritus University of Thrace. She has taught at the
[12] Foreign Language Learning Strategy Instruction: A Teacher’s Guide
University of Madrid, at the Superior Center of Scientific Investigation (CSIC) of Spain, and
at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. She has participated as an expert
member to more than ten national or international scientific projects. Her main areas of
research include communicative and linguistic development, language evaluation, interface
of linguistic and cognitive development.
Lydia Mitits is a post-doctoral researcher at the Greek Department of the Democritus
University of Thrace. She has taught English as a FL in primary, secondary and tertiary
education as well as Language Development at the Open University and Critical literacy at
DUTH. She holds a MA in TEFL and a PhD in Applied Linguistics. She has presented in
national and international conferences and published peer reviewed research papers on
multilingualism, language learning strategies, instrument adaptation, etc. in books, journals
and conference proceedings. Her main research interests lie in the fields of multilingualism,
language learning methodology and language development.
Iris Papadopoulou (MA in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, PhD in Linguistics, University
of Essex, UK). She is a teacher of English for Academic Purposes at the University of
Macedonia. She has extensive teaching experience as EFL teacher in the private sector and
EAP teacher in tertiary education. Her current research interests lie in intercultural
communication, reading and writing for academic purposes and motivation to learn. She
has authored two course books for Students of Economics developing research reading and
writing and co-authored another on Business English for Greek University students.
Efthymia Penderi is a member of the Laboratory of Pedagogical Research and Educational
Practices of the Department of Educational Sciences in the Pre-school Age, Democritus
University of Thrace. She has been teaching in post-graduate courses, concerning socio-
cultural animation, intercultural education and teaching methodology/models. She
participated as a researcher in a number of national and international projects. Her main
areas of research interests include social and cultural dimensions of development and
education, family-school connection and parental involvement.

Contributors [13]
Athina Vrettou holds an MA in Theoretical and Applied Linguistics and a PhD in Applied
Linguistics from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. She has been teaching EFL in
primary education for over twenty years. Her research interests primarily concern
language learning strategies and motivation in second language acquisition.
Georgia Hamzadaki is a graduate of the Pedagogical Academy of Thessaloniki, of the
Department of History and Ethnology of the University of Thrace, of the Didaskaleion of
Alexandroupolis and holds a Master’s degree in Social discrimination and Human Rights
from the University of Athens and the Institute of Education of London. She has served in
private and public education since 1991. Since 2014 she has been serving as a School
Counselor of the 3rd Region of Rhodope. She is a PhD candidate in the Department of
Language and Literature of the Countries of the Black Sea, Democritus University of Thrace.
Language Learning Strategies: theoretical issues and applied perspectives [15]
Introduction
Research on Language Learning Strategies (LLS) has experienced an unprecedented
growth in the last ten years. The time when scholars in the field needed to advocate
for the centrality of ‘learning how to learn’ (see for example Stern 1975, Rubin 1975)
seems far away indeed. Research in fields as diverse as applied linguistics,
psycholinguistics, cognitive psychology, among others, has now firmly established
the fundamental role of LLS in Language Learning. Theoretical work in all these
areas has shaped LLS studies.
Inspired by previous theoretical approaches and methodological orientations on
LLS, especially by the work of Oxford (1990, 2011), the THALES project entitled
“Adaptation of SILL in Greek and Turkish and strategic profiling of primary and
secondary school learners and teachers-S.I.L.L.G.T.” aimed:
a) to translate, shorten, simplify and culturally adapt the SILL in Greek and
Turkish with the aim of further administering it to school-aged students
(upper elementary and junior secondary mainstream and minority schools
in Greece),
b) to profile the LLS use of the population attending Greek mainstream (i.e.
non-minority) and minority elementary and secondary schools in Greece
when learning English as a second language,
c) to determine the factors that are related to the choice of LLS,
d) to construct and validate an instrument which would be based on the SILL
for profiling teachers’ LLS use in classroom,
e) to determine teachers' strategic profile, and finally,

[16] Zoe Gavriilidou, Konstadinos Petrogiannis, Maria Platsidou, Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey (Editors)
f) to provide language teachers and education policy makers with a manual
containing activities that forward strategy teaching.
This volume draws on data collected within the THALES project and grew out of
papers that were presented at the International Conference entitled Language
Learning Strategies: theoretical issues and applied perspectives, organized by the project’s
coordinator, Professor Zoe Gavriilidou, at the Democritus University of Thrace for
the dissemination of the project results.
It brings together a range of theoretical constructs, empirical data and teacher
training workshops that collectively provide important insights into LLS use of
students attending mainstream and Muslim minority, elementary and secondary
schools in Greece. In addition, the volume provides a comparative analysis of
learners’ and teachers’ strategy use by employing two matching questionnaires,
developed specifically for the THALES project: a 29-item learners’ questionnaire,
based on the SILL and a 47-item newly developed innovative teachers’ questionnaire
designed to assess teachers’ foreign language learning strategy instruction practices
for the promotion of LLS in the classroom.
Volume overview
Language Learning Strategies: Theoretical issues and applied perspectives is divided into
two parts: Part I consists of papers dealing with the discussion of theoretical and
methodological issues that are central to current debates on LLS; the discussion is
supported by empirical data. Part II focuses on LLS practice and includes the
description of four teacher training workshops.
Below we briefly summarize the content of each paper and workshop.

Part A
Andrew D. Cohen considers theoretical issues with regard to language learner
strategies (LLS), starting with terminology. He looks at what is unique about
strategies for language learning, whether there are strategies specific to good
language learners, how to deal with individual differences, and whether there are
strategies appropriate for a given sociocultural context. His paper also looks at how
to conduct strategy instruction (SI) – with reference to five areas: short courses and
materials, SI for study abroad, SI in the learning of TL pragmatics, the use of
technology in SI, and strategies for enhancing test performance. Finally, the role of
teachers in strategy instruction is addressed, followed by a consideration of
research methods for studying the impact of strategy instruction and for getting at
the quality of strategy use.
Alexandra Karousou, Konstantinos Petrogiannis and Zoe Gavriilidou, discuss in their
paper methodological issues raised during the project’s design and the choices
adopted.
Efthymia Penderi, Konstantinos Petrogiannis and Zoe Gavriilidou focus on the
parental involvement practices concerning English as a foreign language in the
Greek public school.
Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Eleni Agathopoulou, Konstantinos Petrogiannis and Zoe
Gavriilidou attempt, for the first time in relevant literature, to match the separate
findings of learners’ and teachers’ LLS questionnaires in order to find possible
coincidence of strategy use by both groups and investigate whether teacher
strategy promotion affects student selection of learning strategies.
Iris Papadopoulou, Zoe Kantaridou, Maria Platsidou and Ioannis Agaliotis focus on
strategy instruction practices of EFL teachers in Greek public lower secondary

education. They examine the Greek EFL curriculum objectives for strategy
instruction and research whether these are actually implemented by the EFL
teachers in lower secondary education.
Zoe Gavriilidou, Lydia Mitits, Kambakis-Vougiouklis Penelope and Konstantinos
Petrogiannis investigate learners’ strategy use and teachers’ strategy promotion in
Muslim minority primary and secondary schools in Thrace and how these intersect.
Part B
In the workshop entitled Activities for Mainstream Primary Schools, Athina Vrettou
provided a short introduction to Language Learning Strategy Instruction, while
Edgar Joycey and Vasilia Kazamia presented activities for classroom strategy
instruction. Specifically, Edgar Joycey presented an activity which promoted the
strategy of guessing intelligently. The task requires learners to understand signs
found in a park by using a matching exercise in which they have to use knowledge
they already have in order to provide “consequences” and “explanations” for those
signs.
Vasilia Kazamia presented an activity which introduced the strategy of self-
evaluation. The activity aims to train learners to resort to it. The workshop also
encourages students to share their experiences about strategy use with their
teacher and classmates. Self-evaluation helps learners to reflect on their learning, to
realize what actually works well for them and thus gradually take charge of their
learning.
Zoe Kantaridou and Iris Papadopoulou, in their workshop entitled Encouraging
language learning strategies-empowering the learner provide support to teachers and
other administrators who wish to organize teacher training workshops on Language
Learning Strategy Instruction for Secondary Education teachers.

Finally, Lydia Mitits and Georgia Chamzadaki in their workshop entitled Language
learning strategies for the learners of Greek in minority schools: activity design based on
Greek language textbooks [Στρατηγικές εκμάθησης της ελληνικής για μαθητές των
μειονοτικών σχολείων: Δημιουργία δραστηριοτήτων βασισμένων στην ύλη των σχολικών
εγχειριδίων] aim at introducing Greek L2 primary/secondary school language
teachers with language learning strategies and at demonstrating how they can be
used in the classroom.
Komotini, May 2017
The Editors
Zoe Gavriilidou
Maria Platsidou
Part A
Theoretical and methodological issues

Language Learner Strategies: From Theory to Practice
Andrew D. Cohen
Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota
adcohen@umn.edu
Abstract
This paper considers theoretical issues with regard to language learner strategies
(LLS), starting with terminology. It looks at what is unique about strategies for
language learning, whether there are strategies specific to good language learners,
how to deal with individual differences, and whether there are strategies
appropriate for a given sociocultural context. Next, it looks at how to conduct
strategy instruction (SI) – with reference to five areas: short courses and materials,
SI for study abroad, SI in the learning of TL pragmatics, the use of technology in SI,
and strategies for enhancing test performance. Subsequently, the role of teachers in
strategy instruction is addressed, followed by a consideration of research methods
for studying the impact of strategy instruction and for getting at the quality of
strategy use. Finally, strategies that I am using in learning my 13th language,
Mandarin, are discussed.
Keywords: language skill, language strategy, strategy instruction, pragmatics, test-taking
strategies
1. Introduction
This paper starts by considering a series of theoretical issues with regard to language
learner strategies (LLS). The first issue is terminological. Then we look at what is
unique about strategies for language learning as opposed to other subject areas,
whether there are strategies specific to good language learners, how to deal with
individual differences, and finally whether there are strategies appropriate for a
given sociocultural context. Next, we look at how to conduct strategy instruction (SI)
– with reference to five areas: short courses and materials, SI for study abroad, SI in
the learning of TL pragmatics, the use of technology in SI, and strategies for
enhancing test performance. Next, the role of teachers in strategy instruction is
addressed, followed by a consideration of research methods for studying the impact
of strategy instruction and for getting at the quality of strategy use. Finally, a few
words are offered regarding the strategies that I am using in learning my 13th
language, Mandarin.
2. Theoretical Issues Regarding Language Learner Strategies
2.1 Defining Terms
The construct language learner strategies has been defined – and consequently
researched – in numerous ways over the years. My own current working definition
(Cohen 2011) is the following:
Thoughts and actions, consciously chosen and operationalized by language learners,
to assist them in carrying out a multiplicity of tasks from the very onset of learning
to the most advanced levels of target-language (TL) performance.
The element of choice is crucial because this is what gives a strategy its special
character. In addition, the element of consciousness is what distinguishes strategies
from those processes that are not strategic.

2.2 Ways to Classify Learner Strategies
By goal: Just as there are strategies for learning the second or foreign language
(L2/FL), such as identifying, distinguishing, grouping, memorizing strategies, there
are also strategies for using the L2, namely, strategies for performing your
knowledge, such as strategies for retrieval of language material, for rehearsal, for
communication, and for giving the impression that you know something that you
actually do not know (cover strategies).
By function: Cognitive, affective, and social strategies; and strategies for supervising
the learning and use of the L2 (planning ahead, monitoring your performance,
evaluating how it went). This last category is usually referred to more jargonistically
as metacognitive strategies. The reality is that these four labels refer more to functions
of strategies than to the strategies themselves since the same strategy could, in
principle, take on all four of these functions. For example, the strategy of
interrupting a conversation in order to take part could involve a metacognitive
function (determining that it would best serve you to have a more active role in the
ongoing conversation), an affective function (feeling left out prompting a desire to
jump into the conversation), a social function (trying to select a socially-appropriate
way to jump in), and a cognitive function (selecting the forms in the TL for jumping
in).
By skill: The strategies that learners may select in order to listen, speak, read, or
write in the TL, as well as the strategies they might use for learning and use of
vocabulary, for dealing with grammar, or for translating mentally, orally, or in
writing.
Other: Strategies for:
 learners of the L2 (e.g., learning how to mark the verb for gender),
 learners at different proficiency levels,
 learners interested in interaction within specific sub-cultures and speakers of
different varieties of the L2.
2.3 Strategies for Language Learning vs. Strategizing in Other Areas
Information about language learning styles is definitely transferable to other
learning. Here are some of the style areas and representative distinctions:
 cognitive styles: e.g., global vs. detail-oriented, concrete sequential vs.
random intuitive
 personality-related styles: e.g., reflective vs. impulsive, introverted vs.
extroverted
 perceptual styles: i.e., auditory, visual, vs. hands on.
Yet many language learner strategies are particular to language – e.g., strategies for
distinguishing ser from estar, strategies for using the subjunctive in Spanish, and
strategies for learning and using tones in Chinese. And then, of courses, some
strategies could be seen as applicable to non-language learning, especially the vague,
non-specific ones.
2.4 Strategies Specific to Good Language Learners?
In principle, a given strategy could be used effectively by many different language
learners, depending on their level of language development and the nature of the
given task. Having said that, my own personal view is that whereas strategies are
available to all language learners and users, super learners are good enough at their
language strategizing so as to:
 have people think their pronunciation is native or nearly so in the TL (i.e.,
the one that they are learning in the program),

 get the pragmatics right in numerous situations in the TL,
 have only negligible grammar errors in their oral language,
 have the vocabulary trip off their tongue relatively effortlessly in the TL,
 read effortlessly and insightfully critique science material of interest in the
TL,
 express themselves in written language at a native-like level in the TL
(perhaps with some editing),
 take a major role in a presentation and discussion about a science topic
entirely in the TL.
2.5 Dealing with Individual Differences
Learners differ widely in the following areas:
 language proficiency,
 learning style preferences,
 selection of strategies and success in using them,
 language aptitude configuration, and
 their motivational configuration (involving the interaction of motivation
with numerous internal, social, and contextual factors).
Also learner subjectivity can serve as an expression of individual difference. At times
learners may purposely choose not to employ certain language learning/use
strategies as a willful act of identity/learner resistance (instead of just “lacking’’ a
certain strategy). Individuals have a repertoire of multiple identities that are socially
and culturally negotiated and jointly enacted with others in any given interaction
(Ishihara & Cohen 2014: 106). With regard to L2 pragmatics, for example, it is
possible to assess whether a learner is aware of the strategies that they are expected
to be using (Ishihara & Cohen 2014: 306).
2.6 Better Strategies for Students from Certain Cultures?
No strategies are inherently “better” or “worse”. It depends on the particular
culture, sub-culture, and learners, and the hybridity of the learners’ cultural
experiences.
Learners have to determine the strategies that work best for them, given their
attitudes towards agency (i.e., how much they wish to adhere to the given cultural
norms).
While many strategies can apply to any language or culture, some strategies may
have particular relevance to certain cultures and sub-cultures. For example, with
regard to Arabic and Hebrew, there are issues of the script and also gender in the
verb forms.
3. How to Conduct Strategy Instruction
3.1 Short Courses and Materials
The first Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) summer
institute on strategy instruction took place in 1998 with Susan Weaver, Rebecca
Oxford, and me as co-instructors. The 20th Strategy Instruction (SI) CARLA summer
institute, “Improving Language Learning: Styles- and Strategies-Based Instruction”,
took place on July 18-22, 2016 at the U. of Minnesota, Minneapolis, with Prof. Martha
Nyikos, Indiana University (retrieved January 26 2016 from
http://carla.umn.edu/institutes/2016/ssbi.html). Here is an outline of the course:
Day 1 - Defining and Working with Styles and Strategies
Resolving Style/Strategy Conflicts

Day 2 - Assessment of Styles and Strategies
Intersection of Style, Strategy, and Task
Hands-On SSBI Activities
Day 3 - Frameworks for SSBI
Teaching vs. Learning Strategies
Teacher and Student Roles
Day 4 - Motivation for Language Learning
Creating SSBI Lesson Plans
More Hands-On SSBI Activities
Review of SSBI Research and Implications
Day 5 - Group Presentations of SSBI Lessons and Project Design
Style/Strategy Review and Debate
Goal-Setting for the Future
The SI Instruction Manual used in these summer institutes (Cohen & Weaver 2006) is
available at the University of Minnesota Bookstore. There is also extensive coverage
of SI in Cohen (2011). The fourth chapter (pp. 117-167) is devoted to the practice of
strategy instruction.
Psaltou-Joycey has edited an impressive volume focusing on SI.1 The second portion
of the book is devoted to describing SI tasks: Agathopoulou, Alexiou, Joycey,
Kazamia, and Sougari (2015) on activities for mainstream primarily pupils;
Kantaridou and Papadopoulou (2015) on activities for mainstream lower secondary
1
Note that Zoe Gavriilidou was the academic coordinator of the program within which this guide was
written.
school; and Mitits and Sarafianou (2015) on activities for minority primary and lower
secondary schools. Included in these chapters are strategies for the following:
 analyzing vocabulary (e.g., parts of words; cognates in L1, L2, and L3) and
classifying words,
 dictionary use,
 reading comprehension: reading for the gist, general understanding, or
details; visualization, filling in the gaps, summarizing, making mind maps as graphic
organizers, and guessing what comes next,
 observing and making inferences (about similarities and differences in
schools, cultures, and countries; about signage),
 short-term memory and memorizing people’s faces,
 understanding grammar (simple present vs. present continuous),
 expressing emotions,
 evaluating the effectiveness of strategy use (e.g., after making an error).
While acknowledging the fine work done on this volume, I also have several
comments to share. One is that terms such as inference, summarizing, observation, and
dictionary use used in the volume actually refer more to skills than to strategies. Skills
reflect the ability to do something, and the operationalizing of these skills calls for
numerous strategies – often in clusters or in sequences (also referred to as “chains”).
So dictionary use is a skill and a most challenging one. The actual strategies
deployed in order to arrive at a workable definition may entail the use of several
dictionaries, back translation, asking a native speaker for input, and so forth. I once
did a study which uncovered perhaps 10 different strategies used in looking up a
word in a dictionary (Neubach & Cohen 1988). Also, with regard to this volume of
Greek LLS studies, to what extent is SI implicit and to what extent is it explicit? In
other words, to what extent are pupils expected to internalize various strategies
associated with the tasks that they perform and to what extent are they explicitly
taught to use these strategies? Furthermore, is there follow up to see if pupils have
transferred the strategies to other tasks? Finally, are students actually taught
strategies for dealing with grammatical forms (e.g., distinguishing one from
another)?
3.2 Strategy Instruction for Study Abroad
A successful guide aimed at study abroad students and helping students to identify
and use a wide variety of language- and culture-learning strategies was the Paige,
Cohen, Kappler, Chi, and Lassegard (2006) one. Over 50,000 copies have been sold. It
was thoroughly revised based on the results from a three-year, federally-funded
study (Cohen, Paige, Shively, Emert, & Hoff 2005). There is also a companion guide
for teachers and study abroad coordinators that was also an outgrowth of the three-
year study: Kappler, Mikk, Cohen, and Paige (2009).
It is best to use the SI guide in a course, like “Practical Language Learning for
International Communication,” taught at the University of Minnesota for the last 20
years (initially within the College of Liberal Arts and currently in the College of
Education and Human Development). The following are the course objectives:
 provide students a better sense of what it means to learn a new language,
 engage students in diagnosing learning style preferences, language strategy
repertoire, culture learning strategies, and motivation when performing language
tasks (through completion of a series of inventories),

 have the students conduct empirical data collection with 3 language learners
as a means of improving their ability to diagnose others’ language learning abilities,
practices, and potential, and
 have the students participate in classroom exercises to simulate language
learning and performance situations, and have them reflect in pairs, in small groups,
and in whole-class discussions regarding what they gained from these activities.
Data from students’ midterm and final papers in this course appear on my personal
website under Current Projects (retrieved January 26 2016 from
https://sites.google.com/a/umn.edu/andrewdcohen/projects). The section is
entitled “Learning Styles, Language Strategy Repertoire, and Motivation in the
Performance of L2 Tasks.” Data from three of the students are included in a
published chapter on the topic (Cohen 2012).
3.3 The Role of SI in Learning TL Pragmatics
Although the literature over the years has not tended to reflect this approach,
strategy instruction can have a significant role in supporting learners in being
strategic about specific areas of TL performance, such as with regard to pragmatics.
The following are some areas where strategies could be helping in performing
pragmatics:
 for performing speech acts like apologizing, requesting, complimenting and
responding to compliments, and complaining,
 for being polite and, importantly, for being impolite when the situation calls
for it,
 for recognizing humor and for being humorous in the TL,
 for sensing when teasing is going on and how to handle it,

 for perceiving and dealing with sarcasm,
 for understanding and using swearwords,
 for engaging in small talk in the given context,
 for providing the appropriate type of listener responses at the appropriate
time and for knowing how to take turns in conversation,
 for knowing how to recognize and use discourse markers (e.g., “well”, “you
know”, “so”, “I think”).
In an effort to popularize the notion of doing strategy taxonomies in specific areas,
over a decade ago I published a fine-tuned taxonomy of strategies for learners
(Cohen 2005, 2014). It included three types of strategies:
Strategies for the INITIAL LEARNING of Speech Acts: One example of these strategies
would be taking practical steps to gain knowledge of how specific speech acts work –
gathering information (through observation, interview, and written material) on
how certain speech acts are performed by members of one or more “communities of
practice” within a given speech community (e.g., at the workplace: making requests
of age mates, refusing requests made by people of higher status, and thanking people
in service – e.g., cafeteria workers, custodians).
Strategies for PERFORMING Speech Acts: An example would be devising and then utilizing a
memory aid for retrieving the speech act material that has already been learned –visualizing
a listing of the specific strategies for a given speech act – possibly remembered
through an acronym – and then scanning down this list in order to select those
members of the speech act set that seem appropriate for the given situation.
Strategies for PLANNING, MONITORING, & EVALUATING Speech Acts: An example of a
strategy to help avoid pragmatic failure would be to have learners monitor for:
 the level of directness or indirectness in the delivery of the speech act (e.g.,
with a stranger on an airplane),
 the appropriateness of the selected term of address (e.g., referring in the L2
to Dr. Stephen Blake as “Doc”, “Steve”, or “you”– either tu or vous),
 tone, facial expressions, and gestures (whereas an actor usually gets coached
in such matters, language learners are invariably left to figure it out by themselves).
3.4 The Use of Technology in SI
A detailed approach to strategies and strategizing is provided in the Spanish
Grammar Strategies website (retrieved January 26 2016 from
http://www.carla.umn.edu/strategies/sp_grammar/index.html).
The website caters to two different types of use, namely, 1) when students are
looking for a strategy that has been used successfully by a college student of Spanish
to learn a specific grammar form, or 2) when they are looking for strategies that
match their learning style and that may apply to various grammar forms. Say they
need a strategy for a particular grammar form, such as the distinction between ser
and estar. The following are two screens that demonstrate how the website works.
3.5 Strategies for Enhancing Test Performance
Another specific area for strategizing is that of test-taking. In part it calls for LLS
strategies and in part it calls for strategies dealing specifically with how to respond
to assessment measures. The latter, namely, the test-taking strategies can play an
instrumental role for learners, especially when taking high-stakes tests. Students
waste time trying to figure out how to do the test. Properly utilizing test-
management strategies and being wary of certain test-wiseness strategies2can be
crucial in navigating through the test and responding effectively. Students can
benefit from good guidance materials. The Education Testing Service (ETS) is to be
praised for their willingness to support research into the strategies actually used on
the iBT TOEFL test (e.g., Cohen & Upton 2007). Research findings as to the strategies
used productively in responses provide important input for SI sessions.
4. The Role of Teachers in SI
While the ultimate responsibility for success at language learning and use falls on
the shoulders of each language learner, teachers can support learners in being better
strategizers. One of the early studies of SI demonstrated how teachers’ SI input may
be met with a mixed reception by learners. A study on mnemonic devices to check
the uptake from teachers teaching the mnemonic key word strategy for
remembering specific words (Cohen & Aphek 1981) found the following to be the
case:
 there were learners who used the teacher’s suggested strategies and it
helped,
 there were those who used the teacher’s strategies and it did not help,
 and there were those who ignored the teacher’s suggestions on strategy use.
This is why I have favored separate websites for learners to frequent on their own.
Teachers can make suggestions but should not be offended if learners ignore them.
Other than sending learners to websites, what can teachers do to help students use
2
I.e., strategies for avoiding having to reveal language knowledge by using various tricks.
learner strategies? There are lots of ideas in Ch. 4, “The Practice of Strategy
Instruction” (Cohen 2011: 115-167). Teachers are encouraged, if possible, to conduct
SI as part of their regular instruction. How can we get this to happen? One way is by
having lead teachers attend the CARLA summer institute on Styles and Strategy
Instruction.
5. Research on SI
How do you best evaluate the effectiveness of SI? For one thing, the more
triangulation of measures the better. I would want to see whether and how
strategies are used over time. For example, we conducted a study on the use of
strategies from the Spanish Grammar Strategies Website at CARLA (Cohen, Pinilla-
Herrera, Thompson, & Witzig 2011). The study served to determine the impact of the
website that we conducted, and it also served as a longitudinal study over 8 weeks to
see the longer-term effects of using a website such as this one.
Since there are many factors involved in SI, the instruments for studying it need to
be multiple and creative. The more focused the SI, the more likelihood we can see
results. In Cohen (2011) a study is described with French and Norwegian where SI
was provided SI on speaking strategies and then the impact was measured (pp. 186-
223). The study demonstrated that it was possible to see how the SI contributed to
specific strategy use in performing speaking tests in the posttesting.
What about research on the quality of strategy use? Aside from the frequency of
strategy use, are there any measures that can tap into the quality of strategy use?
One approach is to use verbal report with learners to see if the strategy is working. It
can be especially beneficial to get feedback from the learners while engaged in
actual real-world tasks. In addition, in an effort to determine the validity of the
information obtained, it is useful to check out whether the learners have a handle on
what they say the strategy is doing (see Cohen et al. 2011). This entails checking to
see whether students are really using a given strategy. For example, as in the Cohen
et al. study (2011), it would mean verifying the actual impact of strategies selected
from the Spanish grammar strategies website – whether the use of the reportedly
helpful strategies did, in fact, produce the desired outcome.
6. My Strategies for Learning Mandarin
Mandarin is my 13th language, making me a hyperpolyglot. I chose to start studying
the language over four years ago since it was such a demanding task for someone
who was 68 years old at the time (see Cohen & Li 2013). In addition I have made
seven trips to China, which provided an extra incentive to acquire some facility with
Mandarin. Finally, I had the sense that if an expert in LLS could not learn a
challenging language, then who could?
So, what strategies work best for me in learning Mandarin, a language clearly out of
my comfort zone? A strategy that proved unsuccessful for me was attempting to
cluster words according to their tone patterns. In other words, I tried to find
patterns in words like liànxí ‘practice, exercise’ (4th tone, then 2nd tone) and liánxì
‘connection’ (2nd tone, and then 4th tone). In fact, I came up with 22 different
combinations, but could not find any regular patterns which might help me in the
future to guess which tones given words were likely to have.
In terms of strategies that have worked for me, I start by finding a tandem partner
with whom I can Skype on a weekly basis. She helps with my Chinese and I help her
with her English. She is a native speaker of Chinese who studied in Japan for 8 years
so she understands very well the nature of language acquisition. Next, I coach my
tandem partner on how to give me feedback. Then, I create my own curriculum
around what I want to write about in pinyin in my weekly blog. I have avoided
learning Chinese characters because of the extra cognitive load. The down side is
that I am faced with homonyms like nan (2nd tone) for both ‘south’ and ‘male’. I write
on 10 topics per week. My tandem partner corrects them – in blue if there are edits,
and in green for those portions that are unintelligible to her. I review the
corrections before our Skype session. After the Skype session, she sends me more
feedback, including reformulations of my conversation in Mandarin, as well as audio
files of her reading the corrected sentences. I make electronic flash cards by word
category – nouns, verbs, adjectives, function words, and measure words. I now have
2,000+ words which have been carefully checked to ensure that their meanings are
clear to me. As a cognitive strategy, I am constantly sending my tandem partner
requests to fine-tune my understanding of the semantics of each and every word in
my personally crafted electronic dictionary. For example, I discovered that “to
work” is two different verbs in Chinese, with gonzuo meaning that a person works,
while yunzhuan is used to indicate that a machine is working.
I have come to make peace with myself that my listening and speaking abilities in
Mandarin remain basic, while my ability to read pinyin and especially to write a blog
is quite sophisticated, thanks in some part to Google Translate. The problem is that I
cannot trust the translation to be accurate and so need to continually back translate,
as well as to use my own sense of how to express what I want to say, based on my
personal electronic dictionary and my sense of how the grammar of the language
works. I also draw on previous corrections by my tandem partner, who, by the way,
is currently in an MA program to be a teacher of Chinese.
7. Conclusions
It is my feeling that most learners can be more proactive than they currently are in
their own language learning. They need not be as dependent on their teachers as
they may think they need to be. After all, during much of our life, we do not have
access to language teachers. As for the teachers, depending on available time and
level of commitment to the LLS cause, they can be more proactive in coaching
learners to use strategies more effectively. The payoff for them as teachers is that
potentially the more strategic their learners become, the less dependent they will be
on teachers to teach them, and the more they will be learning on their own. Finally,
research has an important role to play in LLS work. In my opinion, Greek colleagues
have impressively demonstrated how such research can be conducted on a large
scale in the public schools. What remains to be done in Greece and in other countries
is to fine-tune the nature of the LLS studies so as to be better informed regarding the
nature of the strategies employed and their impact on language learning over time.
References
Agathopoulou, E., Alexiou, T., Joycey, E., Kazamia V. & Sougari, A.-M. (2015).
Activities for mainstream primary pupils. In A. Psaltou-Joycey (Ed.), Foreign
Language Learning Strategy Instruction: A Teacher's Guide (pp.: 52-115). Kavala,
Greece: Saita Publications.
Cohen, A. D. (2005). Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts.
Intercultural Pragmatics 2(3), 275-301.
Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Abingdon,
England: Routledge/Pearson Education.
Cohen, A. D. (2012). Strategies: The interface of styles, strategies, and motivation on
tasks. In Mercer, S., Ryan, S. & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for Language
Learning: Insights from Research, Theory and Practice (pp.: 136-150). Basingstoke,
England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cohen, A. D. (2014). Strategies for learning and performing speech acts. In Ishihara.
N. & A. D. Cohen, Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture
Meet (pp. 227-243). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Cohen, A. D. & Aphek. E. (1981). Easifying second language learning. SSLA 3(2), 221-
236.
Cohen, A. D., Paige, R. M., Shively, R. M., Emert, H. & Hoff, J. (2005). Maximizing study
abroad through language and culture strategies: Research on students, study
abroad program professionals, and language instructors. Final Report to the
International Research and Studies Program, Office of International Education, DOE.
Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition,

University of Minnesota. Retrieved January 26 2016 from
http://www.carla.umn.edu/maxsa/documents/MAXSAResearchReport_000.pd
f
Cohen, A. D. & Weaver, S. J. (2006). Styles and Strategies-Based Instruction: A Teachers’
Guide. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language
Acquisition, University of Minnesota.
Cohen, A. D. & Upton, T. A. (2007). “I want to go back to the text”: Response
strategies on the reading subtest of the New TOEFL. Language Testing 24(2), 209-
250.
Cohen, A. D., Pinilla-Herrera, A., Thompson, J. R. & Witzig, L. E. (2011).
Communicating grammatically: Evaluating a learner strategies website for
Spanish grammar. CALICO Journal 29(1), 145-172.
Cohen, A. D. & Ping, L. (2013). Learning Mandarin in later life: Can old dogs learn new
tricks? Contemporary Foreign Language Studies 396(12), 5-14.
Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. D. (2014). Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language
and Culture Meet. Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Kantaridou, Z. & Papadopoulou, I. (2015). Activities for mainstream lower secondary
schools. In A. Psaltou-Joycey (Ed.), Foreign Language Learning Strategy Instruction:
A Teacher's Guide (pp. 116-174). Kavala, Greece: Saita Publications.
Kappler Mikk, B., Cohen, A. D., Paige, R. M. with Chi, J. C., Lassegard, J. P., Maegher,
M. & Weaver, S. J. (2009). Maximizing Study Abroad: An Instructional Guide to
Strategies for Language and Culture Learning and Use. Minneapolis, MN: CARLA,
University of Minnesota.
Mitits, L. & Sarafianou, A. (2015). Activities for minority primary and lower
secondary schools. In A. Psaltou-Joycey (Ed.), Foreign Language Learning Strategy
Instruction: A Teacher's Guide (pp. 175-211). Kavala, Greece: Saita Publications.
Neubach, A. & Cohen, A. D. (1988). Processing strategies and problems encountered
in the use of dictionaries. Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North
America 10, 1-19.
Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., Kappler Mikk, B., Chi, J. C. & Lassegard, J. (2006).
Maximizing Study Abroad: A Students' Guide to Strategies for Language and Culture
Learning and Use. Minneapolis, MN: CARLA, University of Minnesota.
Methodological issues concerning the THALES research project on Language
Learning Strategies
Alexandra Karousou1, Konstantinos Petrogiannis2, & Zoe Gavriilidou1
1
Democritus University of Thrace, 2Hellenic Open University
alexkarousou@gmail.com, kpetrogiannis@eap.gr, zoegab@otenet.gr
Abstract
It appears that the extensive use of the SILL by language teachers, practitioners and
researchers is often motivated by tradition and convenience rather than resulting
from a sound methodological design and subsequent execution. Basic questions such
as the representativity of the sample, the procedure of data collection, the suitability
of the instrument for different age spans or cultural backgrounds are rarely
addressed. The major purpose of this paper is to present the conditions under which
a Greek version of the SILL achieves the intended objectives of reliability and validity
for the Greek setting.
Keywords: language learning strategy, SILL, students, FL acquisition, methodology design
1. Introduction
Acquisition of a foreign language occurs unconsciously and spontaneously, leads to
conversational fluency, and arises from naturalistic language use (Oxford, 1990). The
relevant research of the last two decades has focused on the characteristics of the
learner and, according to Oxford (1990), the acquisition process is synthesized with
more formal learning strategies to create a holistic language learner. Towards this
direction, a number of important findings on student second language learning
strategies have been generated by studies using Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory
for Language Learning (SILL). SILL has been broadly used internationally as the
primary screening and research instrument for the identification of the language
learning strategies that second/foreign language learners use. In addition, SILL has
been recognized as the most influential instrument in this area by laying out the
most comprehensive and widely accepted hierarchy of learning strategies to date
(Rivera-Mills & Plonsky 2007).
With regard to its structure, it is a self-report questionnaire enlisting 50 statements
regarding strategies/behaviors a second language (SL)/foreign language (FL) learner
can adopt to foster the learning of the target language; learners have to simply mark
on a 5 point scale the frequency of use of each strategy (Figure 1) (ranging from 1=
“never or almost never true of me” to 5 = “always or almost always true of me”).
Figure 1. Excerpt from Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning questionnaire form
Based on earlier research into learning strategies, Oxford (1990) developed a new
theoretically based and empirically confirmed language learning strategy

instrument, which includes two main clusters of strategies: direct strategies and
indirect strategies. Direct strategies are specific ways that involve use of language,
sub-divided into Memory (grouping, imagery, rhyming, structured reviewing, etc.),
Cognitive (reasoning, analyzing, summarizing, etc.) and Compensation (guessing
meanings, using synonyms and gestures etc.) strategies. Indirect strategies do not
directly involve using the language, but they support language learning (Ehrman &
Oxford 1990), and are further divided into Metacognitive (paying attention,
consciously searching for practice opportunities, self-evaluating one’s progress,
etc.), Affective (anxiety reduction, self-encouragement, self-reward, etc.), and Social
(asking questions, cooperating with native speakers of the language, becoming
culturally aware, etc.) strategies. The content of the classification system is
explained in more detail elsewhere in the current volume.
The SILL has been adapted in many languages (at least 17). A brief look at published
research reveals another interesting characteristic of the relevant work: the
majority of the empirical studies involved mainly tertiary education students or
adult learners of SL/FL, from the early 90s onwards. Few studies (e.g., Ardasheva &
Tretter 2013; Chen 2009; Green & Oxford 1995; Magogwe & Oliver 2007) investigated
high-school students learning English as SL/FL, while language learning strategy
use by children under 13 years has been inadequately examined in the past, and this
is one of the major contributions of the current large-scale study with a nationally
representative sample. For achieving this objective in the best possible way, a well
prepared research design and plan should be applied to fit the aims of the research
project. Hence, a critical part of the whole study was, methodologically speaking,
the preparation of a research plan suitable for the Greek educational reality and the
target groups' sampling characteristics.
2. The THALES project: aims and design

The aim of the THALES project was, in its first phase, the adaptation of the SILL (a) in
Greek, for its use with Greek-speaking young students of English, and (b) in Turkish,
for its administration in a small group of minority Turkish-speaking young students
living in the region of Thrace, Northern Greece. On a second phase, the
standardization of the SILL for these two groups was performed by examining (a) the
learning profile of Greek-speaking EFL learners, and (b) the learning profile of
Turkish-speaking EFL learners. The final objective of the project was the
examination of the language learning profiles of young FL/SL learners in Greece, of
students covering the range from the 4th grade of primary education to the 3rd grade
of secondary education.
The adaptation procedure of the SILL is explained in detail by Gavriilidou and
colleagues in a number of publications (Gavriilidou & Mitits 2014; Gavriilidou et al.
2014, Petrogiannis & Gavriilidou 2015). Briefly to mention that the procedure
included an elaborate translation phase, followed by a cross-cultural verification
phase and, finally, a psychometric verification phase that provided preliminary
indexes of its validity and reliability. These processes led to the construction of the
initial version of the SILL that has been used in the pilot study (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Greek and Turkish versions of the SILL for primary (9-12 yrs.) and junior secondary school
students (12-15 yrs.) in Greece - Adaptation procedures
This pilot questionnaire included the original 50 items of the SILL and 7 additional
items proposed for the Greek version. It also included an extensive socio-
demographic background questionnaire aimed at collecting detailed information on
a variety of family and personal parameters, students' contact with other languages,
and their motivation for learning English.
3. Pilot study
The pilot study aimed at the selection of a representative sample, permitting the
extraction of secure conclusions regarding the validity and the factorial structure of
the instrument which, in turn, would guide the construction of its final form.
3.1 Sampling
With regard to the sample selection criteria that would be adequate for the study,
the following criteria were adopted:
(1) the sample size should be relative to the number of items in a 4:1 or 5:1
proportion. Since the pilot version of the SILL included 57 items, sample size should
be > 300 students,
(2) it should include students of all target ages/grades, both of primary and of
junior secondary education, and
(3) of various geographical regions of Greece, which could potentially reflect
different socio-economical characteristics.
Based on the sampling criteria and data for the student population collected by the
competent Educational Authorities, the target sample was defined to 1320 students,
including students of all targeted grades (covering the ages from 9 to 15 years), from
the regions of Thrace, Macedonia, Epirus and Attica (Table 1).
Primary Secondary
Region (Town)
4th 5th 6th 1st 2nd 3rd
Thrace (Komotini) 40 40 40 20 20 20
Macedonia (Thessaloniki) 80 80 80 60 60 60
Epirus (Ioannina) 40 40 40 20 20 20
Attica (Athens-Pireaus) 100 100 100 80 80 80
Targetted sample
260 260 260 180 180 180
(students)
Targetted total 780 540
Table 1. Pilot study: targeted sample by region
Finally, the sample actually collected, in the pilot study, was 1309 students (Table 2);
47,6% male and 52,4% female with mean age 12.42 years (SD=1.77, range 9-17 years),
from 16 schools.
Primary Secondary
4th 5th 6th 1st 2nd 3rd

250
Thrace (Komotini) 27 39 39 41 53 51
(19.1%)
Macedonia 393
57 70 55 81 69 61
(Thessaloniki) (30.0%)
250
Epirus (Ioannina) 30 51 35 43 45 46
(19.1%)
Attica (Athens- 416
66 64 71 66 75 74
Pireaus) (31.8%)
Targetted sample 180 224 200 231 242 232
1309
(students) 13.8% 17.1% 15.3% 17.6% 18.5% 17.7%
Table 2. Pilot study: final sample by region
3.2 Procedure
With regard to the procedure of the pilot study, initially, an informed permission
was granted from the National Pedagogical Institute of the Ministry of Education.
Four groups of research assistants, one for each region, were trained to follow the
same guidelines for the administration of the SILL, so as to maintain a uniform
methodology which would secure the validity of the data collected.
The first step for obtaining access to the schools was to contact the school directors,
explaining the aim of the study, the exact procedure and asking for their consent to
administer the SILL to the students of their school. The necessary documentation
(approval from the Ministry of Education with a brief description of the procedure)
was provided in order to make the necessary arrangements with the teachers and
ensure their agreement as well. Within two weeks following the initial
communication, the school directors were contacted again to obtain their consent
for participating in the study and arrange the visit.
It should be mentioned herewith that from the 17 schools contacted initially, only
one denied collaboration due to its recent participation in a number of other
research studies undertaken during the same period by different institutions.
The school visits were conducted in the agreed day and time. The administration of
the SILL always took place in the presence of the teacher. Instructions to students
were given by the research assistants. With regard to anonymity of students'
identity they were explicitly instructed not to write their names or any other feature
related to their identity on the questionnaire. Additionally, it was explained to them
that it is ordinary that each student uses only some of the mentioned strategies and
that there are no correct and incorrect answers. Students were also instructed that if
they were in doubt or had any query they could ask the researchers who, in turn,
recorded all the questions students addressed for subsequent corrections of the
questionnaire. The approximate time for each school visit did not exceed 45 minutes
(one school hour), either for primary or for secondary students.
3.3 Analyses
Following the data collection phase a series of statistical analyses were performed.
They included analyses concerning the normality of the distribution of the sample,
correlations between all items, and a series of exploratory factor analyses that aimed
at exploring the number and content of the implicit factors as well as at detecting
the most robust as well as the weak items. The factor analyses were performed (a)
for the elementary school students group, (b) for the secondary school students
group, and (c) for the entire sample.
Results of these analyses led to the construction of the final adapted version form of
the SILL in the Greek context that would be used in the main study. This final
version of the inventory was substantially reduced in relation to the original SILL. It
includes 29 items (see Appendix 1) which were loaded in the same 6 factors named in
the original Oxford's version. A detailed presentation of the factorial structure of the
instrument is presented in another paper of the current volume.
4. Main study
The main study aimed at standardizing the adapted Greek version of SILL and at
examining the learning profile of Greek-speaking and Turkish-speaking students
that learn of English as a foreign language in Greece.
4.1 Sampling
The sampling criteria were in accordance to those used for the pilot study. An
additional criterion, however, was the representative coverage of all regions of the
country, including both urban and rural areas, and the extensiveness of the sample
size.
Following these criteria, the sample selected for the Greek-speaking population were
3356 students (47.5% male and 52,5% female with mean age 12.21 years, SD=1.79,
range 8-18 years) attending 42 primary and junior secondary education, from all
regions of Greece (Table 3).
Primary Secondary
Region 4th 5th 6th 1st 2nd 3rd Total

Attica 149 112 116 126 128 115 746
Eastern Macedonia-
114 98 112 121 122 113 680
Thrace
Central/Western
112 123 91 60 63 57 506
Macedonia-Thrace
Epirus 16 18 16 24 13 16 103
Thessaly 65 62 39 66 59 66 357
Ionian Islands 25 23 24 20 18 21 131
Continental Greece 28 38 52 47 47 43 255
Peloponese 40 44 33 71 27 30 245
Nothern/South Aegean
40 42 44 73 75 59 333
& Crete
Total 589 560 527 608 552 520 3356
Table 3. Main study: final sample - Greek-speaking students
The Turkish-speaking sample consisted of 1576 students (Table 4) from the
Prefectures of Rodopi and Xanthi, region of Thrace, where this minority group is
mostly met.
Primary Secondary
Region 4th 5th 6th 1st 2nd 3rd Total

Xanthi 231 190 201 0 0 0 622
Rodopi 152 126 138 228 183 127 954
Total 383 316 339 228 183 127 1576
Table 4. Main study: final sample - Turkish-speaking students

4.2 Procedure
With regard to the procedure, before contacting the schools, there was a meeting
with the Regional School Advisors of English Language. Advisors were informed
about the aim of the study, the procedure, the schools of their area of supervision
that would be involved. A sample questionnaire was sent to them together with all
relevant material that would be used (e.g., instructions, consent forms), and they
were asked for their collaboration and support in case of need. There was a well-
established collaboration with the School Advisors who showed strong interest in
the research project and they provided the research team useful feedback
concerning the procedure.
The data collection procedure was applied following the same plan as in the pilot
study (contacts and permissions from the school Directors, teachers and parents,
administration procedure, instructions, etc.); no particular problems were reported.
Following the closing of the data collection phase, certificates of collaboration were
sent to all teachers and school advisors who participated in the research.
Finally, it should be noted that in different groups of the sample, together with the
SILL, some additional questionnaires were administered, either to students, their
parents or the English language teachers, in order to obtain additional relevant and
critical data that would supplement the analyses. These included: (a) a Teachers'
Questionnaire, based on the SILL aiming at collecting data on the learning strategies
that EFL teachers use and promote in their classroom (see Psaltou-Joycey et al and
Gavriilidou et al in this volume), (b) a self-efficacy questionnaire, and (c) a
questionnaire on parental involvement as perceived both by the students and by
their parents (see Penderi et al in this volume).
4.3 Analyses
Following the data collection phase a series of statistical analyses were performed
concerning the normality of the distribution of the sample, correlations between
items, confirmatory factor analyses as well as analyses concerning the impact of

various demographic factors. Results of these analyses are presented in subsequent
papers of this volume.
5. Conclusion
In order to be informative, a research study must have a methodological design that
controls as many variables as possible. This brief report discussed the
methodological design adopted for the SILL adaptation and validation in the Greek
setting. This included a rigorous sampling procedure which led to the selection of a
broad nationally-driven and representative sample of Greek- and Turkish-speaking
students of the three last grades of Primary and the first three grades of Secondary
education. It also included explicit administration instructions that were adopted
consistently by a group of specially trained research assistants, permitting a greater
control over administration factors that could affect the validity of the results (i.e.
instructions given to students, duration, setting, etc).
Although the whole administration procedure – administration planning, research
assistants’ training, consecutive contacts and consents from the school advisors, the
school directors, the teachers and the parents, as well as arrangement of visits to the
selected primary and secondary schools- was time-consuming, it resulted in an
excellent collaboration among all parts. This collaboration not only enhanced the
validity of the data collected, but also produced a general awareness of the
importance of language learning strategies research within the Greek educational
community.
Overall, the methodological decisions that guided this research were validated by
the robust results concerning the functionality and validity of the SILL as adapted
and standardized in the Greek context (for additional information on the
psychometric properties of the instrument, see subsequent papers in this volume).

References
Ardasheva, Y., & Tretter, T. R. (2013). Strategy Inventory for Language Learning - ELL
Student Form: Testing for factorial validity. Modern Language Journal, 97(2), 472–
487.
Chamot, A. U, O’Malley, J. M., Küpper, L., & Impink-Hernandez, M. V. (1987). A study of
learning strategies in foreign language instruction: First year report. Rosslyn, VA:
InterAmerica Research.
Chamot, A. U., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1999). Children’s learning strategies in immersion
classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 319–341.
Chen, M.-L. (2009). Influence of grade level on perceptual learning style preferences
and language learning strategies of Taiwanese English as a foreign language
learners. Learning & Individual Differences, 19, 304–308.
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. L. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice and
psychological type on adult language learning strategies. Modern Language
Journal, 74, 311-327.
Ehrman, M. & Oxford, R. L. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an
intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 74, 311-317.
Gavriilidou, Z., Kambakis-Vougiouklis. P., Mitits, L. & M. Noursen (2014). Translation
and cultural adaptation of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)
into Turkish for measuring strategy use in Muslim students learning Greek as a
second language. Πρακτικά του 11ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Ελληνικής Γλωσσολογίας.
Gavriilidou, Z. & Mitits, L. (2014). Adaptation of the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL) for students aged 12-15 into Greek: a pilot study. Selected papers
from the 21st International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied linguistics (ISTAL
21).
Green, J., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A close look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency,
and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261–297.
Griffiths, C. (2007). Language learning strategies: students’ and teachers’ perceptions.
ELT Journal, 61, 91–99.
Lan, R., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning strategy profiles of elementary
school students in Taiwan. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, 41, 339–379.
Lee, G. L., Laina, H., Meyer, J. E. L., Varaprasad, C., & Young, C. (2003). Teaching English
to students from China. Singapore: Singapore University Press.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Toward a social psychological model of strategy use. Foreign
Language Annals, 27, 185–195.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Noels, K. A. (1996).Using social-psychological variables to predict
the use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 373–386.
Magogwe, J. M., & Oliver, R. (2007). The relationship between language learning
strategies, proficiency, age, and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language
learners in Botswana. System, 35, 338–352.
Mochizuki, A. (1999). Language learning strategies used by Japanese university
students. RELC Journal, 30(2), 101–113.
Nyikos, M. (1990). Sex-related differences in adult language learning: Socialization
and memory factors. Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 273–287.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L., & Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies:
Methods, findings, and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal, 73, 404–
419.
Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning
strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 291–300.
Oxford, R. L., Nyikos, M., & Ehrman, M. (1988). Vive la différence? Reflections on sex
differences in use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 21,
321–329.
Oxford, R. L., Park-Oh, Y., Ito, S., & Sumrall, M. (1993). Japanese by satellite: Effects of
motivation, language learning styles and strategies, gender, course level, and
previous language learning experiences on Japanese language achievement.
Foreign Language Annals, 26, 359–371.
Peacock, M., & Ho, B. (2003). Student language learning strategies across eight
disciplines. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 179–200.
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., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An explanatory study of learning behaviors and
their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL
Quarterly, 19(1), 103–124.
Reid, J. M (1987). Learning style preferences ESL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87–
111.
Rivera-Mills, S. V., & Plonsky, L. (2007). Empowering students with language learning
strategies: A critical review of current issues. Foreign Language Annals, 40, 535-
548.
Schmidt, R., Boraie, D., & Kassabgy, O. (1996). Foreign language motivation: Internal
structure and external connections. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning
motivation: Pathways to the new century Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. pp.
9–70.
APPENDIX I
The final Greek version of the Strategies Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)
Parental involvement and English Language Learning: Parents and students’
reports
Efthymia Penderi1, Konstantinos Petrogiannis2, & Zoe Gavriilidou1
1
Democritus University of Thrace, 2Hellenic Open University
effieped55@gmail.com, kpetrogiannis@eap.gr, zoegab@otenet.gr
Abstract
Although the importance of parental involvement in children’s educational lives is
well documented in the psychoeducational literature, there is an absence of relevant
research concerning parent and family participation in English language learning.
The present study focuses on the parental involvement practices concerning English
as a foreign language being learnt in the Greek public schools. Parents and students’
reports were recorded using the English as Foreign Language Learning Parental
Involvement Practices (EFLLPIP) scale. 464 students and 131 parents from the area of
Athens participated in the study. Data showed that the scale is a reliable and valid
instrument with two robust factors describing parents’ motivation/interest and
support in language learning. Participants’ higher and lower scores showed that
parents adopt an active role in students’ effort to learn English at school although
the way they are engaged is not perceived in the same way by their children for the
majority of their practices. Implications regarding practice and research are
discussed.
Keywords: parental involvement, English language learning, Greek school, parents and
students’ reports
1. Introduction
In the last few decades, new developments in psychological and educational
literature have caused a growing interest in family influences on children's
development, education and learning. The focus is directed mainly on parents’
beliefs, expectations and practices with reference to children’s scholastic
experiences. With reference to the general educational literature, parental and
family contributions are conceptualized through the construct of parental
involvement (PI). It refers to the way family, especially parents as the primary
caregivers, use their personal and environmental/ecological resources to promote
children's academic socialization and learning.
Relevant studies have mainly focused on the way different aspects of parental
involvement are related to diverse children outcomes. The bulk of studies provide
evidence for a positive relation between parental involvement measures and
children's behavioral and academic outcomes in different developmental periods,
from preschool to secondary education such as transition to kindergarten and
primary school (Range et al. 2012), school readiness (Connell & Prinz 2002), academic
motivation (Epstein & Van Vooris 2001; Raftery, Grolnick & Flamm 2012; Xu & Corno
2003), academic achievement (Fan & Chen 2001; Jeynes 2003) and social competence
(Fantuzzo, Tighe, & Perry 1999; McWayne et al. 2004; Powell et al. 2010).
However, the orientation, positive or negative, and intensity of this connection
seems to be the result of the way the different dimensions of parental involvement
interact with different aspects of the environment and children's characteristics to
produce different outcomes with respect to the various educational, academic and
behavioral milestones. Actually, there is no consensus regarding the
conceptualization of parental involvement. It is mostly used as an umbrella term to
describe quite different things, from parents’ educational aspirations to their

practices and relationships regarding children’s schooling. Still, the relevant
literature review reveals four basic dimensions that seem to constitute its complex
structure and determine its characteristics and functioning:
a. the ecological dimension: It mainly concerns family demographics and
parents' social networks. The components of this dimension are usually examined as
independent variables that may affect the other parental involvement dimensions
and the way they relate to children’s outcomes.
b. the attitudinal dimension: It describes parents’ beliefs and expectations
about children's education and learning.
c. the practical dimension: It refers to what actually parents do to help children
succeed in their school lives either by interacting with the children, for example by
helping them with their homework, or by shaping the environment/context for
their learning, for example by providing educational materials.
d. the relational dimension: It focuses on the relationships parents form when
they engage into children’s education.
This study focuses on parental involvement practices with regard to English
language (EL) learning, as reported by parents and perceived by elementary and
secondary students. With reference to foreign language (FL) or second language (L2)
learning, the issue of parental involvement has been minimally studied. This is
explained by some researchers by the fact that: (a) language learning research has
relied heavily on cognitive theories, and (b) foreign language learners’ development
as language learners is considered largely as the language teachers’ responsibility.
Consequently relevant programs are being discussed almost exclusively with regard
to school and classroom settings.
The socio-cultural approach seems to provide the theoretical underpinnings for such
an enquiry on parental involvement in FL/L2 language learning as it highlights the
importance of historical, cultural, and social contexts of language learning. For
sociocultural researchers, language learning and language learner development are
socialization processes mediated by various social agents in contexts where language
learning occurs.
In these terms, the concept of “more capable others” introduced by Oxford (2003) as
a knowledge resource, refers to the way that parents, peers, and teachers develop
the self-regulatory abilities of language learners to act intentionally and
independently. Gao (2006) introduced the term “mediatimg agents”, describing
significant others such as language teachers, language learning experts, classmates,
family members, friends, or even print materials, by whom language learners may be
supported for their learning process; these agents often have an impact on learners'
strategy use.
Gardner's seminal work on motivation in L2 learning (e.g. Gardner, Lalonde, &
Pierson, 1983) has brought to the fore parents' cultural beliefs and encouragement as
influential not only to students' motivation but also to language achievement.
Parents' encouragement and support to L2 learning, along with performance
monitoring constitute what Gardner (1985) identified as an active role in the
children's language learning process, versus the passive role which entails parents'
aptitude and attitudes towards the L2 community.
The concept of parental involvement is scarcely utilized in the relevant literature,
although in the last few years there is an emphasis on the contribution of parents'
strategies to FL/L2 language learning. A number of studies have shed light to the
different roles parents and other members of the family can play in students'
language learning development. More specifically, parents have been recognised to
act as language learning advocates, facilitators, language teachers’ collaborators, and

more directly as language learning advisors, nurturers or even coercers, in both FL
and L2 learning situations (Gao 2006). However, the qualitative methodology used in
the relevant studies does not allow for conclusions that can be comparable and
applicable to large populations, especially from different cultural backgrounds.
In line with the aforementioned developments, the present study examines parental
involvement practices with reference to EFL learning as reported by parents and
students. More specifically, it presents a new instrument, the English as Foreign
Language Learning Parental Involvement Practices (EFLLPIP) scale that departs from the
conceptualization of parental involvement in the general psychoeducational
literature and incorporates issues from language learning research.
2. The development of the EFLLPIP
The EFLLPIP focuses on the practical dimension of parental involvement. Although this
dimension includes parent educational strategies at home, in the community and in
the school context, the EFLLPIP refers mostly to what parents do at home, to some
extent in the community focusing on how they use relevant resources and everyday
situations, and less to the school describing the way parents promote school work
and effectiveness. Gao's (2006) perspective concerning parenting roles in FL and L2
language learning were also reflected in item construction.
The 18 items of the scale were chosen from a pool of several practices that were
developed using parents and EL teachers’ ideas from interviews that were conducted
for the purposes of the present study and evidence from the relevant literature.
Parents' strategies were organized in four categories, namely:
I. motivation/encouragement: comprised 5 items (1, 8, 11, 13 and 14) that describe
what parents do to motivate/encourage their children to engage in EF language
learning (e.g. say or/and show how happy they are the child learns English). Parents
lay emphasis on the importance of learning English, encourage engagement with the
English culture, and express positive feelings about children's effort and
achievement.
II. relationship with school: consists of 4 items (5, 6, 12 and 17) that refer to
parents' support regarding learning in the school context including what actually
parents do at home and in the school (e.g. ask child how things are in the English
lesson). Parents' express their interest in children's experiences in the English
language lessons and promote children’s participation and engagement in classroom
activities, communicate with the EL teacher.
III. support in language learning: with 5 items (2, 4, 7, 10 and 15) focuses on how
parents help and monitor students doing their English homework (e.g. check if child
did homework/studied for English).
IV. opportunities for practice: contains 4 items (3, 9, 16 and 18) that describe
parents’ use of materials and resources, such as books, internet, videos, signs, etc.
and everyday situations to promote children's EL learning and desire to learn (e.g.
buy books and other materials to help child practice English).
3. Purpose of the study
The main goal of the present study was to record parents’ involvement practices to
promote and support their children’s English as foreign language learning in the
public school, taking into account both parents and students’ reports. The two
versions (parent and student) of the newly constructed EFLLPIP scale were used.
Parents and students’ reports were compared to estimate the most and least
frequent practices while the influence of the informants’ different role in their
responses was also examined. Finally, the reliability and validity of the scale were
also tested.
4. Method
4.1 Participants
464 students and 131 parents living in Athens participated in the study. 65% were
elementary school students while 35% attended secondary school. Parents that
completed the questionnaire had children only in the secondary school. The age of
the 94 mothers and 35 fathers was ranged between 31 to 68 years. With regard to
their educational background 60% of them had a tertiary education degree (Bachelor
or postgraduate degree); 50% had an EFL certificate (B2, C1/C2).
4.2 Analysis
Parents and students’ reports were found to have high internal consistency as
Cronbach α estimates were over .80 for both scales (for students’ scale .87 and for
parents’ scale .88). In Table 1 there are three lists with the most and least frequently
used parenting practices as perceived by the elementary students, the secondary
students and their parents. Median was used as an indicator of the distribution of
the reports in each item, taking into account that the data were in ordinal scale and
this index is less affected by outliers and skewed data.
elementary school secondary school secondary school

students students students' parents
items N Median items N Median items N Median
1 301 5,00 1 162 4,00 1 131 5,00
5 300 5,00 12 162 5,00 5 131 5,00
6 297 5,00 5 159 4,00 6 131 5,00
11 297 5,00 6 162 4,00 11 128 5,00

12 297 5,00 11 160 4,00 12 130 5,00
2 298 4,00 14 160 4,00 14 130 5,00
4 299 4,00 17 160 4,00 10 130 4,00
7 300 4,00 3 159 3,00 17 131 4,00
10 295 4,00 8 162 3,00 18 131 4,00
14 298 4,00 10 160 3,00 2 131 3,00
17 300 4,00 18 159 3,00 3 131 3,00
18 301 4,00 2 160 2,00 4 130 3,00
3 301 3,00 4 162 2,00 7 126 3,00
8 300 3,00 7 162 2,00 8 131 3,00
15 299 3,00 9 161 2,00 9 131 3,00
16 301 3,00 13 161 2,00 13 131 3,00
9 299 2,00 15 159 2,00 15 131 3,00
13 299 2,00 16 160 2,00 16 131 3,00
Table 1. The most and least frequently used parenting practices as perceived by elementary
students, secondary students and their parents
It should be noted that the most frequent PI practices belong mainly to the first and
second category of strategies that reflect parents’ encouragement, motivation and
support of school English language learning. The least frequent PI practices describe
parents’ effort to provide opportunities for practicing and learning that actually
supplement the school activities and homework. In order to examine the level of
agreement between parents and students’ reports in each item, chi-square was used
as a test of independence. Data showed that for the majority of items, there were
differences in the way students perceived the PI practices reported by parents but
these differences were not accidental. Only 5 items (3, 6, 11, 12, and 17) seemed to
have concurrence in parents and students’ reports. It should be noted that all these 5
items were scored in the upper level of both parents and students’ scales.
To ascertain the construct validity of the scale, its factorial structure was examined
but only for the students’ version. This choice was based on the fact that results
from a similar analysis could be misleading as the number of parents participating
does not comport with the rule of thumb of 1:10 item-participants ratio. Exploratory
factor analysis was conducted with principal component extraction and varimax
rotation method. The decision for the two factors solution that was finally retained
(see Table 2) was based on the following criteria: (i) eigenvalues greater than 1, (ii)
the scree test graph, and (iii) the conceptual orientation of the items.
Factors
Items Motivation/Interest in Support in
EFLL EFLL
11. say/show contentedness when ,75 ,13
you try or do well in EFLL
14. say/show contentedness that ,71 ,20
you learn
English
17. ask EFL teacher about your ,66 ,10
progress
12. tell you to ask teacher when you ,66 ,09
don’t know/understand sth
6. ask about your performance in ,62 ,21
EFL classroom
10. tell you to revise English ,52 ,48
5. advice to pay attention and learn ,49 ,41
more in
the EFL lesson
18. ask you to speak English in every ,48 ,26

chance
1.tell you how important it is to ,43 ,27
learn English
8. talk about their experience when ,39 ,36
they
learned English
2. check your homework ,15 ,72
4. help you to learn new vocabulary ,07 ,70
16. help you practice with computer ,22 ,66
15. ask you to read aloud English ,19 ,64
7. help you do the exercises alone ,11 ,56
3. ask you to read/translate English ,23 ,48
texts/signs
13. suggest you learn more about ,32 ,44
people
that speak English
9. buy books, cds etc. to help you ,32 ,40
learn
English
Eigenvalues 5,86 1,47
%Variance 32,53 8,14
Cronbach’s α .83 .77
Table 2. Factor structure of the English as Foreign Language Learning Parental Involvement
Practices (EFLLPIP) scale
The two-factor solution seemed to comport best with the aforementioned criteria.
The first factor, Motivation/Interest in EFLL, comprised 10 items, the majority of which
were included in the first and second pi strategies category and described the way
parents motivate students in English language learning and show their interest in
their work. The second factor, Support in EFLL, consisted of 8 items which reflected
parents’ practices to support students’ learning by monitoring school work and
providing supplementary opportunities for practice.
5. Discussion
The focus of the present study was on parents and students’ reports concerning
parental involvement strategies to promote and support English as FL learning in
the Greek public elementary and secondary school. These reports were recorded
using the two versions, parent and student, of the English as Foreign Language
Learning Parental Involvement Practices (EFLLPIP) scale.
It could be argued that the scale is a reliable and valid measure of parental
involvement in English as a FL that takes into account both parents and students’
perspectives. Factor analysis revealed two subscales that reflected parents’ effort to
motivate and support students as active agents of the learning process by taking
roles that cover all the positive forms of participation in language learning, as
described by Gao (2006).
Data analysis showed that there was accordance in parents and students’ reports
concerning the most and least frequently used parental involvement practices. More
specifically, both groups of participants referred more or less to the same practices
placed at the upper and lower levels of the scale showing that that there is a
common understanding between parents and students regarding the way parents
support English as FL learning. Following Gardner’s conceptualization of parents’
roles (1985), this study showed that Greek parents have a more active role in
students’ learning by encouraging, helping and supporting their efforts, while their
passive behaviors concerning their attitude towards the English community and
culture were less evident. This does not mean that they do not have a positive
attitude. It may imply the fact that they are not aware of the importance this kind of
involvement may have in students’ learning.
It should be noted that the high scores parents and students gave in the majority of
the parental involvement practices, reveal the importance they place in children’s
learning English as a FL in the public school and their efforts to support learning.
Moreover, the way parents and students answered the majority of the items was not
accidental, meaning that their role influenced the way they perceived parental
involvement practices. The five items that did not seem to be affected by the
respondents’ different roles mainly referred to students’ performance and progress
and scored quite high in all scales. This may be attributed to the fact that both
parents and students put an emphasis on language learning performance and their
communication and practices concerning this aspect of English as FL experience are
explicit and clear.
Results may have implications both for practice and research. EL teachers should
encourage parental involvement both at school and home and guide parents how to
promote students’ strategic learning. It would be interesting to examine the
potential effects of parental involvement on students’ strategic learning and
proficiency as other studies have provided evidence for the importance of parental
and family influences on students’ motivation to learn English.
6. Conclusion
The present study showed that the English as Foreign Language Learning Parental
Involvement Practices (EFLLPIP) scale may be a useful tool to chart parental
involvement as perceived by both parents and students. The two factors of the scale
reflected all the positive parental engagement behaviors in language learning
described by Gao (2006) describing parents’ motivation and support in their

children’s learning English as a FL in the public school. The similarity of parents and
students’ reports/answers show that parents’ involvement practices are well
communicated to their children, while the high scores indicate the importance
placed on the work of the public school concerning learning English as a FL.
However, more research is needed to examine its psychometric properties along
with its potential to be used in different cultural contexts to allow for comparisons
between different populations and educational systems.
References
Connell, C. M., & Prinz, R. J. (2002). The impact of childcare and parent-child
interactions on school readiness and social skills development for low-income
African American children. Journal of School Psychology, 40(2), 177-193.
Epstein, J. L., & Van Vooris, F. L. (2001). More than minutes: Teachers roles in
designing homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 181-193.
Fan, X. & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic
achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22.
Fantuzzo, J., Tighe, E., & Perry, M. (1999). Relationships between family involvement
in Head Start and children's interactive peer play. NHSA Dialog, 3, 60- 67.
Gao, X. (2006). Strategies used by Chinese parents to support English language
learning: Voices of 'elite' university students. Regional Language Centre Journal,
37, 285-298.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes
and motivation. London: Arnold.
Gardner, R. C., Lalonde, R. N., & Pierson, R. (1983). The socio-educational model of
second language acquisition: An investigation using LISREL causal modeling.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2, 51-65.
Jeynes, W. (2003). A meta-analysis: The effects of parental involvement on minority
children’s’ academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 202-218.
McWayne, C., Hampton, V., Fantuzzo, J., Cohen, H., & Sekino, Y. (2004). A
multivariate examination of parent involvement and the social and academic
competencies of urban kindergarten children. Psychology in the Schools, 41(3),
363-377.
Oxford, R. (2003). Towards a More Systematic Model of L2 Learner Autonomy. In D.
Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language
education perspectives (pp. 75-92). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Powell, D., Son, S-H., File, N., & San Juan, R. (2010). Parent–school relationships and
children's academic and social outcomes in public school pre-kindergarten.
Journal of School Psychology, 48, 269–292.
Raftery, J., Grolnick, W., & Flamm, E. (2012). Families as facilitators of student
engagement: Toward a home-school partnership model. In S. Christenson, A.
Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. New York:
Springer. pp. 343-364.
Range, B., Holt, C., Pijanowski, J., & Young, S. (2012). The perceptions of primary
grade teachers and elementary principals about the effectiveness of grade-
level retention. The Professional Educator, 36(1).
Xu, J., & Corno, L. (2003). Family help and homework management reported by
middle school students. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 503-519.
Teachers’ and learners’ reported language learning strategy use: How do they
match?3
Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey1, Eleni Agathopoulou1, Kostantinos Petrogiannis2 & Zoe
Gavriilidou3
1
Aristotle University, 2Hellenic Open University, 3Democritus University of Thrace
apsajoycey@enl.auth.gr, agatho@enl.auth.gr, kpetrogiannis@eap.gr, zgabriil@helit.duth.gr
Abstract
This is the first study that compares the reported use of language learning strategies
(LLS) of learners and teachers. The data come from answers in questionnaires
completed by 3356 learners of EFL and 63 EFL teachers in primary and lower
secondary schools in Greece. The learners’ questionnaire was an adapted Greek
version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Oxford 1990), while the
teachers’ questionnaire was a newly developed instrument to assess reported
teachers’ promotion of LLS in the classroom. Results indicate a statistically
significant difference between the teachers and the students regarding all LLS
categories. Teachers report high LLS use, while learners report medium LLS use. On
the other hand, there was no significant effect of level of education
(primary/secondary) on LLS use.
Key-words: language learning strategies, questionnaires, comparison, EFL teachers, EFL
learners, Greek schools
3
This study is part of the THALES project MIS 379335. It was held in the frame of the National
Strategic Reference Frame (Ε.Σ.Π.Α.) and was co-funded by resources of the European Union
(European Social Fund) and national resources.
1. Introduction
Language learning strategies have aroused considerable attention in the past 40
years and a large number of studies have focused on the issue. Most of these studies,
both qualitative and quantitative, have approached the topic mainly from the
learners’ view point by investigating the variables that influence their selection and
use of strategies. Such variables may be either learner related having to do with
individual learner differences, e.g., gender, age, proficiency level, motivation, beliefs
and attitudes, learning styles, culture, etc. (Carson & Longhini 2002; Hong-Nam &
Leavell 2006; Kazamia 2003; Lan & Oxford 2003; Lee 2003; Li & Qin 2006; Littlemore
2001; Magogwe & Oliver 2007; Oxford 1996; Psaltou-Joycey 2008; Psaltou-Joycey &
Kantaridou 2009; Psaltou-Joycey & Sougari 2010; Purdie & Oliver 1999; Rossi-Le 1995;
Sadighi & Zarafshan 2006; Victori & Tragant 2003; Vrettou 2009, 2011; Wharton
2000) or situational, that is, the educational setting – L1, L2 or FL – the type, rate and
quality of instruction, task requirements and materials being used, teacher related
variables, etc. (Bialystok 1981; Cohen 1998; Cummins 2005; Erhman & Oxford 1989;
Hurd 2008; Norton & Toohey 2001; Oxford & Nyikos 1989; Politzer 1983; Psaltou-
Joycey 2008; Rubin 1975; Takeuchi, Griffiths & Coyle 2007; White 2003).
Teacher related variables have to do with teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, attitudes
and motivation toward language teaching, which affect their adoption of teaching
approaches and preferred classroom practices as well as their promotion of certain
types of tasks and teaching materials (Bernaus, Wilson & Gardner 2009; Julkunen
2001; Kern 1995; Richards Gallo & Renandya 2001; William & Burden 1997).
The present paper examines teacher and learner variables regarding (a) reported
promotion and (b) reported strategy use by both groups respectively, in order to
identify possible matches or mismatches in their perceptions of how and which
strategies they use in an EFL context in Greece.

2. Research background
In recent years few studies have evaluated teacher and learner variables together.
With reference to language learning strategies, a number of studies have
investigated teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of importance either of general or
of skill specific strategies, motivational strategies, and beliefs on the effectiveness of
strategy use during language learning.
The majority of these studies refer to teachers’ perceptions of what learning
strategies they think their learners might be using and are compared with learners’
perceptions on the same issue. To begin with, O'Malley et al. (1985) studied the use
of LLS by beginning and intermediate students in a US high school and found that
students of both levels reported employment of “an extensive variety of learning
strategies” (ibid. 41), whereas their “teachers were generally unaware of their
students' strategies” (ibid. 21). Griffiths and Parr (2001) asked 569 learners from a
variety of English language learning settings in New Zealand to complete Oxford’s
(1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), and 30 teachers involved with
students speaking other languages to evaluate which of the 6 strategy categories of
the SILL students might use the most. The results indicated a mismatch between
teachers’ and students’ perceptions of LLS student use in most strategy categories.
Also Khan (2012), who compared the self-perceived LLS use of 120 EFL students of
mixed proficiency level from six different nationalities with 30 English native and
non-native teachers’ perceptions of their students’ strategy use, highlighted
inconsistencies between the teachers' perceptions and learners' practice of the LLS
as their differences were rather striking.
However, Griffiths, in her 2007 study, returned to her concern about students’ and
teachers’ perceptions of LLS use. She found a 71% agreement between the two
parties in their perceptions of high importance of strategies used by learners, and

concluded that this implies that “teachers and students are generally ‘on the same
wavelength’ when it comes to reported student practices and teacher perceptions of
importance regarding language learning strategy use” (p. 96), thus offering a more
optimistic view about teachers’ and students’ matching in their perceptions of
which strategies are most important. A study close to Griffiths’ (2007) findings is the
one by Tamjid and Babazadeh (2012). The researchers compared intermediate EFL
female students’ and their teachers’ perceptions of listening comprehension
strategies and found no difference between the two groups in their perceptions of
the six categories of listening strategy use with metacognitive strategies being used
the most and affective strategies the least. The findings concerning a skill area such
as listening imply that both groups of participants assign an important role to
listening strategies for increasing comprehension of oral communication in a
foreign language.
A smaller number of studies have looked at teachers’ perceptions of their own
language teaching practices in the classroom to help learners learn how to employ
strategies effectively and at their beliefs about the effectiveness of strategy use.
Psaltou-Joycey (2008) investigated the relation between the language learning
strategy use of 177 multilingual learners of Greek as a FL and their teachers’
preferences of classroom procedures and activities and found that such preferences
affect the students’ reported order of strategy use. Sen and Sen (2012) investigated
the awareness levels in LLS of 70 EFL teachers, their beliefs on the effectiveness of
strategies on language learning and their perceived ease of strategy instruction.
Their answers were compared with those of 100 students of theirs who also
answered the same questionnaire. The comparisons showed that the teachers
reported a higher frequency of use than their learners, although a greater similarity
was noted between the most and least frequently used strategy categories.
Amiryousefi (2015) explored the Iranian EFL learners’ and teachers’ beliefs about
the usefulness of different types of vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs). Three
hundred and twenty adult students from elementary to advanced levels and 72
English teachers participated in the study. Students and teachers agreed in their
beliefs about the usefulness of most of the discovery and consolidation VLSs and
differed only in their beliefs about the usefulness of certain memorization
strategies. There were also some differences in VLS strategies according to
educational level.
Furthermore, some studies have been concerned with the relation of teachers’ use
of motivational strategies and their affect on students’ motivational levels and
achievement. Jacques (2001) assessed both teachers’ and students’ perceptions of
motivation and preferences for instructional activities in the classroom. He found
relationships between some perceptions of strategy use and motivational
characteristics within both samples but did not investigate cross sample
relationships in detail, though he did report that teachers tended to evaluate
several instructional activities more highly than the students. Madrid (2002)
examined how powerful 18 motivational classroom strategies were in the students’
perceived global motivation according to the perceptions of 319 students from
primary, secondary and upper-secondary education and of 18 teachers of the same
educational levels. The results showed that certain strategies are more powerful
than others to enhance students’ global motivation. Guilloteaux and Dörnyei (2008)
examined the relation between the teachers’ motivational teaching practice and
their students’ language learning motivation of 40 ESOL classes in S. Korea involving
27 teachers and 1,300 students and found a positive link between the two. Bernaus
and Gardner (2008) investigated 26 different language teaching strategies, as
reported by teachers and students, and the effects of the use of these strategies on
students’ motivation and English achievement. The participants consisted of 31 EFL
teachers and their secondary school students (N = 694) in Catalonia, Spain. The
teachers and students rated the frequency of use of 26 strategies in their classes and
the results showed a significant correlation in 16 out of the 26 teaching strategies
thus indicating that the strategies were used to varying degrees in different classes
and this differential use was recognized by the students. Using the same sample,
Bernaus, Wilson and Gardner (2009) investigated the use of teaching strategies as
reported both by the teacher and the students, the level of the teacher’s motivation,
and the effect on student motivation and English achievement. The results
suggested that teacher motivation is related to teacher use of motivating strategies,
which in turn affect student motivation and English achievement.
3. Aims of the present study
Our own study differs from all the above as we investigate the strategies teachers
report they themselves promote/adopt when they teach EFL – not what strategies
they think their students might be using – and, respectively, what strategies
learners report they select and use during language learning. Furthermore, we
attempt to match the separate findings in order to find possible coincidence of
strategy use by both groups. For that reason, we addressed the following research
questions:
1. What is the relationship between teachers’ perceived frequency of using strategic
instruction and students’ perceived frequency of using the same strategies in
learning English as a foreign language in Greek mainstream primary and lower
secondary schools?
2. Does level of education (primary/secondary) affect the above relationship? If yes,
how?
4. Method
4.1 Participants
Data was collected from 3356 students and 63 teachers. The students came from the
three upper grades of primary and the three grades of lower secondary education.
More specifically, there were 1676 4th, 5th and 6th grade primary school students,
ranging from 10 to 12 years, and 1680 1st, 2nd and 3rd lower secondary school
students, between 13 to 15 years old. The data concerning the teachers was
collected from 37 primary and 26 lower secondary EFL class teachers of the
participating students. The research took place in the spring of 2014 and involved
both mainstream primary and secondary school students and teachers from all over
Greece.
The students and teachers came from schools in twenty one cities in Greece, which
represented eighteen prefectures and all thirteen regions of the Greek territory
(Law 3852/2010): Attica, Thessaly, Central Greece, Epirus, Central Macedonia, West
Macedonia, Peloponnese, West Greece, Ionian Islands, North Aegean, South Aegean,
Crete, East Macedonia and Thrace.
4.2 Instrumentation and procedure
Data was collected by using two matching questionnaires, developed specifically for
the THALES project MIS 379335. The learners’ questionnaire was an adapted Greek
short version (Gavriilidou & Mitits in press; Petrogiannis & Gavriilidou 2015) of the
SILL, Version 7.0 (Oxford 1990: 293-300) which consisted of 29 items. The teachers’
questionnaire was an instrument designed for the THALES project with the aim to
assess teachers’ promotion of LLS in the classroom. It was based on the adapted and
translated into Greek initial long version of the SILL but also drew on Oxford’s
(1990) original SILL as well and consisted of 47 items (Psaltou-Joycey, Penteri &
Gavriilidou 2016). Both questionnaires reflected the strategy categories found in the
SILL which students and teachers are expected to use in the Greek educational
context. More specifically, the students’ questionnaire consisted of the strategy
categories memory (4 items), cognitive (7 items), compensation (3 items),
metacognitive (7 items), affective (3 items) and social (5 items); likewise, the
teachers’ questionnaire included memory (6 items), cognitive (16 items),
compensation (4 items), metacognitive (10 items), affective (4 items), and social
strategies (7 items). To arrive at the final versions, both questionnaires were tested
in a pilot study and their wording and number of items were adjusted accordingly.
Respondents of both groups were asked to indicate how often they make use of each
strategy, using a five-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (never or almost never)
to 5 (always). They also had to respond to demographic questions concerning their
age, gender, education level, geographic school area.
After obtaining written consent by the Institutional Review Board (National
Pedagogical Institute) of the Greek Ministry of Education, and by the legal guardians
where necessary, for the administration of the two questionnaires on a voluntary
basis, we distributed them either by surface mail or by visiting the schools and
collected them shortly after their administration.
4.3 Data Analysis
One-way ANOVA was employed to compare between the teachers’ and the students’
reported frequency use of LLS categories. A parametric analysis was considered
suitable as the large number of participants in the students’ group allowed the
assumption of normal distribution in the student scores; a Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test showed that there was generally normal distribution in the teachers’ scores too.
The interaction between teacher/student and education level (i.e.
primary/secondary) was examined by conducting Two-way ANOVA.
As mentioned before, there were 47 items on LLS use in the teachers’ questionnaire
while the students’ questionnaire included only 29 such items. Only 27 items of the
total 47 in the teachers’ questionnaire were involved in the latter analysis, namely,
those that were each considered to be close in meaning with one of the 29 items in
the students’ questionnaire. Two items from the teachers’ questionnaire were each
matched twice with different items from the students’ questionnaire. Εxamples of
the paired items from the students’ and the teachers’ questionnaire (SQ and TQ
respectively) are below.
Example 1 (Memory LLS)
SQ: I create associations between new material and what I already know
TQ: When I teach something new in English, I find links with what students already know
Example 2 (Cognitive LLS)
SQ: I repeat the pronunciation of new words in order to learn them
TQ: I ask students to repeat the English words orally, in order to learn how to pronounce them
correctly
Example 3 (Compensation LLS)
SQ: I use a glossary or a dictionary for help in the use of English.
TQ: I encourage students to use a glossary or a dictionary to help themselves when they use
English.
Example 4 (Μetacognitive LLS)
SQ: I pay attention to my errors in English so that I can learn the foreign language better.
TQ: I advise students to monitor their errors in order to improve their English.
Example 5 (Affective LLS)
SQ: I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making
a mistake.
TQ: I encourage students to speak English without caring about the mistakes they may make.
Example 6 (Social LLS)
SQ: I try to learn about the culture of the people who are speakers of English.
TQ: I advise students to learn about the culture of people who are speakers of English.
We carried out a further analysis where we compared those of the items in the
teachers’ questionnaire that match (in the strategy tested) exactly or approximately
with items in the students’ questionnaire. The comparison between the teachers’
and the students’ frequency of LLS was investigated by means of Pearson chi-square,
which is a test less sensitive to small cell counts than Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square
test. The Pearson chi-square was based on the percentage distributions (i.e. 30%
‘often’, 20% ‘always’ etc.) in reported frequency of use for each LLS.
5. Results
In this section, first we present results from the analyses of LLS with respect to
categories and then we turn to the analysis of individual LLS.
5.1 Reported frequency of use of the LLS categories
The descriptive statistics displayed in Table 1 show that teachers report higher use
of LLS than students in all LLS categories; the teachers’ means fall within the high
range of LLS use (3.71-4.2) while the student’s means lie in the medium range (2.5-
3.4) of LLS use4. The statistical analysis revealed a significant effect of group on
reported use of LLS overall [F(1, 3372)=99.99, p=.000] and for all LLS categories:
memory [F(1, 3346)=59.63, p=.000], cognitive [F(1, 3251)=85.16, p=.000], compensation
[F(1, 3354)=36.43, p=.00], affective [F(1, 3215)=77.20, p=.000], affective [F(1,
3317)=21.71, p=.000], social [F(1, 3302)=53.77, p=.000].
LLS Category Teachers Students
Mean SD Mean SD
Memory 3.71 0.62 2.95 0.77
Cognitive 3.98 0.43 3.01 0.83
Compensatio 3.79 0.72 3.14 0.85

n
Metacognitive 4.20 0.51 3.28 0.83
Affective 3.66 0.64 3.10 0.96
Social 3.77 0.51 2.95 0.89
Overall 3.93 0.41 3.09 0.66
Table 1. Teachers’ and Students’ reported use of LLS
Another observation based on Table 1 is that metacognitive LLS are the ones most
frequently employed by both teachers and students. The order for the rest of LLS in
terms of decreasing frequency of reported use is cognitive, compensation, social,
memory, and affective for the teachers, while for the students the order is
4
Strategies with a mean score 4.5-5.0 indicate ‘very high’ use, 3.5-4.4 ‘high use’, 2.5-3.4 ‘medium use’,
1.5-2.4 ‘low use’ and 1.0-1.4 ‘quite low’ use (Oxford 1990: 300)
compensation, affective, cognitive, social and memory LLS with the two last
categories having exactly the same mean.
Table 2 presents a further analysis of results per education level. A Two-Way
ANOVA analysis showed that there was no significant effect of the two independent
variables (level of education and group of participants) on the dependent one (LLS
use) [F(1, 3369)=2,398, p=122]. These results indicate that LLS use is not affected by
whether teachers or learners are in primary or secondary schools.
LLS category Primary schools Secondary schools
Teachers Students Teachers Students
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Memory 3.77 0.61 3.17 0.78 3.64 0.66 2.79 0.72
Cognitive 3.99 0.44 3.14 0.82 3.96 0.45 2.88 0.84
Compensation 3.75 0.70 3.09 0.87 3.87 0.77 3.21 0.82
Metacognitive 4.22 0.50 3.45 0.80 4.20 0.54 3.12 0.83
Affective 3.73 0.65 3.27 0.95 3.56 0.65 2.93 0.94
Social 3.80 0.52 3.16 0.87 3.75 0.52 2.73 0.87
Overall 3.94 0.42 3.23 0.65 3.92 0.41 2.95 0.65
Table 2. Teachers’ and students’ reported use of LLS per level of education
5.2 Comparison between the teachers’ and the students’ frequency of use in LLS
Next, we present results from the comparison between the teachers’ and the
students’ frequency of use in each LLS (Table 3). Given the lack of significant effect
of level of education on LLS use previously shown, here we report results from the
comparisons between the two groups without distinguishing between primary and
secondary schools. Table 3 presents Median scores for students (S) and teachers (T)
as well as results from the Pearson chi-square test for each pair of LLS. As shown in
the last column, there are statistically significant differences between the students’
and the teachers’ distribution of reported frequencies with respect to all individual
LLS except one, namely, the metacognitive strategy of paying attention to people
who speak English (marked with bold type in Table 3). These results verify higher
frequency of LLS use by teachers than by students with the exception of the latter
mentioned metacognitive LLS.
Questionnaire item (abbreviated) Median LLS Pearson chi-

square
S T
1. Linking new with old material 4 5 Mem. χ2=59.031, N=3407,

p=.000
2. Using new words in sentences 3 3 Mem. χ2=12.674, N=3407,

p=.000
3. Using visual aids for new words 1 3 Mem. χ2=217.927,

N=3392, p=.013
4. Revising English lessons 4 5 Mem. χ2=74,306, N=3390,

p=.000
5. Imitating English native pronunciation 4 4 Cog. χ2=10,859, N=3387,

p=.028
6. Repeating English words orally 4 5 Cog. χ2=24,723, N=3388,

p=.000
7. Starting conversations in English 3 4 Cog. χ2=35,417, N=3384,

p=.000
8. Reading for pleasure in English 2 4 Cog. χ2=133,796,

N=3398, p=.000
9. Writing various texts in English 4 5 Cog. χ2=47,275, N=3399,

p=.000
10. Summarizing information in English 3 3 Cog. χ2=17,235, N=3377,

p=.002
11. Using dictionaries/glossaries 3 4 Com. χ2=18,994, N=3384,

p=.000
12. Guessing the meaning from context 3 5 Com. χ2=75,732, N=3400,

p=.000
13. Guessing what will be said next 2 5 Com. χ2=189,049,

N=3423, p=.000
14. Using synonyms 4 5 Com. χ2=189,049,

N=3410, p=.000
15. Looking for opportunities to practice 3 5 Met. χ2=139,889,

English N=3400, p=.000
16. Monitoring errors to improve one’s 5 5 Met. χ2=29,670, N=3375,

English p=.000
17. Paying attention to speakers of English 5 5 Met. χ2=8,585, N=3385,

p=.72
18. Looking for ways to improve in English 4 5 Met. χ2=24,833, N=3370,

p=.000
19. Scheduling for English study 3 4 Met. χ2=28,631, N=3371,

p=.000
20. Talking to people in English 2 5 Met. χ2=314,598,

N=3391, p=.000
21. Reading as much as possible in English 3 5 Met. χ2=183,996,

N=3382, p=.000
22. Relaxing while speaking English 3 4 Aff. χ2=20,343, N=3379,

p=.000
23. Speaking without fear of making mistakes 4 5 Aff. χ2=45,676, N=3385,

p=.000
24. Discuss feelings about learning English 3 2,5 Aff. χ2=10,030, N=3371,
p=.040
25. Asking for correction of errors 3 3 Soc. χ2=22,041, N=3374,

p=.000
26. Practicing English with classmates 2 5 Soc. χ2=97,621, N=3386,

p=.000
27. Asking for help from English speakers 4 4 Soc. χ2=12,720, N=3387,
p=.013
28. Asking questions in English 4 4 Soc. χ2=19,043, N=3383,

p=.001
29. Learning about the culture of English 3 4 Soc. χ2=77,509, N=3397,

speakers p=.000
Table 3. A comparison of students’ and teachers’ reported frequency of use in individual LLS
6. Discussion and Conclusion
Our first research question was “What is the relationship between teachers’
perceived frequency of strategic instruction and students’ perceived frequency of
strategy use in English as a foreign language in Greek mainstream primary and
lower secondary schools?” Our findings show that teachers report higher use of
strategies than students in all LLS categories and that this difference between
teachers and students is statistically significant. Statistically significant differences
in the same direction were attested between the two groups also with respect to all
individual strategies that were similar in meaning in the two questionnaires, except
one metacognitive strategy. As for our second research question “Does level of
education (primary/secondary) affect the above relationship? If yes, how?” the
statistical analysis revealed lack of significant interaction between the variables
teacher/student and primary/secondary school.
Our study is only indirectly comparable with previous research. This said, our
findings are similar with those in Sen and Sen (2012) who obtained higher scores
from teachers than from students in perceptions about the effectiveness of LLS. Also
in Sen and Sen the most preferred individual strategy by both teachers and students
was a metacognitive one, similar with our study where the only strategies with the
highest median (5) in both groups’ results were two metacognitive ones (see Table
3). On the other hand, in Sen and Sen both teachers and students reported
employing affective LLS the least, while in our study the least preferred LLS by both
teachers and students were social LLS.
Our teachers reported using highly or very highly 21 strategies while the students
did so only for 9 strategies. This is in contrast with Griffiths’ (2007) findings where
there was a much higher agreement (71%) between the strategies considered highly
important by teachers and the strategies highly employed in the students’ reports.
On the other hand, our findings seem more in accordance with the data in Griffiths
and Parr (2001) and Khan (2012) (see Section 2).
Our results from the teachers’ questionnaire which show that the most frequently
used LLS category is metacognitive, followed by cognitive LLS are in full accordance
with results obtained from a pilot study of the teachers’ questionnaire employed
here (Psaltou-Joycey, Penteri and Gavriilidou 2016)5. Moreover, our finding that
5
For a detailed account of the data obtained from the teachers’ questionnaire employed here and a
comparison with the data from Psaltou-Joycey, Penderi & Gavriilidou (2016) see Agathopoulou,
metacognitive LLS are reported as the most frequently used category by students
agrees with results in previous research on LLS in primary and lower secondary
schools in Greece (Agathopoulou 2015; Kambakis-Vougiouklis 2015; Mitits, Psaltou-
Joycey & Sougari, 2015; Psaltou-Joycey, Sougari, Agathopoulou & Alexiou 2014;
Vrettou 2011). Metacognitive LLS have been attested as the most or second most
preferred LLS in other educational contexts too as, for example, Magogwe and
Oliver (2007)’s study with university students attending EFL classes in Taiwan. (For
more references about studies where metacognitive LLS were among the most
frequently used ones in a variety of contexts, see Psaltou-Joycey, Penderi &
Gavriilidou 2016: 204.)
It seems good news that metacognitive LLS are the top LLS category in both the
teachers’ and the students’ results in our study. High use of metacognitive LLS by
the teachers may signify a “change from instruction that promotes rote learning
and focuses on approaches that involve higher level of skills such as analysis,
synthesis, planning, goal-setting…” (Psaltou-Joycey, Penderi & Gavriilidou 2016:
204). Moreover research suggests that “good learners use a variety of strategies …
especially metacognitive ones” (Cohen 2011: 683 and references there). On the other
hand, our attested low agreement (31%) between teachers and students in the most
frequently used individual strategies or the not so high employment of some
strategies by either group of participants suggests that there may be room for
improving the LLS use in Greek EFL classes.
Our findings may raise EFL teachers’ awareness about discrepancies between their
LLS practice and that of their students’. For example, although the majority of
teachers report they very often or always encourage students to practice English
Psaltou-Joycey et al. (to appear). For a study offering more detailed analyses of students’ data
obtained from the questionnaire used in the current study, see Psaltou & Gavriilidou (forthcoming).
with their classmates, students report low frequency of this social strategy.
Another example of such a discrepancy concerns the metacognitive strategy of
looking for opportunities to practice English. Although perhaps we should not
expect strategies like the ones just mentioned to be employed by EFL learners as
frequently as by ESL learners (Lan 2005), higher use of these strategies would be a
welcome change. Of course, the same applies for other strategies with low or
medium use found in both participants’ results, for example the affective strategy of
discussing feelings about learning English. In particular, encouragement by teachers
and eemployment of affective strategies by learners will help them regulate their
emotions especially when they have hard time with the language material.
Yet, raising teachers’ awareness about strategies may not be enough. Research
shows that learners benefit more from explicit rather than implicit strategy
instruction (see references in Section 2) and therefore there is need to inform
teachers about how to teach strategies. For very helpful guides on LLS instruction,
interested teachers may see Cohen and Weaver (2005) as well as the more recent
guide by Psaltou-Joycey (2015).
To conclude, we hope that this first study on teachers’ and students’ reported
frequency of LLS use in a foreign language may offer valuable insights to language
teachers in Greece and abroad. Future studies including observations of foreign
language classrooms as well as interviews with the parties involved, coupled with
research on the effects of explicit LLS instruction may further enlighten the field of
LLS research.
References
Agathopoulou, E. (2015). Factors affecting language learning strategy use by

learners of English at Greek secondary schools: proficiency and motivation. In
Z. Gavriilidou & K. Petrogiannis (Eds.), Language Learning Strategies in the Greek
context. (pp. 59-75). Kavala: Saita Publications,.

http://www.saitabooks.eu/2016/03/ebook.172.html
Amiryousefi, M. (2015). Iranian EFL learners’ and teachers’ beliefs about the
usefulness of vocabulary learning strategies. SAGE Open. DOI:
10.1177/2158244015581382
Bernaus, M. & Gardner, R. (2008). Teacher motivation strategies, student
perceptions, student motivation, and English achievement. The Modern
Language Journal 92(3), 387-401.
Bernaus, M., Wilson, A. & Gardner, R. C. (2009). Teachers’ motivation, classroom
strategy use, students’ motivation and second language achievement. Porta
Linguarum 12, 25-36.
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency.
Modern Language Journal 65(1), 24-35.
Carson, J. G. & Longhini, A. (2002). Focusing on language styles and strategies: A
diary study in an immersion setting. Language learning 52(2), 401-438.
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and
research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25, 112-130.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. London and
New York: Longman.
Cohen, A. D. (2011). L2 learner strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in
Second Language Teaching and Learning, Vol. II - Part V. Methods and Instruction in
Second Language Teaching (pp. 681-698). Abingdon, England: Routledge,
Cohen, A. D. & Weaver, S. J. (2006). Styles and Strategies-based Instruction: A Teachers’
Guide. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language
Acquisition, University of Minnesota.
https://stylesandstrategiesi.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/cohen-weaver.pdf
Cummins, J. (2005). Education in a multilingual society. In K. Brown (Ed.), The
Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics (pp.: 64-67). Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.
Ehrman, M. E. & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice and
psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language
Journal 73(1), 1-13.
Gavriilidou, Z. & Mitits, L. (in press). Adaptation of the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL) for students aged 12-15 into Greek: A pilot study. To
appear in Selected Papers of the 21st International Symposium on Theoretical and
Applied linguistics (ISTAL 21).
Gavriilidou, Z. & Papanis, A. (2009). The effect of strategy instruction on strategy use
by muslim learners learning English as a foreign language. Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 25, 47-63.
Griffiths, C. (2007). Language learning strategies: Students’ and teachers’

perceptions. ELT Journal 61(2): doi:10.1093/elt/ccm001.
Griffiths, C. & Parr, J. M. (2001). Language learning strategies: Theory and
perception. ELT Journal 55(3), 247-254.
Guilloteaux, M. J. & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroom-
oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student
motivation. TESOL Quarterly 42(1), 55-77.
Hong-Nam, K. & Leavell, A. G. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL
Students in an intensive English learning context. System 34, 399-415.
Hurd, S. (2008). Affect and strategy use in independent language learning. In S. Hurd
& T. Lewis (Eds.), Language Learning Strategies in Independent Settings (pp. 218-
236). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Jacques, S. R. (2001). Preferences for instructional activities and motivation: A
comparison of student and teacher perspectives. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt
(Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Julkunen, K. (2001). Situation-and task-specific motivation in foreign language
learning and teaching. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second
language acquisition (pp.29-42). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Kazamia, V. (2003). Language Learning Strategies of Greek Adult Learners of English:
Vol. I and II. PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics and Phonetics, School
of Education, The Language Centre, The University of Leeds.
Khan, M. F. R. (2012). Language Learning Strategies: A Study of Teacher and Learner
Perceptions. BUP Journal 1(1), 140-153.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Students' and teachers' beliefs about language learning. Foreign
Language 28(1), 71-92.
Lan, R. (2005). Language learning strategies profiles of EFL elementary school
students in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Maryland, College Park, MD. USA.
Lan, R. & Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning strategy profiles of elementary
school students in Taiwan. IRAL 41(4), 339-379.
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 students. Asian
EFL Journal 5(3), 1-36.
Li, J. & Xiaoqing, Q. (2006). Language learning styles and learning strategies of
tertiary level English learners in China. RELC Journal 37(1), 67-90.
Littlemore, J. (2001). An empirical study of the relationship between cognitive style
and the use of communication strategy. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 241-265.
Madrid, D. (2002). The Power of the FL Teacher’s Motivational Strategies. Cauce,

Revista de Filologίa y su Didactίca 25, 369-422.
Magogwe, J. M. & Oliver, R. (2007). The relationship between language learning
strategies, age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language learners in
Botswana. System 35, 338-352.
Norton, B. & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing Perspectives on Good Language Learners.
TESOL Quarterly 35(2), 307-322.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U. , Stewner-Manzanares, G., Küpper, L. & Russo, R. P.
(1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students.
Language Learning 35(1), 21-46.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.
Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Oxford, R. (1996). New pathways of language learning motivation. In R. L. Oxford
(Ed.), Language Learning Motivation: Pathways to the New Century (pp. 1-8). Manoa,
Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
Oxford, R. & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning
strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal 73(3), 291-300.
Petrogiannis, K. & Gavriilidou, Z. (2015). Strategy inventory for language learning:
Findings of a Validation Study in Greece. In M. Carmo (Ed.), Education
Applications and Developments (pp. 223-236). Lisbon: inScience Press.
Politzer, R. L. (1983). An exploratory study of self reported language learning
behaviors and their relation to achievement. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 6(1), 54-68.
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(4), 310-324.
Psaltou-Joycey, A. (Ed.). (2015). Foreign Language Learning Strategy Instruction: A
Teacher's Guide. Kavala: Saita Publications.
http://www.saitabooks.eu/2015/05/ebook.162.html
Psaltou-Joycey, A., Agathopoulou, E., Joycey, E., Sougari, A-M., Kazamia, V.,
Petrogiannis, K. & Gavriilidou, Z. (to appear). Promotion of language learning
strategies by Greek EFL teachrs through classroom instruction practices. In J.
Miltonm Th. Alexiou & Z. Gavriilidou (special issues Eds.), Language Learning
Journal.
Psaltou-Joycey, A. & Kantaridou, Z. (2009). Plurilingualism, language learning
strategy use and learning style preferences. International Journal of
Multilingualism 6(4), 460-474.
Psaltou-Joycey, A. & Gavriilidou, Z. Forthcoming. Language learning strategy use by
Greek primary and secondary school students. In R. L. Oxford and C. M.
Amerstorfer, (Eds.) (2017). Language Learning Strategies and Individual Learner

Differences: Situating Strategy Use in Diverse Contexts. London: Bloomsbury.
Psaltou-Joycey, A., Penteri, E. & Gavriilidou, Z. (2016). Development of a
questionnaire to investigate FL teachers’ promotion of language learning
strategies. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL 5(1), 193-211.
Psaltou-Joycey, A. & Sougari, A.-M. (2010). Greek young learners’ perceptions about
foreign language learning and teaching. In A. Psaltou-Joycey & M.
Mattheoudakis (Eds.), Advances in Research on Language Acquisition and Teaching:
Selected Papers (pp. 387-401). Thessaloniki: Greek Applied Linguistics
Association.
Psaltou, Joycey, A., Sougari, A., Agathopoulou, E. & Alexiou, T. (2014) The role of age,
gender and L1 strategies in the L2 strategies of primary school children in
Greece. In G. Kotzoglou, K. Nikolou, E. Karantzola, K. Frantzi, I. Galantomos, M.
Georgalidou, V. Kourti Kazoullis, C. Papadopoulou & E. Vlachou (Eds.), Selection
of papers for the 11th International Conference on Greek Linguistics (pp. 1436-1448).
University of the Aegean. Rhodes, Greece.
Purdie, N. & Oliver, R. (1999). Language learning strategies used by bilingual school-
aged children. System 27, 375-388.
Richards, J. C., Gallo, P. B. & Renandya. W. A. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and the
processes of change. PAC Journal 1(1), 41-64.
Rossi-Le, L. (1995). Learning styles and strategies in adult immigrant ESL students. In
J. Reid (Ed.), Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom (pp. 118-125). Boston:
Heinle & Heinle,
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9(1),
41-51.
Sadighi, F. & Zarafshan. M. (2006). Effects of attitude and motivation on the use of
language learning strategies by Iranian EFL University students. Journal of
Social Sciences & Humanities of Shiraz University 23(1), 71–80.
Sen, H. & Sen, M. (2012). A comparison of EFL teachers’ perceptions of language
learning strategies (LLS) and learners’ reported use of LLS in their English
language classes. Procedia, Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.390.
Takeuchi, O., Griffiths, C. & Coyle, D. (2007). Applying strategies to contexts: The role
of individual, situational and group differences. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro
(Eds.), Language Learner Strategies: Thirty Years of Research and Practice (pp. 69-92).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tamjid, N. H. & Babazadeh, N. (2012). Comparing intermediate EFL students’ and
teachers’ perceptions of listening comprehension strategy use. World Applied
Sciences Journal 16(9), 1308-1313.
Victori, M. & Tragant, E. (2003). Learner strategies: A cross-sectional and

longitudinal study of primary and high-school EFL learners. In M. del Pilar
Garcia Mayo & M. L. Garcia Lecumberri (Eds.), Age and the Acquisition of English
as a Foreign Language (pp. 182-209). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
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. PhD dissertation. Department of Theoretical and
Applied Linguistics, School of English, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki.
Vrettou, A. (2015). Language learning strategy instruction. In A. Psaltou-Joycey (Ed.),
Foreign Language Learning Strategy Instruction: A Teachers’ Guide (pp. 32-48).
Kavala: Saita Publications.
Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social
Contructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language
learners in Singapore. Language Learning 50(2), 203-243.
Foreign language teachers’ strategy instruction practices in Greek lower secondary
education
Iris Papadopoulou, Zoe Kantaridou, Maria Platsidou, Ioannis Agaliotis
University of Macedonia
irispd@uom.edu.gr, kantazoe@uom.edu.gr, platsidou@uom.edu.gr, iagal@uom.gr
Abstract
This study focuses on strategy instruction practices of EFL teachers in Greek public
lower secondary education. We examined the Greek EFL curriculum objectives for
strategy instruction (SI) and researched whether these are actually implemented by
the EFL teachers in lower secondary education. Teachers’ perceived SI practices
were measured by the strategy instruction inventory, the designing of which is
reported in Psaltou-Joycey, Penderi and Gavriilidou (2016). Results indicated that
overall teachers align their teaching with SI as defined in the foreign language
curricula (DEPPS 2003 and IFLC 2011). However, they fail to emphasise the complex
cognitive strategy of summarizing and complete the strategy instruction cycle: the
SI stage of evaluation of strategy use is not extensively practiced, which may have
implications for the effectiveness of SI practices.
Keywords: EFL curriculum, strategy instruction, Greek secondary education, strategic self-
regulation
1. Introduction
Widely accepted priorities of the international educational agenda include goals
focusing on learner autonomy and learning how-to-learn skills (Commission of
European Communities 2003; High Level Group on Modernization of Higher

Education 2013; Kalantzis & Cope 2008; Jones 2011). These priorities shape
educational curricula worldwide and call for appropriate, learner-centred, teaching
methodologies promoting self-regulation and ownership of the learning process
from the side of the learner (Cheng 2011; Staron, Jasinski, & Weatherley 2006).
In line with the international trends and specific EU directives, the Greek foreign
language (FL) curricula promote experiential, discovery learning, learner-
centeredness and autonomy (Karatzia-Stavlioti 2002). In order for these curricula to
be successfully implemented, learner-centered methodologies are required that
enhance metacognition, self-regulation and, ultimately, autonomy. Such a
methodology is direct strategy instruction (SI), whereby learners are coached in
ways that will make their FL study more efficient and (possibly) pleasurable,
building an awareness of what works for them and in what contexts, enabling them
to become autonomous, lifelong learners (Cohen 2014; Gu 2007; Nguyen & Gu 2013;
Wolters 2010).
Against this backdrop, the purpose of this study is to explore teachers' SI practices
as they teach English as a Foreign Language (EFL) to Greek secondary education
students and to examine whether these are in alignment to the respective national
FL curricula. To this end, first, we will review the basic concepts of SI and self-
regulated learning (SRL) as well as the two most recent FL curricula in Greece. Then
we will present the research methodology and results and we will discuss the
findings and their implications for EFL teaching and curriculum implementation.
2. Learner empowerment in the context of contemporary educational goals
The 21st century has been described as ‘knowledge era’ in which a lot of the
responsibility of learning, of managing existing as well as creating new knowledge
has been shifted to the individual (Urciuoli 2008). In professional training and
business literature, ‘capability development’ is aimed at enabling the individual to
become self-directed, to take initiative, and to learn from experience (Staron,
Jasinski, & Weatherley 2006). Within the framework of 21st Century Competencies
(Wolters 2010), it is understood that success at all levels of social life, from
education to the workplace, relies on the development of skills and attitudes,
beyond simple domain knowledge specialization. It is all about people interacting
with their environments, taking on a challenge, adapting, making choices.
The “active, purposeful and reflective role” of individuals (Wolters 2010: 2) is
reflected in the educational context in the concept of learner autonomy. Learner
autonomy is a capacity for “critical reflection, decision-making, and independent
action” (Little 1991: 4), the ability of a learner to “take charge of one’s own learning”
(Holec 1981: 3). For Dam (2003), learner autonomy is a cumulative process consisting
of four steps to learner responsibility (Dam 2003): experience (of relevant activities,
of metacognitive aspects of work organisation and evaluation of progress),
awareness (‘of what, why and how to learn’), influence (implication of the learners in
decision-making related to their learning), and responsibility. Autonomous learners
are pro-active, create learning opportunities, and develop an awareness of their
progress setting objectives, monitoring and evaluating their performance.
Autonomous learning is inextricably connected with the process of self-regulation,
which is a “process that assists students in managing their thoughts, behaviors, and
emotions in order to successfully navigate their learning experiences (Zimmerman
& Schunk 1989). This process occurs when a student’s purposeful actions and
processes are directed towards the acquisition of information or skills” (Zumbrunn,
Tadlock & Roberts 2011: 4). Self-regulated learning is a complex construct that is
informed by different research fields: learning styles, metacognition and regulation
of the learning process and theories of the motivation (Boekaerts 1999).

In metacognition research, successful learning is defined as “the attainment of
metacognitive knowledge in the service of organising one’s learning in such a way
that domain-specific knowledge and skills can be acquired” (Boekaerts 1999: 449).
Metacognitive skills enable learners to transfer declarative (what) and procedural
knowledge (how) to new contexts, on condition that they are motivated to do so
setting their own goals and choosing from multiple goals which to pursue at any
given time.
Zimmerman, Bonner & Kovach (1996 in Cheng 2011) propose four correlated
processes comprising self-regulated learning: (a) self-evaluation and monitoring, in
which learners assess their effectiveness in dealing with a specific task, based on
past experiences of their performance on similar tasks; (b) goal-setting and strategic
planning, in which the task is analysed and goals are set and strategies are planned;
(c) strategy implementation monitoring, in which students implement their plans
and monitor their effectiveness, and (d) strategic outcome monitoring, in which the
learners determine their effectiveness on the basis of their performance on the task.
One approach to fostering self-regulated language learning is to enable learners to
build and use a repertoire of appropriate learning strategies purposefully selected
according to every task at hand. To facilitate self-regulated learning, teachers must
expose students to a varied range of strategies, modeling their use, providing
adequate scaffolding, gradually exposing students to content close to their level of
proficiency, gradually withdrawing, helping them become independent learners
(Zumbrunn et al. 2011).
2.1 Strategy instruction (SI) for foreign language learning
Strategy instruction (SI), ‘strategy training’, ‘language learning strategy instruction’
(Chamot 2004) refer to classroom interventions that involve indirect/implicit or

direct/explicit SI in order to assist the learners’ effort to learn the foreign language.
Implicit SI is woven into ordinary classroom activities without sensitizing the
learners to the strategy used and the manner of its implementation. The teacher
guides the students through tasks that require the use of a particular strategy, but
does not inform them that they are utilizing it to practice it and generalize it to
other contexts of use (Carrier 2003).
Explicit SI involves demonstrating exactly how certain strategies are used. Though
some students may have a repertoire of strategies, it has been shown in the
literature that for most students, especially at the initial stages of FL learning, direct
SI is essential in training them how to select appropriate strategies, how to use
them, and to know how to expand them to other contexts (Zimmerman 2008;
Zumbrunn et al. 2011). Direct SI develops in students an awareness of the strategy
used, of all its components, from naming the particular strategy, to modelling its
use, explaining its usefulness, practising, evaluating its effectiveness and suggesting
ways in which it can be transferred to other contexts (Chamot et al 1999; Nguyen &
Gu 2013).
Overall, SI has been found to participate in a virtuous spiral, ultimately enhancing
motivation. It leads to increased strategy use, enhanced self-confidence, (Chamot et
al. 1999; Nguyen & Gu 2013; Nunan 1997; Vrettou 2015), learner autonomy, and
responsibility for learning (Nguyen & Gu 2013).
Most researchers agree that it is not so much the number of strategies used or the
frequency of use that predict success in a given task (Cohen 2014; Nguyen & Gu
2013). Effectiveness of strategies depends on the person, the task and the learning
context. The same strategy can be used effectively by a learner and without success
by another, if it is not suitable to the task, or if the learner does not consciously
apply all components of strategic behaviour, from planning to executing, to

evaluating its effectiveness, so that s/he can determine which tasks it can be
transferred to.
In a recent meta-analysis of 61 individual reports on the effectiveness of SI, Plonsky
(2011) concluded that in classroom-based language learning the explicit teaching of
strategies accelerates the rate of acquisition and promotes self-regulation in the
learners. Moreover, he identified the parameters of success of SI as: (a) focusing on
fewer strategies rather than the whole spectrum, (b) focusing on specific skills such
as vocabulary or writing, what Chamot (1994) called the ‘less-is-more approach’, and
(c) implementing the intervention for longer time periods for effective
consolidation, which allows the learners to build their individual repertoire of
strategies. SI has been most successful in enhancing the use of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies.
In their study of SI and writing, Nguyen and Gu (2013) found that SI, especially its
metacognitive component, and in particular the planning aspect, produced
sustained improvement in writing performance and self-regulation. The authors
concluded that “strategy training should be more extensively integrated into the
curriculum” (Nguyen & Gu 2013: 26) for better learning outcomes and for
cultivating learner autonomy.
Most SI models involve five steps along which the learner is provided with direct
explicit assistance (scaffolding), which is gradually withdrawn (Vrettou 2015): (a)
preparation, in which the teacher raises the learners’ awareness of the strategies
they are already using; (b) presentation, in which the teacher introduces the new
strategy and demonstrates its use in a concrete way; (c) practice, in which the
learners practise the new strategy a number of times; (d) evaluation or self-
reflection, whereby the learners assess the effectiveness of the strategy; (e)
expansion, in which the learners transfer the strategy to new contexts. All five stages
are important to successful learning outcomes (Cohen 2005; Gu 2007; Nguyen & Gu
2013). In an effort to establish the position of strategy based instruction in the Greek
secondary education system, we will first examine if any reference is made to it in
the FL curricula.
3. The foreign language curricula in Greek education
The Greek national curriculum is assigned by the Greek Ministry of Education to the
Institute of Pedagogical Policy which specifies the objectives and the methods to
implement them. In this section, reference will only be made to the two most recent
forms of the national curriculum.
The Cross-curricular Unified Programmes of Study - Individual Curriculum for English
(2003-2014, Version 2) is a reflection of the changes brought about by globalization.
The European Union promoted cross-thematic curricula (Karatzia-Stavlioti 2002) in
the interests of experiential, discovery learning, enabling students to be in charge of
their own learning (Williams 1991). The principles informing this curriculum are the
communicative approach, learner-centeredness and experiential learning. Apart
from being a tool of communication and mediation, language is also a tool for
knowledge-processing and acquisition. As such, this curriculum sets the foundations
of CLIL teaching in Greek education.
In line with EU policy recommendations, the research team of the National and
Kapodistrian University of Athens under the guidance of Dendrinos developed in
2011 the Integrated Foreign Languages Curriculum (IFLC), common for all foreign
languages offered by Greek state schools. It is believed that, in comparison to
previous FL curricula specifically designed for different languages, the IFLC has laid
the foundations for a more coherent and systematic approach to foreign language
teaching across languages and educational levels (Dendrinos, Zouganelli, & Karavas
2013). This curriculum follows the proficiency levels of the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (2001), featuring analytical descriptions of
the competency of each level, from elementary A1 to C1. The philosophy of the IFLC
is learner-centred, highlighting the significance of differentiated teaching
(Tomlinson 2001), a methodology informed by findings of cognitive psychology, that
the human brain is multi-processing. Learning is constantly constructed by
associating new with existing knowledge, in social interaction and collaboration.
Learning is experiential and permeates all aspects of the educational process.
Although literacy and multilingualism are promoted, the emphasis is now being
placed on plurilingualism, the interaction of the different linguistic codes the
individual has command of. The IFLC is still in the pilot stage as it has not yet been
officially published in the Government Gazette. However, it is widely circulated
advertised and negotiated among the interested parties (school advisors, teachers
and the Greek Ministry of Education).
What the two curricula share is that they see language as a means of
communication and set their goal to empower students and learners as future
professionals and future citizens. Among the objectives set out by the general
framework of both curricula is the development in students of the ability to ‘learn
how to learn’, the development of cognitive and metacognitive abilities that enable
students to understand and interpret concepts and processes, that enable them to
link acquired knowledge with everyday life, and that facilitate the lifelong process
of researching for and promoting knowledge (DEPPS 2003). Metacognitive ability
also features among evaluation objectives, whereby students acquire control of and
regulate the learning process.
More specifically, the two curricula propose learner-centred instruction
emphasizing: motivating students to participate in the learning process; developing

a variety of learner abilities; creating opportunities for individual and collaborative
project work; activating the different learning strategies; promoting cognitive
development; encouraging learner autonomy and self-regulation (Anastasiadou
2015). Given the aims set by both aforementioned curricula, we could say that the
philosophy of the Greek FL curricula is in the direction of learner self-regulation
and autonomy, of empowering the learner to make the most of available resources
and to learn from experience. It is a valid assumption that strategy training would
be conducive to the goals set by the curriculum, though it is not explicitly
mentioned. Thus, strategies hinted at in the analytical description of the literacy
target are:
 Inferencing (forming hypotheses and interpreting text, DEPPS p. 366, 367)
 Selective attention and summarising (identifying important information in a
text, as well as distinguishing facts from opinions expressed, DEPPS p. 367)
 Skimming and scanning (identifying cohesive devices of introduction,
sequencing and conclusion, DEPPS p. 364, 367)
 Comparing and contrasting information (in relation to cultural aspects,
DEPPS p.365, 368)
 Obtaining and using print and digital resources to derive linguistic and
extralinguistic information to broaden their horizons even beyond their
language abilities (drawing on pragmatic information, DEPPS p. 355).
4. Aims of the present study
This study is part of a larger research project into language learning strategic
profile of Greek primary and secondary education students, in learning EFL (THALES
project MIS 379335). In that project, the frequency of language learning strategy use
was investigated, based on students’ self-reports. In a nutshell, having tested a

significant number of students (N = 1302) from a wide range of school grades (4th to
9th), it was found that students' most preferred category of strategies is the
metacognitive, closely followed by the affective. Then, in descending order,
students marked their preference for the cognitive and the social strategies. Finally,
the compensation and the memory strategies were least preferred (Platsidou &
Sipitanou 2015).
In the present paper, we attempted to shed light into language learning strategy
instruction practices as teachers perceive them. Specifically, our prime goal was to
investigate if the SI practices that teachers use in the classroom to teach EFL align to
the curriculum requirements of learner autonomy and self-regulation. To this end,
the perceived frequency of teachers SI practices was investigated.
5. Method
5.1 Participants
The study involved 26 EFL teachers in Greek junior high state schools, aged 24 to 50
years; 25 of them were females. Their teaching experience varied from 4 to 50 years.
Regarding their educational status, they all had a BA degree in English language and
literature, whereas 7 (27%) of them also had an MA degree. As instructed by the
Greek FL curriculum, EFL is taught for 2 hours per week to each class by the same
teacher. Data collection was conducted in selected schools, so as almost all regions
of the country to be represented in the sample, after permission was granted by the
Ministry of Education, in the school year 2013-14.
5.2 Research Instrument
A perceived strategy instruction inventory, the designing of which is reported in
Psaltou-Joycey, Penderi and Gavriilidou (2016) was administered, with the aim to
check the SI practices that teachers report using in the classroom. Specifically,
teachers were asked to rate in a five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1: never or
almost never true of me to 5:
always or almost always true of me) how frequently they use, practice, or instruct
students to use the learning strategies described by Oxford (1990), as they teach
EFL. The inventory consisted of 47 items based on the 50-item Strategy Inventory
for Language Learning (SILL) version 7.0 (Oxford 1990) and on the Greek adaptation
of the SILL for primary and secondary education that was used in the pilot study of
the THALES research project (Gavriilidou & Mitits to appear).
Following the original classification of SILL, items testing for teachers’ SI practices
in the classroom were grouped into six categories representing language learning
SI: memory (8 items, e.g., "When I teach something new in English, I connect it with
what students already know of"), cognitive (14 items, e.g., "In order to learn how to
spell a word, I instruct students to write it down as many times as they need to"),
compensation (4 items, e.g., " To understand the meaning of the unknown words, I
encourage student to guess their meaning based on the context"), metacognitive
(10 items, e.g., "I urge students to monitor their mistakes in order to improve
them"), affective (4 items, e.g., "For students to relax, I employ songs, role playing
or handicrafts") and social (7 items. e.g., "I encourage students to practice their
English with their classmates").
Finally, an open-ended question was added at the end of the inventory. Teachers
were asked to report any further strategies, practices or activities they employ in
the classroom in their effort to help their students learn English.
6. Results
6.1 Teachers’ SI practices

Initially, the reliability of the SI inventory was checked. As Cronbach indicated, the
reliability of the inventory was high (α = .879). Then, the mean scores of the six SI
subscales were calculated. As Figure 1 shows, teachers reported they more
frequently practice, in descending order, metacognitive, cognitive, compensation,
social, memory and affective strategies, while teaching EFL.
Means for the six SI categories
4,20
5.00 3,73 3,95 3,85 3,56 3,75
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Note: MEΜ: memory, COG: cognitive, COMP: compensation, MCOG: metacognitive, AFF:
affective, SOC: social
Figure 1. Means for the six SI categories
It is interesting to take a closer look at the individual items of SI that teachers’
reported they more often practice in the classroom and those they very seldom use.
Therefore, teachers’ SI practices with the highest and with the lowest frequency of
use are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
SI Items with the highest frequency of use Mean

category (SD)
MEM I advise my students to revise what they learn in English. 4.87
(0.46)
COMP In order for students to understand unknown words, I urge 4.73
them to guess the meaning from the context. (0.53)
COMP I advise my students to use synonymous words or phrases in 4.54
English, when they cannot think of an English word. (0.94)
MCOG I advise students to make the most of any opportunity they 4.74
get to practise their oral and written English. (0.51)
MCOG I encourage students to read as many English texts as 4.58
possible (stories, lyrics, websites, video game instructions, (0.64)
etc.)
MCOG I encourage students to speak English, regardless of any 4.77
mistakes they may make. (0.51)
Table 1. Means (and SD) of teacher practices indicating highest frequency of use
SI Items with the lowest frequency of use Mean

category (SD)
MEM When I teach a new word, I pronounce it and at the same time 2.92
present an image or use real objects so that students can (1.19)
memorize it easier.
MEM I teach a new word using dialogues, stories, songs, etc. 3.42
(1.13)
MEM When I teach new words, I use rhyme so that students can 2.65
memorize them easier (e.g. away-day- play/cry-buy-imply). (1.23)
COG I ask students to summarize information they hear or read in 3.00
English. (1.09)
COMP I encourage students to use gestures when they cannot think 2.92
of a word as they speak English. (1.52)
COMP I advise students to search unknown words necessary for 3.23
understanding a text in a dictionary. (1.14)
MCOG After an exercise or activity in which I asked my students to 3.38
use strategies, I discuss with them their impressions (1.09)
concerning the effectiveness of the particular strategies,
whether they found them useful or not.
AFF I urge students to discuss with others (eg. friends and family) 2.65
how they feel when they learn English. (1.12)
AFF To help the students relax, I use songs, role-play or handicraft. 3.38
(1.20)
SOC I recommend to students to ask people who can speak English 2.58
fluently to correct them when they make mistakes. (0.98)
Table 2. Means (and SD) of teacher SI practices indicating lowest frequency of use
6.2 Responses to the open-ended section
Seven teachers (out of the total 26), that is 37.1%, answered the open-ended
question of the inventory. Teachers reports of the general SI practices they employ
to help their students learn EFL are presented in Table 3, alongside the activities
they indicated to explain them. In summary, the overwhelming majority (6 out of 7)
encourage their students to make use of the internet for access to authentic
materials for reading, writing, listening and vocabulary practice, as well as a source
for argument building and debating. A good number of respondents display
awareness of the importance of seeking opportunities for naturalistic language use
and of adapting resources to the learning situation in order to increase
effectiveness.
SI practices Indicative Activities

(frequency of reports)
Use of the internet to Listening & pronunciation practice with movies
access authenticVocabulary & grammar practice online
materials for: Reading
(6) Argument building, debates
Speaking & writing digital stories, poems
Promotion of Board games for peer cooperation, fun & enthusiasm
cooperation with peers Peer correction
(2)
Opportunities for real Recount weekend activities, movies, personalization
life language of language use
production Writing digital stories
(4) Debates on current topics
Summarizing
Awareness of need for Of topic to current events
adaptability Combination of teacher practices & student strategies
(4) for effective learning
Table 3. Summary of teachers’ responses to the open-ended question

7. Discussion
The present study has attempted to identify the SI practices of Greek EFL teachers of
lower secondary education, by means of an inventory based on an adaptation of the
SILL for teachers. According to the teachers’ self-reports, the SI practices teachers
most frequently use are, in descending order, the metacognitive, cognitive,
compensation, social, memory and affective (Figure 1). Similar results were also
reported in Sen and Sen (2012) with EFL teachers in Turkey using the same SI
categories, in descending order: metacognitive, compensation, cognitive, memory,
social, affective.
The popularity of metacognitive and cognitive strategies can be explained by the
fact that they transfer across curricular subjects, which increases their utility and
enhances their practice (Plonsky 2011). The positive effect of metacognition is
cumulative, as reflection on strategy nature and effectiveness is the key for it to
transfer to other contexts. The most popular metacognitive strategies for the
teachers of our sample involve encouraging naturalistic language use in the
direction of self-regulated learning, vocabulary building through reading and
watching movies, taking communication risks (Table 1). It is interesting to note
that, although the cognitive strategies come second in teachers’ preferences, none
of them appears on their most frequently used list. On the contrary, the cognitive
strategy of summarising appears on the least frequently used list (Table 2). This will
be more extensively discussed in the implications for teaching section below.
Compensation strategies appear in the third place of preferred SI practices, and two
out of the four, the coping strategies of guessing words from context and using
synonyms to overcome communication difficulties, are among the most preferred
by teachers (Table 1). Compensation strategies offset learners’ deficiencies in
knowledge of the target language and thus emerge around the preadolescent years
and they become increasingly more frequent in adult populations. This is evident in
strategy use research with learners of these age groups. In a developmental study of
language learning strategy use of Greek students aged 9 to 16 years, Platsidou and
Sipitanou (2015) found that compensation strategies are among the least frequently
used by learners (fifth in order) and there is statistically significant increase in their
use in this age span. Among university students, compensation strategies were
reported to be the most frequently used both in Greek (Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou
2009) and international studies (Chen 2007; Chen & Jonas 2009; Liu 2013). It is most
likely that students learn to use them as they are exposed and encouraged to use
them in the classroom. They also come in handy in real life as inevitably students
will be exposed to novel situations where they will need to cope with language gaps.
Memory strategies were not found to be frequently used in teaching EFL, as teachers
ranked them in the fifth place. An exception was the broad memory strategy of
revising for memory retention (Table 1), while vocabulary-related memory
strategies displayed the least frequency (Table 2). This was rather expected as the
use of memory strategies is more common in the early years of primary education,
when young language learners start building their linguistic codes (Psaltou-Joycey
& Sougari 2010). Memory strategies emphasise repetition and mnemonic techniques
to consolidate basic vocabulary in low level learners. In secondary education,
students start developing their knowledge schemata and their critical ability of the
world around them (Griffiths & Oxford 2014; Van den Bosch & Daelemans 2013),
making metacognitive and cognitive strategies more appropriate for this age group.
Finally, social and affective SI practices were the least frequently used by the
teachers of our study, as well as of other similar studies (Psaltou-Joycey, Penderi &
Gavriilidou 2016; Sen & Sen 2012). In fact, Oxford (2002) argues that affective and
social strategies are most often not really perceived as learning strategies. However,
this finding comes in contrast to high student preferences for affective strategies
(second in order in Platsidou & Sipitanou 2015). The affective factor is vital in
learning as it has been repeatedly demonstrated in SLA research (Dornyei 2001;
Dornyei & Ushioda 2009) and as Oxford (2011) fitfully incorporated in her recent
Strategic Self-Regulation (S2R).
It may be that teachers use other affective and social strategies, which were not
assessed by the present inventory, to help students deal with their emotions and
social contexts, and enhance socialization opportunities. This is suggested by the
teachers’ answers to the open-ended question (Table 3); teachers’ use of the internet
and their activities for real life language production promote the development of
affective and social strategies in their learners in ways different to the ones
mentioned in our instrument and closer to the reality of their adolescent learners. It
may also be a consequence of academically- and exam-focused educational systems
which make teachers focus on the prescribed curriculum content rather than the
overarching philosophy of developing citizens that can realize their full potential
(Brophy 2000; Kelly 2004; Oxford 2011).
Another observation that can be made is that the open question allowed teachers to
be more creative in their responses, the majority of which had a strong interactive
component (seeking authentic materials for practice, cooperating with peers,
seeking opportunities for naturalistic language production). While these teaching
activities are not on the list of SILL strategies (Oxford 1990), they do feature
prominently in the S2R model (Oxford 2011) among the metastrategies of the
sociocultural-interactive dimension of “Obtaining and Using Resources” and
“Planning for Different Communication Contexts and Cultures”. Digital resources
provide authentic material and opportunities of practice and facilitate resource-
based learner autonomy (Benson, 2001). More than that, it must be remembered
that the internet, with the social networks and gaming communities, has acquired
the status of a socio-interactive context, a realistic alternative to the physical
community of target language speakers, which is unavailable to the adolescent
Greek EFL learners. On the one hand, this suggests that the respondents to our open
question provide the conditions for self-regulation development in their learners
and, on the other, that the S2R model provides a better theoretical framework for
the definition of strategies and their practical implementation
The findings summarized above indicate that SI practices of Greek secondary
education EFL teachers are supportive of the overall philosophy of the curriculum,
which is to empower the learner as future professional and citizen, to develop in
students cognitive and metacognitive abilities as well as the ability to control and
regulate the learning process (DEPPS 2003). As previous studies have shown, the
metacognitive and the cognitive strategies, which our teachers indicated as the
most frequently used in the classroom, are the ones most often leading to self-
regulation and learner autonomy (Plonsky 2011; Nguyen & Gu 2013). Self-regulation
is promoted by the metacognitive strategies that display the highest frequency of
use (Table 1), strategies also present in the open-question responses (Table
3). Teachers encourage their students to make a systematic effort to search for
opportunities to practise their reading, speaking and inferencing skills, despite
potential mistakes, both in a classroom context and beyond. The internet is used for
obtaining resources for listening and pronunciation through watching movies,
reading, vocabulary and grammar practice, writing stories and poems in the
classroom, and for learner encouragement to use similar digital resources (films,
songs, video games, and pleasure reading) tailored to their interests to enhance
motivation and to gain access to the L2 culture.

8. Implications for teaching
To the extent that teachers use strategy instruction practices enhancing learner
self-regulation and empowerment, making the learner an active participant of the
learning process, they are aligned with the curriculum philosophy. On the other
hand, when it comes to detailed literacy targets, summarising, repeatedly
mentioned by DEPPS (2003:367) (both in the official cross-curricular and the
experimental IFLC curricula), in relation to selective attention and distinction
between facts and opinion and in comparing and contrasting information from
various sources, appears as the fourth least frequent strategy taught by teachers.
Summarising is a significant curriculum aim. It is a complex strategy that facilitates
reading comprehension and enhances overall study skills, due to the various
substrategies it encompasses: note-taking, selective attention, highlighting
important information, scanning for keywords, visualizing information through
graphic representation and mind maps. Thus, summarising is a cluster of strategies
all of which contribute to the end product, of rephrasing the main points of a text in
one’s own words, and it helps students understand texts and learn material from
different school subjects as well. Research evidence suggest that summarising is one
of the least used strategies both in Greece and internationally and this applies to
older populations as well (Peacock & Ho 2003; Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou 2009).
We, thus, propose that teachers should invest classroom time to sensitise learners to
the individual substrategies first, before they demand the cumulative product of
summary. In this way, they will empower the students with the individual
strategies, which will facilitate their end task of summarising. For practical
activities, teachers may consult the Foreign Language Learning Strategy Instruction
teacher guide for Greek primary, secondary and minority education (Psaltou-Joycey
2015). It includes detailed strategy instruction activities explaining the significance

of each strategy, presenting its implementation, practising it and, finally, reflecting
on the usefulness of the activity and the possibility of transferring the particular
strategy to other contexts. Considering the teachers’ answers to the open question,
to which popular activities included encouraging students for naturalistic language
production through recounts of weekend activities and movies, this may provide a
good ground for practicing the strategy of selective attention and summarizing, in
accordance to curricular aims.
A final point that must be made concerns the low frequency of use of the
metacognitive strategy “After an exercise or activity in which I asked my students
to use strategies, I discuss with them their impressions concerning the effectiveness
of the particular strategies, whether they found them useful or not.” A significant
aspect of successful strategy instruction is that it should include all five stages:
preparation, presentation, practice, evaluation, and expansion (Gu 2007; Nguyen &
Gu 2013). While teachers perform the initial stages of SI, presentation/modelling
and practising, they place less emphasis on the evaluation stages, whereby students
are invited to self-reflect on the effectiveness of the strategy and the
appropriateness for the task. It should be remembered that the metacognitive
strategy of self-reflection is fundamental for effective strategy use because
metacognition in general consists of three stages: planning, monitoring and
evaluation (Nguyen & Gu 2013). The self-reflection stage is when we analyse what
went well and in what contexts, so that we will include it in our strategic repertoire,
and what went wrong and must be amended. The low frequency of self-reflection by
learners was also reported in other studies (Nguyen & Gu 2013; Sert 2006) observing
that the metacognitive strategies of monitoring and evaluation are the least used by
learners. However, SI is most effective when all five stages are applied.
Self-reflection is an essential aspect of experiential learning, of an individual’s
cognitive and metacognitive evolution. This experiential conception of learning is
reflected in the contemporary perceptions of assessment as well. Evaluation is more
of a diagnostic instrument providing feedback than one testing the end product.
Perhaps, this is a drawback of our entire exam-oriented educational system that
focuses on the result rather than the process.
9. Conclusion
In this paper, we considered the Greek foreign language curricula, discussed their
overall philosophy of enhancing learner autonomy and examined the position of
strategy instruction in them. Taking into consideration the findings of international
research, that strategy training promotes learner autonomy (Nguyen & Gu 2013), it
was argued that SI does indeed have a position in the curriculum. The rationale of
Greek FL curricula, in line with international educational priorities, is to foster
learner self-regulation and autonomy, to empower the learner to make the most of
available resources (conventional and digital) and to learn from experience. SI is
useful in achieving these ends and perhaps more explicit reference could be made
to it in the curriculum, or at least in the pedagogical guide to the teacher.
We then related the findings of our research into teacher SI strategies and found
that adequate strategy instruction is implemented in the classroom. However,
teachers do not make regular use of the significant strategies of summarising, and
evaluating the usefulness of strategies used in learning. Moreover, while teachers
perform the initial stages of SI, modelling and practising, they place less emphasis
on the evaluation stages, whereby students are invited to self-reflect on the
effectiveness of the strategy and the appropriateness for the task. The implication
for the learners may be that transfer of successful strategies to other contexts, a
parameter essential for self-regulation and learner autonomy, is not facilitated.

To the extent that they will be corroborated by future research, the present findings
may inform professional development and in-service training programs of
secondary FL teachers, who need to enrich their repertoire with important strategy
practices such as summarising (identifying important information in a text) and
reflecting at the end of strategy implementation.
Acknowledgements
This study is part of the Thales project MIS 379335. It was held in the frame of the National
Strategic Reference Frame (Ε.Σ.Π.Α) and was co-funded by resources of the European Union
(European Social Fund) and national resources.
References
Anastasiadou, A. (2015). EFL Curriculum Design: The Case of the Greek State School
Reality in the Last Two Decades (1997-2014). International Journal of Applied
Linguistics and English Literature, 4(2), 112-119.
Ardasheva, Y. & Tretter, T. R. (2013). Strategy Inventory for Language Learning–ELL
Student Form: Testing for Factorial Validity. The Modern Language Journal,
97(2), 474-489.
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International
Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 445-457.
Brophy, J. (2000). Teaching. Educational Practices Series-1. International Academy of
Education & International Bureau of Education. Lausanne: Switzerland.
Carrier, K. A. (2003). Improving high school English language learners' second
language listening through strategy instruction. Bilingual Research Journal,
27(3), 383-408.
Chamot, A. U. (1994). A model for language learning strategies in the foreign
language classroom. In A. James. (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on
Languages and Linguistics 1994: Educational linguistics, cross-cultural communication,
and global interdependence (pp. 323–336). Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
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., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary P. B., & Robbins, J. (1999). The learning
strategies handbook. NY: Longman.
Chen, M. M.-H. (2007). Language learning strategies and English proficiency of
Taiwan language college students. Languages, Literary Studies and International
Studies: An International Journal, 4, 49-72.
Chen, K. T., & Jonas, A. M. (2009). Understanding Taiwanese college students’

strategies for English language learning. Chaoyang Journal of Humanities and
Social Sciences, 7, 97-130.
Cheng, H.-F. & Dörnyei, Z. (2007). The use of motivational strategies in language
instruction: The case of EFL teaching in Taiwan. International Journal of
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 153-174.
Cheng, E. C. K. (2011). The role of self-regulated learning in enhancing learning
performance. The International Journal of Research and Review, 6(1), 1-16.
Cohen, A. D. (2005). Coming to terms with language learner strategies: What do
strategy experts think about the terminology and where would they direct
their research? Working paper No 12, AIS St Helens, Centre for Research in
International Education.
Cohen, A. D. (2014). Strategies in learning and using a second language (2nd ed). London
& New York: Routledge.
Cohen, A. D. & Weaver, S. J. (2006). Styles-and strategies-based instruction: A teachers'
guide. Minneapolis: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.
Commission of European Communities (2003). Promoting Language Learning &
Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004-2006. Final report 449, Brussels.
Dam, L. (2003). Developing learner autonomy: The teacher’s responsibility. In Little,
D., J. Ridley and E. Ushioda (Eds.) Learner autonomy in the foreign language
classroom: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment (126-150).Dublin:
Authentic.
Dendrinos, B., K., Zouganelli, & Karavas, Ε. (2013). Foreign Language Leaning in Greek
Schools: European Survey on Language Competences. Athens: Papadopoulos
Printing Communication Ldt. Retrieved 13 June 2013 from:
http://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/ENL132/Session%2003%3A
%20FL%20teaching//learning%20in%20Greece/ESLC_EN.pdf
DEPPS (2003). ΦΕΚ (Government Gazette) Τεύχος Β’ αρ. φύλλου 303/13-3-2003
Παράρτημα, Τόμος Α και αρ. φύλλου 304/13-3-2003 Παράρτημα, Τόμος Β.
Αθήνα: Υπουργείο Εθνικής Παιδείας και Θρησκευμάτων-Παιδαγωγικό
Ινστιτούτο.
Gavriilidou Z. & Mitits, L. (2016). Translation and cultural adaptation of the Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) for students aged 12-15 into Greek: a
pilot study into Greek. In the 21rst I.S.T.A.L Proceedings.
Griffiths, C. & Oxford, R. L. (2014). The twenty-first century landscape of language
learning strategies: Introduction to this special issue. System, 43(1), 1-10.
Gu, P. Y. (2007). Strategy-based instruction. In Yashima T. & T. Nabei (Εds.)
Proceedings of the International Symposium on English Education in Japan: Exploring
New Frontiers (pp. 21-38). Osaka: Yubunsha.
High level group on Modernization of Higher Education. (2013). Report to the

European Commission on Improving the quality of teaching and learning in
Europe’s Higher Education Institutions, Retrieved 13 June 2016 from
http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/reports/modernisation_en.pdf
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: OUP.
Hong-Nam, K. & Leavell, A. G. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL learners
in intensive English learning contexts. System, 34(3), 399-415.
Jones, E. (2011). Global perspectives and the role of languages, UCML with funding
from the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Retrieved 13 June
2016 from
http://www.ucml.ac.uk/sites/default/files/shapingthefuture/102/13%20-
%20Elspeth%20Jones%20inter%20resource%20template_0.pdf
Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (2008). New learning: Elements of a science of education.
Singapore: Cambridge University Press.
Karatzia-Stavlioti, Ε. (2002). Cross-thematic approach in curricula: Examples from
the European experience and practice. Review of Educational Issues 7, 52-65.
Kazamia, V. (2003). Language learning strategies of Greek adult learners of English.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of Linguistics and Phonetics, School of
Education, The Language Centre, University of Leeds, UK.
Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy. 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin:
Authentik.
Liu, H-J. (2013). Effects of foreign language anxiety and perceived competence on
learning strategy use. International Journal of English Linguistics, 3(3), 76-87.
Mochizuki, A. (1999). Language learning strategies used by Japanese university
learners. RELC Journal, 3(2), 101-113.
Nguyen, L. T. C. & Gu, P. Y. (2013). Strategy-based instruction: A learner-focused
approach to developing learner autonomy. Language Teaching Research, 17(1),
9-30.
Nunan, D. (1997). Strategy training in the language classroom: An empirical
investigation. RELC journal, 28(2), 56-81.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (2002). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Update and ESL
suggestions. In J. Richards & W. Renandya (Ed.) Methodology in language
teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 124-132).
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching & Researching: Language Learning Strategies. Hong Kong:
Routledge.
Peacock, M., & Ho, B. (2003). Student language learning strategies across eight
disciplines. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 179-200.
Platsidou, M. & Sipitanou, A. (2015). Exploring relationships with grade level,

gender and language proficiency in the foreign language learning strategy use
of children and early adolescents. International Journal of Research Studies in
Language Learning, 4, 83-96.
Plonsky, L. (2011). The Effectiveness of Second Language Strategy Instruction: A
Meta‐analysis. Language learning, 61(4): 993-1038.
Psaltou-Joycey, A. (Ed.) (2015). Foreign Language Learning Strategy Instruction: A
teacher's guide. Kavala: Saita. Retrieved 16 June 2016 from
http://www.saitabooks.eu/2015/05/ebook.162.html.
Psaltou-Joycey, A. & Kantaridou, Z. (2009). Foreign Language learning strategy
profiles of university learners in Greece. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25, 107-
127.
Psaltou-Joycey, A. & Sougari, A.-M. (2010). Greek young learners’ perceptions about
Matthaioudakis (Eds.), Advances in research on language acquisition and teaching:
Selected Papers. (pp.387-401). Thessaloniki: Greek Applied Linguistics
Association.
Psaltou-Joycey, A., E. Penderi & Gavriilidou, Z. (2016) Development of a
strategies, European Journal of Applied Linguistics & TEFL5(1), 193-211.
Sen, H. & Sen, M. (2012). A Comparison of EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of Language
Learning Strategies (LLSS) and Learners’ Reported Use of LLSS in Their English
Language Classes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 46, 1846-1854.
Sert, N. (2006). EFL student teachers’ learning autonomy. Asian EFL Journal, 8(2), 180-
201.
Staron, M., M. Jasinski & Weatherley, R. (2006). Life based learning: A strength based
approach for capability development in vocational and technical education. A
report on the research project ‘Designing Professional Development for the
Knowledge Era’ Managed by the TAFE NSW International Centre for VET
Teaching and Learning (ICVET). Retrieved 16 June 2016 from
http://lrrpublic.cli.det.nsw.edu.au/lrrSecure/Sites/Web/13289/resources/do
cuments/life_based/lifebased_full_report.pdf
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd
Ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Urciuoli, B. (2008). Skills and selves in the new workplace. American Ethnologist, 35(2),
211-228.
Van den Bosch, A. & Daelemans, W. (2013). Implicit schemata and categories in
memory-based language processing. Language and speech, 56(3), 309-328.

Young Learners of English. Unpublished PhD thesis. School of English,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
Vrettou, A. (2015). Language learning strategy instruction. In Psaltou-Joycey A. (Ed.)
Foreign Language Learning Strategy Instruction: A Teacher’s Guide: Saita
publications. Retrieved 16 June 2016 from
http://www.saitabooks.eu/2015/05/ebook.162.html.
Wolters, C. (2010). Self-regulated learning and the 21st century competencies.
University of Houston: Department of Educational Psychology. Retrieved 16
June 2016 from
http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/Self_Regulated_Learning__21st_Century_Co
mpetencies.pdf
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical
background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American
Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166-183.
Zimmerman, B. J. & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.) (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement. USA: Springer Verlag New York Inc.
Zumbrunn, S., J. Tadlock & Roberts, E. D. (2011). Encouraging self-regulated learning
in the classroom: A review of the literature. Metropolitan Educational
Research Consortium (MERC), Virginia Commonwealth University. Retrieved
16 June 2016 from
http://www.selfregulation.ca/uploads/5/6/2/6/56264915/encouraging_self_r
egulated_learning_in_the_classroom.pdf
Profiling learners’ strategy use and teachers’ strategy promotion in minority
primary and secondary schools: Implications for foreign language teaching
Zoe Gavriilidou, Lydia Mitits, Penelope Kambakis-Vougiouklis &
zoegab@otenet.gr, lmitits@gmail.com, pekavou@helit.duth.gr,
kpetrogiannis@eap.gr
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to investigate learners’ strategy use and teachers’
strategy promotion in minority primary and secondary schools in Thrace. Minority
schools are segregated schools for Muslim students speaking Turkish L1, Pomak L1,
and Roma L1. These students also learn L2 Greek and FL English at school. The EFL
learners’ strategy use was evaluated with the adapted version of the SILL 7.0
ESL/EFL (Oxford 1990) for the particular population (Gavriilidou et al. 2014), and the
EFL teachers’ strategy promotion was measured with an instrument designed to
report teachers' classroom practices (Psaltou-Joycey, Penteri & Gavriilidou 2016). It
was found that although students’ and teachers’ strategy use profile is not perfectly
matched, there is a level of accord in the use and promotion of metacognitive
strategies. Implications of the results for the teaching/learning situation in
minority education are discussed.
Keywords: minority education in Greece, language learning strategies, strategy instruction

1. Introduction
One of the most important developments in foreign language education that
resulted in the birth of the learning strategies research in the 1970s was the
academics’ and the practitioners’ shift of interest from the teacher and the teaching
product to the learner and the learning process. Since then, interest in the language
learning strategies has remained vibrant as evidenced by dozens of reports
examining the types of strategies learners use, the effect of learner variables on
strategy use and the theoretical and practical potential of strategy instruction (SI).
Although there have been several studies exploring strategy use in the Greek
mainstream primary or secondary education (Mitits 2015; Psaltou-Joycey & Sougari
2010; Sarafianou 2013; Vrettou 2011), there have been only three examining LLS use
or the effect of strategy instruction on strategy use by pupils learning English as a
foreign language within the special context involving minority schools (Gavriilidou
2004, Gavrilidou & Papanis, 2010; Papanis 2008) in the region of Thrace (situated in
the North-West of Greece). Such schools provide bilingual (Turkish and Greek)
primary and secondary education to the Muslim minority of the region unlike all
the other mainstream Greek-medium state schools in Greece. Only recently a large-
scale study by Gavriilidou & Petrogiannis (2016) examined the effect of school type
and educational level of children attending minority schools in Thrace, Greece.
Another issue which has not been examined in the specific educational context is
the teachers’ strategy promotion and use, and the degree it coincides with the
actual learners’ strategy profile, even though the former have a pivotal role in the
teaching/learning process.
Against this backdrop, the purpose of the present study is to explore primary and
secondary minority students’ and their teachers’ strategy profiles and to investigate
the point of intersection regarding their strategy use.

2. Research background
Prior language learning experience can be viewed as a parameter for explaining
differences in language learning strategy use. It is either as the experience of
learning a foreign language, generally in the context of the foreign language
classroom, and as a part of the development of a multilingual individual, as a result
of living in a multilingual social context, which is the case with the participants in
our study. However, the questions of whether bilinguals acquire an L3 more easily
and become more proficient than monolinguals that acquire an L2 and/or whether
their LLS use differ have 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 (Klein 1995; Thomas 1988; Zobl 1992; Wharton
2000). 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; Jessner 1999). Jessner
(2008) later recognized that cross-linguistic influence among L1, L2 and L3 is
complex regarding the route and rate of third-language acquisition and that it is
characterized by non-linearity, reversibility and language attrition, a view shared
with others studying multilingualism (Cenoz 2001; De Angelis 2007; Dewaele 1998).
All of the above should be considered when we attempt to delineate our
multilingual language learners’ strategy profiles.
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 (2006) who
reported children using strategies based on previous language learning experience
to access information about the unknown language and reduce the linguistic
distance between languages, and to hypothesize about the new language system.
Kemp (2007) studied the use of grammar learning strategies by adult plurilinguals
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. Psaltou-Joycey and
Kantaridou (2009) investigated a possible relation between degrees of
plurilingualism and strategy use of university students learning foreign languages
in an academic context. The results indicated that the trilingual students used more
strategies more frequently than bilinguals, especially those that promote
metalinguistic awareness and that more advanced trilinguals made more frequent
use of cognitive and metacognitive categories. Another recent study involving
foreign language learners and their strategy use (Sung 2011) investigated the
influence of the number of foreign languages studied on the frequency of the
strategy categories and found a positive correlation between the two factors. In
Mitits’ (2015) comparative study the findings showed statistically significant
differences between monolinguals and multilinguals on the frequency of overall
strategy use, as well as on compensation and metacognitive strategy categories,
with multilinguals reporting higher strategy use.
2.1. The education level
There is a lack of consensus regarding the learning strategies that school-aged
children prefer across different countries and contexts. Primary school children in
Taiwan reported a more frequent use of the compensation and affective strategy
categories (Lan & Oxford 2003), while ESL school-aged children in the USA revealed
that their higher preference was for metacognitive strategies, followed by cognitive
and social, and their lowest preference was for the affective strategy category
(Ardasheva & Tretter 2013).

Previous research on LLS in primary and lower secondary schools in Greece
(Agathopoulou 2015; Gavriilidou & Petrogiannis 2016; Kambakis-Vougiouklis 2015;
Mitits, Psaltou-Joycey & Sougari 2015; Psaltou-Joycey, Sougari, Agathopoulou &
Alexiou 2014) shows that there are differences in the frequency of strategy use and
the strategy categories preferences reported by learners from primary and
secondary mainstream education, with a general downward tendency for strategy
use from primary to secondary level of education. The present study draws on the
possible effect of school level on language learning strategies employed by the
learners in minority schools.
2.2. Strategy instruction
The majority of studies that investigate strategy instruction practices concern
teachers’ perceptions of what learning strategies their learners might be employing
and their results suggest a mismatch between teachers’ and students’ perceptions of
LLSs that students use in most strategy categories (Griffiths & Parr 2001; Khan 2012;
O'Malley et al. 1985). Conflicting results were reported by Griffiths (2007) who found
that students’ and teachers’ perceptions of LLS use highly agreed. Sen & Sen (2012)
studied EFL teachers’ beliefs on the effectiveness that strategies have on language
learning and compared their answers with those of students with the use of the
same instrument for both groups. The comparisons showed that the teachers
reported a higher frequency of strategy use by their students, particularly between
the most and least frequently used strategy categories.
Fewer studies have investigated teachers’ views of their practices with respect to
language learning strategies and their effectiveness in the classroom. One such
study is by Psaltou-Joycey (2008) who investigated the relation between the
language learning strategy use of 177 multilingual learners who learned Greek as a
foreign language and their teachers’ preferences of classroom procedures and

activities and found that such preferences affect the students’ reported order of
strategy use. Also, Psaltou-Joycey, Agathopoulou, Petrogiannis & Gavriilidou (to
appear in this volume) looked into the self-reported strategies by EFL teachers and
their learners in mainstream primary and secondary schools in the Greek
educational context. They attempted to match the separate findings in order to find
possible coincidence of strategy use by both groups and their results indicate a
statistically significant difference between the teachers and the students regarding
all LLS categories, with teachers reporting high promotion of and learners reporting
medium LLS use.
3. Research questions
For the purposes of the present study the following research questions were posed:
RQ1: What strategies do minority school students use when they learn English FL?
RQ2: Does the school level influence the frequency and type of LLSs of the particular learner
population?
RQ3: What strategies do English FL teachers promote in minority schools?
4. Method
4.1 Participants
The study involved primary and secondary school students from minority schools in
the region of Thrace (n=1584). Out of them, 1046 were primary school children and
538 were students of secondary schools, 486 boys and 547 girls. Their age ranged
from 9 to 15 years, and they attended grades 4-6 of primary school and grades 1-3 of
junior secondary school.
Also, a total of 28 teachers working in minority schools participated in the study.
There were 5 male and 23 female teachers whose age range was: 13 teachers (31-40
years of age), 14 teachers (41-50), and 1 teacher (50+). The majority of them (n=26)
taught in primary schools for minority children and 2 teachers came from
secondary minority education. They all had teaching experience: 5-10 years (n=16),
11-15 years (n=4), and 15+ years (n=8), with total teaching experience ranging from 9
to 31 years. Finally, 16 teachers held a Master’s degree and 2 a PhD.
4.2 Research Instruments
The first instrument used for the particular study was based on the widely used
Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL 7.0 ESL/EFL, Oxford, 1990) and the
adapted SILL version for primary and secondary school learners (Gavriilidou &
Mitits 2016; Petrogiannis & Gavriilidou 2015), which was further adapted and
standardized in Greek and Turkish (Gavriilidou, et al. 2014). Its adaptation and
standardization were considered essential so that data selection on strategy use
would be conducted in a valid and reliable way and the results could be comparable
across cases. More specifically, the adapted SILL is divided into six factors which
were developed on the basis of an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis so
that the best possible and most reliable factorial solution regarding the specific
population would be decided upon. The new instrument comprises 29 items,
grouped into six categories of learning strategies which presented an adequate
internal consistency.
The teachers’ questionnaire was a newly developed instrument whose aim is to
measure teachers’ promotion of LLS in the classroom. It is based on the SILL 7.0
ESL/EFL (Oxford 1990) but is designed to report teacher classroom practices
(Psaltou-Joycey, Penteri & Gavriilidou 2016). The features of the instrument used to
record the teachers’ strategy promotion are the following: 1st part elicits
information regarding the participants’ teaching profile (6 statements); 2nd part
consists of 47 statements regarding the promotion of strategy use in class (6

strategy categories); 3rd part is an open-ended question regarding strategies they
foster in class.
All procedures were approved by the Greek Pedagogical Institute, while written
informed consent was obtained from the legal guardians of the participants before
they were allowed to participate in the study. The study took place from April 2013
to June 2014 and the completion of the questionnaires was carried out in class.
5. Results
The following table (see table 1) presents the mean scores and standard deviations
of the six categories of foreign language learning strategies for the total sample of
minority students.
Language Learning Strategies (LLS) Mean (s.d.)

Metacognitive 3.55 (.88)
Affective 3.40 (.99)
Compensation 3.33 (.92)
Social 3.31 (.95)
Memory 3.26 (.85)
Cognitive 3.08 (.86)
Table 1 Descriptive data for the total sample (N1584) of minority students
The mean frequency of overall strategy use, based on the 5-point Likert scale used
in the SILL for the whole sample was found to reflect the ‘medium frequency range’.
The following table (see table 2) presents the mean scores and standard deviations
of the six categories of foreign language learning strategies for both education
levels tested by the adapted SILL. More specifically, the primary school population
reported they more frequently employ metacognitive, affective, social, memory,
compensation and cognitive strategies in descending order. Concerning the use of
the six strategy categories by secondary minority students compensation strategies

were mostly used, with the metacognitive category in the second place, followed by
the memory category. Social strategies ranked four, affective fifth while cognitive
strategies came last. Only metacognitive and affective strategies of primary school
students are within the high frequency range as suggested by Oxford (1990) while
all the others are of medium frequency.
Std. Std.
Strategy category School level N Mean Deviatio Error
n Mean
primary 1009 3,41 ,843 ,026

Memory strategies
secondary 527 2,98 ,794 ,034
primary 979 3,23 ,869 ,027

Cognitive strategies
secondary 500 2,78 ,766 ,034
primary 1016 3,41 ,941 ,029

Compensation strategies
secondary 520 3,18 ,869 ,038
primary 982 3,76 ,850 ,027

Metacognitive strategies
secondary 501 3,13 ,785 ,035
primary 1015 3,65 ,948 ,029

Affective strategies
secondary 516 2,92 ,914 ,040
primary 1003 3,48 ,938 ,029

Social strategies
secondary 507 2,97 ,887 ,039
Table 2 Frequency of minority students’ strategy use at each education level
Independent samples t-test revealed statistically significant differences on all
strategy categories between the two groups (primary and lower secondary school
students), namely: memory (F=3,7, p=.000), cognitive (F=13,6, p=.000), compensation

(F=4,7, p=.000), metacognitive (F=8,7, p=.000), affective (F=0,6, p=.000) and social
strategies (F=2,6, p=.000), with primary school children reporting higher strategy
use in all categories.
It is interesting to take a closer look at the individual strategy items that primary
and secondary minority students reported they practice the most in the classroom
and those they rarely use. Therefore, the highest and lowest frequencies of use for
both populations are presented in table 3.
Most used strategies of minority primary school children
1. I pay attention when someone is speaking in English (mean 4,38) (metacognitive) *
2. I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better (mean 4,27)
(metacognitive) *
3. I review English lessons often (mean 4,04) (memory)
4. I practice the sounds of English (mean 4,03) (cognitive)
5. I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English (mean 3,91) (metacognitive) *
Least used strategies of minority primary school children
1. I look for people I can talk to in English (mean 2,99) (metacognitive) *
2. I write notes messages, letters or reports in English (mean 2,97) (cognitive) *
3. I start conversations in English (mean 2,94) (cognitive)*
4. I use flashcards to remember new English words (mean 2,39) (memory) *
5. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English (mean 2,27) (cognitive) *
Most used strategies of minority secondary school children
1. I pay attention when someone is speaking in English (mean 3,77) (metacognitive) *
2 I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better (mean 3,55)
(metacognitive) *
3. To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses (mean 3,44) (compensation)

4. I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English (mean 3,39) (metacognitive) *
5. I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in English
(mean 3.28) (memory)
Least used strategies of minority secondary school children
1. I write notes messages, letters or reports in English (mean 2,70) (cognitive) *
2. I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English (mean 2,59) (cognitive) *
3. I look for people I can talk to in English (mean 2,52) (metacognitive) *
4. I start conversations in English (mean 2,47) (cognitive) *
5. I use flashcards to remember new English words (mean 2,29) (memory) *
* reported by Ss at both educational levels

Table 3 Most and least used strategies by the students
Similarly, we investigated the frequency of the reported strategy promotion by the
teachers. Τhe comparison of the descriptive statistics presented in table 1 and table
4 shows (a) that teachers of minority schools report higher use of LLS than students
in all LLS categories and that the teachers’ means for metacognitive, memory and
compensation strategies fall within the high range of LLS use (4.83-3.71), means for
cognitive, affective and social strategies fall within the medium range (3.47-3.20)
while the student’s means lie in the medium range (3.55-3.08) of LLS use and (b) that
metacognitive LLS are the ones most frequently employed by both teachers and
students.
STRATEGY CATEGORY Min. Max. MEANS S.D.

Metacognitive 1,00 5,00 4,83 0,54
Memory 1,00 5,00 3,72 0,63
Compensation 1,00 5,00 3,71 0,85
Cognitive 1,00 5,00 3,47 0,63
Affective 1,00 5,00 3,44 0,77
Social 1,00 5,00 3,20 0,63
Table 4 Frequency of teachers’ strategy promotion in class
Next, the teachers’ most promoted strategies in class were investigated with respect
to how they coincide with the students’ reported use, and the following were found
(see table 5).
1. When I teach new vocabulary I use facial expressions and body movements
(memory)
2. I ask learners to pay attention when someone is speaking in English
(metacognitive)*
3. I ask learners to repeat English words orally, so that they learn to
pronounce them correctly (cognitive)*
4. I suggest reviewing English lessons often (memory)*
5. I suggest noticing their mistakes so that they improve themselves
(metacognitive)*
6. I encourage them to read English texts as much as possible (stories, song
lyrics, video games instructions etc) (metacognitive)*
7. I encourage them to speak in English without paying attention to possible
mistakes (metacognitive)
8. I ask them to read an English text quickly and then read it more carefully.
(cognitive)
9. When I teach sth new I relate it with what they already know (memory)*
10. I use humor in class to attract the learners’ interest (e.g. jokes, funny
stories) (affective)
Table 5 Teachers’ most promoted strategies in class
Also, the coincidence between the teachers’ least used strategies in class and those
of the students is reported here (see table 6).
1. I advise learners to use words they know in different sentences (cognitive)

2. I suggest they start themselves conversations in English in the classroom
(cognitive)*
3. I suggest they read English books and magazines in their free time
(cognitive)
4. I suggest they watch English programs or go to the cinema to watch films in
English
5. On completion of a task which involves strategy use, I ask my students’
impressions concerning the strategy effectiveness (metacognitive)
6. I ask them to ask questions using English only (social)
7. I suggest they talk with other people (family, friends) about their feelings
when learning English (affective)

8. I suggest they ask people who know English well to correct them when they
make mistakes (social)*
9. I use rhyming words when I teach new vocabulary so that they remember
more easily (memory)
10. I ask them to write summaries of what they read or listen to in English
(cognitive)*
Table 6 Teachers’ least used strategies in class
6. Discussion
The purpose of the paper was to investigate what kinds of strategies learners of
English attending minority (primary and secondary) schools in Greece report using
and how their strategy use intersects with their teachers' strategy promotion.
6.1 Strategy profile of minority school students
It was found that students attending minority schools in Thrace reported using, in
descending order, metacognitive strategies for controlling their learning process,
affective strategies for controlling and manipulating their feelings related to
learning, compensation strategies for overcoming deficiencies in the learning
process or foreign language use, social strategies for interacting with their peers,
teachers and other speakers, memory strategies for memorizing new grammatical,
semantic or syntactic information and finally cognitive strategies, for associating
new information with existing information and for forming patterns. The mean
score reflected the average frequency of language learning strategy use and was in
the ‘medium use range’ based on Oxford’s (1990) categorization. This finding
suggests that minority school students in Greece do not often use the widest range
of strategies. This might be due to the standard academic approaches applied to
teaching practiced in Greek primary and secondary minority schools. These

approaches have to be revised, while teachers have to receive in-service training on
LLS promotion.
Also, bilingualism/multilingualism appears to be a factor that affects minority
students’ strategy use at both levels. They show a high degree of metacognitive
awareness, probably as a result of the experience and resources they bring to the
understanding of the FL language from their knowledge of Greek L2 (Baker 2000;
Bialystok 2001; Moore 2006; Wharton 2000). The students seem to transfer strategy
use from prior language learning to the new language environment (McLaughlin &
Nayak 1989). Our multilingual participants’ preference for metacognitive strategies
is in line with other studies in Greece which looked into multilingual strategy use
(Mitits 2015; Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou 2009).
6.2 Effects of education level
Τhe education level appears to play a role in the frequency of strategies learners use
with the downward tendency, meaning that lower secondary students reduce the
strategies they employ when learning English compared to younger, primary school
children. This result seems contradictory with previous research on the impact of
education level in language learning strategy use, which indicated that more
numerous and more sophisticated strategies are employed by older or advanced
students (Bialystok 1981; Chamot et al. 1987; Politzer 1983; Tyacke & Mendelsohn
1986;). Hοwever, other studies in Greece (Gavriilidou & Petrogiannis 2016; Mitits
2015; Psaltou-Joycey & Sougari 2010) produced similar results to the research
presented here.
Actually, the preference of compensation strategies is more evident with age as the
particular students have become more familiar with coping with uncertainty in
their daily exchanges in L2 (Mitits 2015) which is transferred to the FL. The use of
memory strategies decreases with age probably because of lack of appropriacy for
the particular education level. The use of social strategies decreases with age and
this may be related to the cultural context, learners’ beliefs and values. Strategy use
decreases in all categories as strategy use gradually becomes a non-
conscious/automatic process (Psaltou-Joycey & Sougari, 2010; Platsidou & Sipitanou,
2014).
A possible explanation for this incongruence in results could be accounted for by
the fact that education level interrelates with other factors such as the level of
proficiency, culture, beliefs or attitudes in a rather complex manner (Psaltou-
Joycey, 2010).
6.3 Teachers' strategy profile
Ιt was found that the EFL teachers in minority schools report higher use of LLS than
their students in all LLS categories. This result may indicate the teachers' awareness
about the positive outcomes of LLS use in FL learning and also their positive stance
towards LLS use and promotion in classroom, although they may not know how
exactly to achieve that educative goal in practice. This positive stance, however, is
the necessary condition for implementing in-service teacher training on LLS use in
the classroom, since teachers will be more receptive to such training. The results
also showed that the teachers’ means for metacognitive, memory and compensation
strategies fall within the high range of LLS use, the means for cognitive, affective
and social strategies fall within the medium range, while all the students’ means lie
in the medium range of LLS use. Ιt was also found that metacognitive LLS are the
ones most frequently employed by both the teachers and the students.
These results agree with the findings by Psaltou-Joycey, Agathopoulou, Petrogiannis
& Gavriilidou (in this volume) and furthermore indicate that the most frequently
promoted strategies are those which aim at enabling students to become aware of
what helps them learn the FL more efficiently (metacognitive awareness). This is
reflected on students' reported high use of metacognitive strategies. The teachers’
strategies aim at developing learners’ problem-solving skills and out-of-class
learning. However, the study of individual strategies revealed that monitoring of
and self-evaluating performance are not sufficiently promoted. Memory strategies
come next. This type of strategies is also reported to be promoted by teachers but
there is a lack of common ground with learners’ actual memory strategy use, which
is low. Actually, even though the Greek education system privileges memorization,
students attending Greek mainstream or minority schools are not trained to use
effective memory strategies.
On the other hand, there is a perfect match on the use of compensation strategies.
Both teachers and students rank them at the third position, probably because both
groups acknowledge the importance of compensating in the context of minority
schools where all students are bilinguals with L2 Greek. Bilingual learners with
previous learning experience seem readier to take risks and use new language in
different situations or try to overcome the linguistic problems they encounter and
which may hinder communications in a FL.
Cognitive strategies which follow are strategies that learners adopt in a conscious
(or potentially conscious), relatively controlled and intentional manner, to optimize
assimilation, internalization, construction, consolidation and transference of
knowledge and language skills. Moderate teachers’ use of cognitive strategies in
minority schools might be related to students’ low proficiency level (mixed-ability
classes) and the specific educational context which does not facilitate the above
mentioned cognitive operations. Their low use of cognitive strategies, which are
directly linked to formal teaching contexts and are high-level strategies necessary
for successful language learning, can also be attributed to other factors that require
further investigation. Those include: the typological distance among the languages
they speak, the low socio-economic status of the majority of the learners’ families,
and limited literacy in L1, L2 and additional languages.
Social and affective are among the least used types of strategies by the teachers in
minority schools. The question is whether there is room for promoting such
strategies in the curriculum, textbook and adopted teaching methods.
The comparison of the results of the present study, which focuses on reported LLS
by teachers in minority schools, with results on LLS strategy use by teachers in
mainstream schools (Psaltou-Joycey, Agathopoulou, Petrogiannis & Gavriilidou in
this volume) shows that the most frequently used LLS category in both teachers'
groups is metacognitive. This might indicate a deep structural characteristic of the
Greek education system which directs pupils to a highly exam-centred educational
trajectory towards tertiary education and considers metacognition as the
appropriate ability to achieve that. It might also suggest that pre-service English
language teachers’ university courses in Greece pay specific attention to raising
their students' awareness about the importance of metacognitive LLS use in the
classroom. Finally, a second point of coincidence in LLS promotion by both teachers
in minority schools (Mean 3.71) and mainstream schools teachers (Mean 3.79)
concerns compensation strategies which are ranked at the third place of both
groups' preferences.
7. Conclusion and teaching implications
In the present study, we attempted to profile the learning strategies of minority
primary and secondary school students in Thrace, who learn English as a foreign
language so that their learning is enhanced. Also, we sought to determine if

strategy use evolves when students move from primary to secondary level of
education. As a result, it is hoped that this evidence will inform teachers about their
learners’ strategy profile and thus assist them in adjusting their teaching methods
so that their students’ needs are catered for. An additional aim was the comparison
of strategies promoted in class by teachers in minority primary and secondary
schools with those used by learners themselves in order to determine the level of
accord regarding strategy use by both groups. In this way, it is attempted to offer
the opportunity for the participants’ reflection on ‘how’ we learn and teach. Finally,
it is hoped that this study can provide the necessary feedback for the design of
teacher training programs which will sensitize teachers towards strategy
instruction.
The implications for teaching are numerous. Strategy training can be used as a tool
to maximize minority learners’ potential as there is a need to raise teachers’
awareness of how they can integrate strategy training in their minority classrooms
which is a necessity for a meaningful curriculum for the linguistic minorities. There
is a need for the use of textbooks providing strategy-embedded activities and
explicit strategy training. The particular learners and the teaching context are
characterized by additional difficulties and idiosyncrasies. These are segregated
schools for Turkish L1 speakers (although there are students with L1 Pomak, and
those speaking the language of Roma) who also learn L2 Greek, L3 Arabic and FL
English. Thus, those learners are multilingual and this is generally viewed by
teachers as a disadvantage which is partly responsible for learners’
underachievement at school. However, there are many positive aspects of
multilingualism even in such disadvantaged language learning environments. The
multilinguals’ recorded metalinguistic abilities should be employed as a resource
for learning. Teaching methods that allow contact and cooperation among
languages have shown to raise metalinguistic awareness. Instruction in language
learning strategies will benefit those multilingual learners to transfer new
strategies to learning Greek, as well. LLS instruction incorporated into teaching
English will help learners become more independent and responsible for their own
learning, enabling the teacher to offer differentiated learning instruction and pay
individual attention to those who need it more.
References
Agathopoulou, E. (2015). Factors affecting language learning strategy use by

learners of English at Greek secondary schools: proficiency and motivation. In
Z. Gavriilidou & K. Petrogiannis (Eds.), Language Learning Strategies in the Greek
context. (pp. 59-75). Kavala: Saita
Publicationshttp://www.saitabooks.eu/2016/03/ebook.172.html
Ardasheva, Y., & Tretter, T. R. (2013). Strategy Inventory for Language Learning -
ELL Student Form: Testing for factorial validity. Modern Language Journal, 97(2),
472-487.
Baker, C. (2000). The Care and Education of Young Bilinguals: An Introduction for
Professionals. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency.
Modern Language Journal 65, 24-35.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Metalinguistic aspects of bilingual processing. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 21, 169-181.
Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on cross-
linguistic influence in L3 acquisition. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen & U. Jessner
(Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in third language acquisition: Psycholinguisitc
perspectives (pp. 8-20). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Chamot, A. U, OMalley, J. M., Kupper, L. & Impink-Hernandez, M. V. (1987). A Study
of Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction: First Year Report.
Rosslyn, VA: InterAmerica Research Associates.
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Dewaele, J-M. (1998). Lexical inventions: French interlanguage as L2 versus L3.
Applied Linguistics 19, 471-490.
Γαβριηλίδου, Z. (2004). Χρήση στρατηγικών εκμάθησης της ελληνικής ως
δεύτερης/ξένης γλώσσας: πιλοτική μελέτη. Πρακτικά 6ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου
Ελληνικής Γλωσσολογίας.
Gavriilidou, Z. & Papanis, A. (2009). 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. & Petrogiannis, K. (Eds) (2016). Language Learning Strategies in the Greek
Setting. Kavala: Saita Publications.
Gavriilidou, Z., Petrogiannis, K., Bardos. A. Kambakis-Vougiouklis. P., Mitits, L. &
Molla, N. (2014). Translation and cultural adaptation of the Strategy Inventory
for Language Learning (SILL) into Turkish for measuring strategy use in
Muslim students learning Greek as a second language. In G. Kotzoglou, K.
Nikolou, E. Karantzola, K. Frantzi, I. Galantomos, M. Georgalidou, V. Kourti-
Kazoullis, Ch. Papadopoulou & E. Vlachou (Eds.), 11th International Conference on
Greek Linguistics: Selected Papers/Πρακτικά, Rhodes: University of the Aegean. (pp.
479-487)
Gavriilidou, Z. & Mitits, L. (2016). Adaptation of the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL) for students aged 12-15 into Greek: A pilot study. In Selected
Papers of the 21st International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied linguistics
(ISTAL 21), 588-601.
Griffiths, C. & Parr, J. M. (2001). Language learning strategies: Theory and
perception. ELT Journal 55(3), 247-254.
Griffiths, C. (2007). Language learning strategies: Students’ and teachers’
perceptions. ELT Journal 61(2): doi:10.1093/elt/ccm001.
Jessner, U. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness in multilinguals: Cognitive aspects of
third language acquisition. Language Awareness 8, 201-209.
Kambakis-Vougiouklis, P. (2015). Variables affecting choice of language learning
strategies by Greek learners of English attending elementary schools in
Greece. In Gavriilidou, Z. & Petrogiannis, K. (eds) Language Learning Strategies
in the Greek Setting, 42-57 Kavala: Saita Publications.
Kemp, C. (2007). Strategic processing in grammar learning: Do multilinguals use
more strategies? The International Journal of Multilingualism 4(4), 241-261.
Khan, M. F. R. (2012). Language Learning Strategies: A Study of Teacher and Learner
Perceptions. BUP Journal 1(1), 140-153.
Klein, E. C. (1995). Second versus Third Language Acquisition: Is There a Difference?
Language Learning 45 (3), 419-465.
Lan, R. & Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning strategy profiles of elementary
school students in Taiwan. IRAL 41 (4), 339-379
Magiste, E. (1984). Learning a third language. Journal of multilingual and multicultural
development 5, 415-421.
McLaughlin, B. & Nayak, N. (1989). Processing a new language: Does knowing other
languages make a difference? In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.),
Interlingual processes (pp.5–16).Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Mitits, L. (2015). Language learning strategies and multilingualism: monolingual EFL and
multilingual EFL/L2 Greek learners in Greek secondary education. Saita publications:
Kavala, Greece.
Mitits, L., Psaltou-Joycey, A. & Sougari, A. M. (2016). Language learning strategy
profiling of Greek primary/secondary school learners of English as a FL.
Language Learning Strategies in the Greek Setting, . In Z. Gavriilidou & K.
Petrogiannis (Eds.), Language Learning Strategies in the Greek context. (pp. 6-23).
Kavala: Saita Publications.
Moore, D. (2006). Plurilingualism and strategic competence in context. International
Journal of Multilingualism 3(2), 125-138.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P. & Küpper, L.
(1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second
language. TESOL quarterly 19: 3.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New
York: Newbury House / Harper & Row. Now Boston: Heinle & Heine.
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.
Petrogiannis, K. & Gavriilidou, Z. (2015). Strategy inventory for language learning:
Findings of a Validation Study in Greece. In M. Carmo (Ed.), Education
Applications and Developments. (pp. 223-236). Lisbon: inScience Press..
Platsidou, M. & Sipitanou, A. (2015). Exploring relationships with grade level,
gender and language proficiency in the foreign language learning strategy use
of children and early adolescents. International Journal of Research Studies in
Language Learning, 4, 83-96.
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.
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. & Kantaridou, Z. (2009). Plurilingualism, language learning

strategy use and learning style preferences. International Journal of
Multilingualism 6 (4), 460-474.
Psaltou-Joycey, A. & Sougari, A-M. (2010). Greek young learners’ perceptions about
Matthaioudakis (Eds.), Advances in research on language acquisition and teaching:
Selected Papers (pp. 387-401). Thessaloniki: Greek Applied Linguistics
Association.
Psaltou, Joycey, A., Sougari, A., Agathopoulou, E. & Alexiou, T. (2014). The role of
age, gender and L1 strategies in the L2 strategies of primary school children in
Greece. In G. Kotzoglou, K. Nikolou, E. Karantzola, K. Frantzi, I. Galantomos, M.
Georgalidou, V. Kourti Kazoullis, C. Papadopoulou & E. Vlachou (Eds.), Selection
of papers for the 11th International Conference on Greek Linguistics, University of the
Aegean. Rhodes, Greece. pp. 1436-1448.
Psaltou-Joycey, A., Agathopoulou, E., Petrogiannis, K. & Gavriilidou Z. (2017).
Teachers’ and learners’ reported language learning strategy use: How do they
match. In Z. Gavriilidou, K. Petrogiannis, M. Platsidou & A. Psaltou-Joycey
(Eds.) Language Learning Strategies: theoretical issues and applied perspectives (pp.
71-93). Kavala: Saita publications.
Psaltou-Joycey, A., Penteri, E. & Gavriilidou, Z. (2016). Development of a
strategies. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL 5(1), 193-211.
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.
Sen, H. & Sen, M. (2012). A comparison of EFL teachers’ perceptions of language
learning strategies (LLS) and learners’ reported use of LLS in their English
language classes. Procedia, Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.390.
Sung, K.-Y. (2011). Factors Influencing Chinese Language Learners' Strategy Use.
International journal of multilingualism 8 (2), 117-134.
Thomas, J. (1988). The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third
language learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9, 235-
246.
Tyacke, M. & D. Mendelsohn (1986). Student Needs: Cognitive as Well as
Communicative. TESL Canada Journal Special Issue 1, 171-83.
Young Learners of English. PhD dissertation. Department of Theoretical and
Applied Linguistics, School of English, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle

University of Thessaloniki.
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language
learners in Singapore. Language Learning 50(2), 203-243.
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.
PART B
Workshops
An introduction to teaching language learning strategies
Athina Vrettou
avrettou@sch.gr
The teachability concept of L2 (foreign or second) language learning strategies
seems to be favoured by applied research on the effectiveness of strategy
instruction with further research needed, at least regarding long-term intervention
effects (Hassan et al. 2005; Plonsky 2011). This presentation aims to introduce key
issues of language learning strategy intervention and discuss in detail the steps that
all classrooms models of teaching strategies share.
Key issues of language learning strategy instruction
Most research in L1 and L2 argues for explicit language learning strategy
instruction, whereby the teacher clearly names the strategy, demonstrates its use
and explains its usefulness; the students practise the strategy, evaluate it and
transfer it to new tasks (Chamot 2004; Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary, & Robbins
1999; Grenfell & Harris 1999; Oxford 1990; Psaltou-Joycey 2015).
A second issue is whether strategy instruction should be integrated into the L2
curriculum or taught separately in “learning how to learn” courses and training
programmes. Taking into consideration the young age and needs of learners at
primary and secondary level, teachers should integrate explicit strategy instruction
into their regular classroom work (Chamot 2004).
As for the language of instruction, introduction to strategies seems to be preferable
in the L1 for beginning level students. Alternatively, very simple target language
might be used to name the strategy, explain its use simply, and repeatedly present it
(Chamot et al. 1999).
Moreover, there are indications of the feasibility of strategy transfer when learners
are assisted in evaluating and assessing their learning processes empowering their
metacognitive knowledge and experience (Harris 2004, as cited in Chamot 2004).
Classroom models of strategy instruction
Various classroom models for teaching language learning strategies have been
formulated over the years, for example, the SSBI (Styles and Strategies-Based
Instruction) Model (Cohen 1998), the CALLA (Cognitive Academic Language
Learning Approach) Model (Chamot 2005; Chamot et al. 1999), Grenfell & Harris
(1999), and Macaro (2001). In all models, a sequence of five steps is followed, namely:
(1) Preparation, (2) Presentation, (3) Practice, (4) Evaluation, and (5) Transfer or
Expansion. All the models share many similarities despite some differences they
may have; for instance, teachers’ assistance is gradually removed (scaffolding fades)
in the practice stage in the CALLA model (Chamot 2004) whereas in other models
(Grenfell & Harris 1999; Macaro 2001) it takes place slightly later. On the whole,
however, the general aim is to develop learners’ strategic thinking and processes in
order to enhance their linguistic proficiency.
Following a sequence of five steps
Across all models, instruction begins with a lot of direct explicit assistance gradually
withdrawn while learners assume more and more responsibility in their use of
strategies.
(1) Preparation phase: Raising young learners’ awareness of strategies
In order to initially raise young learners’ awareness of strategies, teachers can make
a short introduction to strategies (that is, strategies are the tools to make learning
easier, faster and more enjoyable; they bolster up learners’ confidence and aim at
higher levels of proficiency; they have been used since antiquity when “bards” or
story tellers used mnemonic (memory) techniques to help them remember their
lines). Subsequently, learners can be asked to complete various tasks in the
classroom (such as to learn new vocabulary, understand oral or written texts or
write an email). Teachers can list their students’ responses, name the strategies and
ask how many learners use each strategy. Alternatively, learners may be asked to do
a certain task “cold” in the classroom and then discuss what strategies they used for
it (Grenfell & Harris 1999). Another common way to raise learners’ consciousness in
the last grades of primary school or in secondary school is through completion of
questionnaires such as Cohen & Oxford’s (2002) Language Strategy Use Survey or the
Thales Questionnaire for Young Learners, adapted from Oxford’s (1990) SILL (Gavriilidou
& Mitits 2016).
(2) Presentation phase
Since some strategies may seem abstract to young learners and difficult to
understand, teachers should be very analytical, and make the strategy to be
modelled very concrete. In other words, the teacher can name the strategy, model
and explain in detail every step he/she takes for its use by “thinking aloud” during
the performance of an L2 task (Rubin, Chamot, Harris, & Anderson 2007).
Another way to make strategies more concrete is visual representation through the
use of puppets or cuddly animals for very young learners, use of flashcards, pictures
or posters. Toy tool kits can also be used with each tool named after a particular
strategy (Gunning, Lalonde, & Watts 2006, 2007; MELS 2007; Robbins, n.d.) Another
idea is the employment of a strategy wheel with smiley illustrations and simple
names of strategies (Gunning, Lalonde, Schinck, & Watts 2002).

(3) Practice phase
After strategies have been presented and modelled, learners need to be provided
with ample practice opportunities. Activities should be carefully selected in order to
build up young learners’ confidence. Tasks should not be too easy as that will not
make the learners use strategies but they should pose some degree of challenge.
Social interaction might also prove to be helpful through collaboration in pair and
group work, problem solving, role-playing and hand-on experience (Rubin et al.
2007).
(4) Self-evaluation phase
After practicing the new strategy, it is necessary for learners to practice the
metacognitive strategy of evaluation reflecting on the process of their application of
strategies and assessing how successful they were in performing the L2 task. The
teacher and the students can hold a class discussion about the usefulness of the
strategy for the L2 task. Moreover, learners can be asked to complete checklists or
write down their experiences and thoughts in learning logs (Chamot et al. 1999).
While being in the evaluation phase, learners may find some strategies to be more
effective for them than others for specific language tasks. Additionally, they may
realize they have personal preferences for some types of strategies. Then teachers
should encourage learners to opt for those strategies which are more appropriate
for them building their own strategy repertoire (Rubin et al. 2007).
(5) Strategy transfer phase
There is no automatic transference of learned strategies from one context to
another. As a result, teachers can play an important role in assisting in strategy
transfer through explicit instruction of strategies and subsequent discussion with
their learners about how particular strategies can be employed in different

contexts. The teacher might then ask the students to apply the learned strategy, for
example, to a content subject class and then report on the effectiveness of that
strategy (Rubin et al. 2007); or, ask the students to transfer the successfully used
strategy to another similar or different task in the L2 (examples can be found from
the activities in the Foreign Language Learning Strategy Instruction: A Teacher’s Guide
(Psaltou-Joycey 2015). In that way, teachers can foster a common approach to
“learning how to learn” in general, adding to the development of more confident,
independent and autonomous learners (Harris & Grenfell 2004).
References
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, 112-130.
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P., & Robbins, J. (1999). Learning Strategies
Handbook. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. London, UK,
and New York, NY: Longman.
Cohen, A. D., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Young Learners’ Language Strategy Use Survey.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Center for Advanced Research on
Language Acquisition.
Gavriilidou, Z. and Mitits L. (2016). Adaptation of the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL) for students aged 12-15 into Greek: Developing an
adaptation protocol.”. In M. Mattheoudakis and K. Nicolaidis (Eds.), Selected
Papers on Theoretical and Applied linguistics from ISTAL 2013 (pp. 588-601).
Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
https://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/thal/article/view/5256/5144
Gunning, P., Lalonde, R., Schinck, M., & Watts, W. (2002). A New Twist to English, Cycle
3, Book 1. Montréal, Québec: Lidec.
Gunning, P., Lalonde, R., & Watts, W. (2006). A Tiny Twist to English, Cycle 1, Book 1.
Montréal, Québec: Lidec.
Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern Languages and Learning Strategies in Theory
and Practice. London, UK: Routlege.
Harris, V., & Grenfell, M. (2004). Language-learning strategies: A case for cross-
curricular collaboration. Language Awareness, 13 (2), 116-130.
Hassan, X, Macaro, E., Mason, D., Nye, G., Smith, P., & Vanderplank, R. (2005).
Strategy training in language learning – a systematic review of available
research: Review conducted by the Modern Languages Review Group. Retrieved
from
http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=F%2fO A%3d&
=296&mid= 1147&language=en-US
Macaro, E. (2001). Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms.
London, UK: Continuum.
Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport, or MELS. (2007). Self-monitoring: A
Handbook on Developing Metacognitive Strategies with First-year Elementary Cycle One
ESL Students. Montréal, Québec. Retrieved from:
http://eslinsight.qc.ca/IMG/pdf/Self-monitoring.pdf
Plonsky, L. (2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A
meta-analysis. Language Learning, 61 (4), 993-1038.
Psaltou-Joycey, (Ed), (2015). Foreign Language Learning Strategy Instruction: A Teacher’s
Guide. Kavala: Saita Publications.
Robbins, J. (n.d.). Cuddly Learning Strategies: Animal Mascots. Retrieved from:
http://jillrobbins.com/calla/animals/cuddly.html
Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Harris, V., & Anderson, N. J. (2007). Intervening in the use of
strategies. In A. D. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language Learner Strategies (pp. 141-
160). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Activities for Mainstream Primary Schools: Strategies of guessing intelligently and
linking with already known material
Edgar Joycey
joycey@enl.auth.gr
Workshop description
This set of activities makes the learners focus on how guessing intelligently and
linking what they are learning with what they already know can improve learning.
In order to complete the activities and convey the idea that these strategies are of
value, the learners are encouraged in a task to use clues from the environment. To
some extent, they are also helped to see how what is written in two languages
(English and Greek) can be understood at times with little effort and at other times
requires great effort to work out the respective meanings, if that can be done at all.
Intended Outcomes
- To pinpoint the learning strategies employed
- To reveal how knowledge of the specific strategies helps the learning process
Equipment and Materials: pictures, cards with expressions on them, a table for
completion
Facilitator Guide
1. Welcome & Objectives (2 minutes)
The teacher tells students they are going to work with some pictures of parks and
read some signs they often see in parks. They learn that they will have to do a
matching exercise in which they have to use knowledge they already have. They are
told that they will have to be clever and guess the meaning of the signs and some
other comments they will be given. The idea of ‘guessing’ is emphasized, and the
teacher may explain what this involves; drawing on knowledge, looking at other
ideas, using any language clues, etc. They are told they are not to worry if they do
not understand the signs when they first see them because the exercise will help
them to understand.
2. Exercises (10 minutes)
The teacher shows a large picture of a park to the class and elicits from the students
what they know about parks. (S)he lists what they say on the board for them to copy
into their notebooks. This draws on their knowledge and will help them with later
parts of the lesson.
The students are then given cards with signs on each of them. Then the teacher uses
another sign, e.g. “Parents must accompany young children” and asks the students
to tell her/him why this sign exists. (S)he then shows them another card that has
either an ‘explanation’ or ‘consequence’ on it, in this case, “Children may get lost”,
or, “Children may get hurt”, and explains to them the linguistic (Consequence) and
non-linguistic (Park) connections. (S)he explains that an explanation contains the
reason a writer of the sign may have in mind when writing it. For example, the sign,
“Turn mobile phones off during the show” may be seen in the entrance to a theatre,
and the writer’s reason is “The ring tone will distract the actors”. A consequence is
what might happen should what is written on the sign is not adhered to. Therefore,
in the ‘theatre’ example given above if a phone rings when it shouldn’t, its owner
should have in mind the consequence, “You may be asked to leave the theatre”.
In a lesson at this level, to go further and ask the students to provide their reasons
for the matching may be too demanding. That could be, though, an extension of a
lesson at a higher level.

3. Learning Activity (5 minutes)
At this point, the teacher may explain the strategy being used and how it helps
learning seeing it increases the chances of the language staying in the memory. The
students are then provided with the remaining cards which have the consequences
or explanations on them. The teacher suggests an expression that the students can
use to tell the class the matches they make.
“I think the consequence/explanation ‘…..’ goes with the sign/notice ‘…..’.”
The students do the task. They may come out and stick their answers on the board if
they can’t say the expression given to them.
Plenary discussion
The teacher checks the matches with the students, supplying the reasons for the
explanations while reminding them of the strategies and showing how they helped
learning to take place.
There is a final activity where the students have to decide where they would put the
sign/notice in the park, and they may be asked to use the following expression:
‘I think the sign ‘……’ goes under the tree/near the bench/on the grass, etc.
Closing down the session
After the activities are over the teacher asks the learners whether they liked them
and explicitly states the strategies used and taught along with the reasons.
Examples of signs with unknown words and meanings: (Cards)
Keep on a lead No picking flowers Don’t leave it in the park

Bag it and bin it Swimming is dangerous Kite flying allowed
Keep off the grass Wrap it, don’t drop it No roller skates or
skateboards
Ride bikes in the lanes Picnic area No ball games here
Sailing and paddling only Please don’t write here No sleeping allowed
Table of consequences/explanations with spaces for signs (There may be more than
one sign for each consequence/explanation). These will also be on cards:
Consequences/Explanations Signs
Everyone can see them
There are no trees here
Gum on the ground sticks
Benches are for sitting on
Deep and cold water
We want it to stay green
Graffiti is ugly
Keep the park a quiet place
Rubbish hides beauty
Running dogs scare people
You may hit walkers
Dog mess is not nice
Note: This workshop was one of a series of similar ones conducted to various contributors to
a workshop that was part of the presentations at the International Conference entitled
Language Learning Strategies: theoretical issues and applied perspectives, held in Komotini at the
Democritus University of Thrace, 27-28 June 2015. The complete workshop can be found in
Psaltou-Joycey, A. (ed.). 2015. Foreign Language Learning Strategy Instruction: A Teacher’s Guide
(pp. 107-114). Kavala: Saita Publications. http://www.saitabooks_eu/2015/ebook.162.html
Activities for Mainstream Primary Schools: Self Evaluation Strategy
Vasilia Kazamia
vkazamia@lance.auth.gr
Workshop description
This activity introduces self evaluation and aims to train learners to resort to it. It
also encourages students to share their experiences about strategy use with their
teacher and classmates. Self evaluation helps learners to reflect on their learning, to
realize what actually works well for them and thus gradually take charge of their
learning.
Intended Outcomes
- To recall the learning strategies employed
- To describe one’s experience and feelings regarding the use of specific
learning strategies
- To assess if the strategies were beneficial or not for one’s learning
Equipment and Materials: blackboard, paper and two boxes
Facilitator Guide
I. Welcome & Objectives (2 minutes)
The teacher reminds to students some of the learning strategies used and writes
them on the blackboard. Then s/he tells explicitly that they are going to play a game
where they there are no right or wrong questions and answers.

II. Group exercises (10 minutes)
The teacher lists 5 strategies on the blackboard and asks students to identify silently
one strategy that was effective for them. Then s/he splits the class in two groups the
‘The WhyS’ and the ‘The BecauseS’. To illustrate how the game is played the teacher
says to the students:
‘The WhyS’ are asked to write secretly on a piece of paper the strategy that was
effective for them in question form, for example ‘Why did I like guessing from
context?’
‘The BecauseS’ are asked to write secretly the reason that rendered the strategy
effective for them, for example ‘Because I did not have to look it up in the
dictionary’.
Then the teacher says that it is students’ turn now to write their ‘WhyS’ and
‘BecauseS’ secretly on small pieces of paper. Once students complete their writings,
the teacher collects them in two boxes.
Then s/he first picks randomly a paper from the Why Box and reads the question to
the class. S/he proceeds with the Because Box where once more, s/he selects
randomly an answer and reads it aloud. In most cases the outcome would be funny,
the answers do not match the questions, and this makes students laugh.
At this point the teacher would elaborate further by asking students to guess which
strategy of those on the list might correspond to the because paper.
Learning Activity (5 minutes)
When students, start guessing about which ‘Why paper’ would match which ‘Because
paper’, discussion is initiated and students respond spontaneously because all this
process is part of a game. Thus, the teacher can further trigger questions such as
“What was useful in this strategy?” ‘Why?” “Would you use it again?”
Or “What was wrong with this strategy?” “Why?” “Would you replace this strategy
with another?”
Participant Materials: 1) Small pieces of paper titled “Why” and “Because”
2) Two boxes
Plenary discussion
The teacher elaborates on the comments written by learners and introduces a table
where learners may assess once more their use of strategies. This table is provided
below:
What do you think? Yes? No? Please answer the questions
Strategy Helped me a lot Was not effective Shall I use it
to learn for my learning again?
(YES? NO?)
Closing down the session
After the activity is over the teacher asks the learners whether they liked the game
and explicitly states that this was a self-evaluation activity.

Appendix: Participant Handouts
What do you think? Yes? No? Please answer the questions
Strategy Helped me Was not Shall I use it
a lot to effective for again?
learn my learning
(YES? NO?)
Encouraging language learning strategies -
Empowering the learner
Zoe Kantaridou, Iris Papadopoulou
irispd@uom.edu.gr, kantazoe@uom.edu.gr,
Workshop Description
The purpose of this guide is to provide support to teachers and other administrators
who wish to organize teacher training workshops on Language Learning Strategy
Instruction for Secondary Education teachers. It is a two-hour workshop providing
facilitators with the objectives, theoretical and practical information and resources
required to conduct a strategy instruction workshop for EFL teachers in Greek
secondary education.
Intended Outcomes
At the end of this workshop, participants will
 Have a basic background on the relevant theoretical concepts: a) language
learning strategies (LLS), b) strategy instruction (SI) and its benefits.
 Become aware of the strategic profile of Greek Lower Secondary Education
students, as these were recorded by the THALES project, coordinated by Dr Zoe
Gavriilidou and jointly conducted by the Democritus University of Thrace, the
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, the Hellenic Open University and the
University of Macedonia.
 Be trained to teach three language learning strategies from the e-book Foreign
Language Learning Strategy Instruction: A Teacher's Guide (FLLSI, Angeliki Psaltou-
Joycey 2015), namely:
a) The cognitive strategy of summarizing, assisted by the cognitive strategy
of using graphic organizers (mindmaps) (activity 7)
b) The social strategy of developing crosscultural understanding (activity 5)
c) The metacognitive/affective strategy of taking risks wisely (activity 9).
Agenda
1. Preview of main objectives of the present workshop (3 min)
2. Brief theoretical background on LLS with the main trends of strategy
intstruction and the stages strategy instruction must consist of in order to be
effective (25 min)
3. The findings of the THALES project concerning least used strategies in
secondary education (10 min).
4. Presentation and practice of the cognitive strategy of summarizing, assisted
by the cognitive strategy of using graphic organizers (mindmaps) (30 min)
5. Presentation and practice of the social strategy of developing crosscultural
understanding (20 min)
6. Presentation and practice of the metacognitive/ affective strategy of taking
risks wisely (20 min)
7. Review of main points. Plenary discussion (15 min).
Equipment and Materials
1. Participant handouts including:

- a brief overview of LLS definitions (table 1),
- a list of LLSs by category from Oxford’s 1990 SILL, version 7, (table 2),
- schematic overview of the Strategic Self-Regulation (S2R) model (Oxford
2011, table 3),
- The 5 stages of SI (figure 1, table 4),
- Suggested bibliography (see below)
- Summary of the THALES project findings for Lower Secondary Education,
least practiced strategies by students and teachers (tables 5 and 6),
- The three strategy instruction activities (see FLLSI)
2. Powerpoint presentation of the session
3. Books provided by the Ministry of Education for the teaching of L2 in Lower
Secondary Education.
Suggested bibliography
Guidebooks:
Brown, H. D. (2001). Strategies for Success: A practical Guide to Learning English. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson ESL.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994b). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the
Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to Learn English: A Course in Learner Training.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Keatley, C. W., Anstrom, K. A., & Chamot, A. U. (2004). Keys to Learning: Skills and
Strategies for Newcomers. New York: Pearson EFL.
Paige, M. R., Cohen, A. D., Kappler, B., Chi, J. C., & Lassegard, J. P. (2006). Maximizing
Study Abroad: A Student’s Guide to Strategies for Language and Culture Learning and
Use. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. See also:
http://carla.umn.edu/maxsa/documents/MAXSAResearchReport.pdf
See also:
http://apling611-s12-
kiss.wikispaces.umb.edu/CALLA+%28Cognitive+Academic+Language+Learning+
Approach%29
CALLA youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bH1ktKhB2A
Cohen A. & S. Weaver (2006) Styles-and Strategies-Based Instruction: A Teachers' Guide,
CARLA Working Paper Series. Accessed 24-7-2016:
https://stylesandstrategiesi.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/cohen-weaver.pdf
Fragiadakis, H. K., & Maurer, V. (2005). Tapestry Listening and Speaking 4, Middle East
edition. London, UK: Thomson Heinle.
Gunning, P., & Lalonde, R. (1995). The Spinning Series: Level 2. Montréal, Québec: Lidec.
Gunning, P., Lalonde, R., Schinck, M., & Watts, W. (2003). A new twist to English, Cycle 3,
Book 2. Montréal, Québec: Lidec.
Psaltou-Joycey A. (ed) Foreign Language Learning Strategy Instruction: A Teacher’s Guide,
Kavala Saita Publications, http://www.saitabooks.eu/2015/05/ebook.162.html
Sailing the 5Cs with language strategies, produced by the National Capital Language
Resource Center (NCLRC) http://www.nclrc.org/sailing/pdfs/sfle.pdf
Strategy inventories
 SILL v7: https://richarddpetty.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/sill-english.pdf
 Cohen & Oxford’s (2002) Young Learners’ Language Strategy Use Survey
 Cohen Oxford & Chi (2002a) Language strategy use survey (strategies by skills:
reading, writing, listening speaking, plus vocabulary and grammar
 Andrew Cohen’s site:
https://sites.google.com/a/umn.edu/andrewdcohen/home
Theoretical background
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P., & Robbins, J. (1999). Learning Strategies
Handbook. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern Languages and Learning Strategies in Theory
and Practice. London, UK: Routledge.
Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (2004). Language-learning strategies: A case for cross-
curricular collaboration. Language Awareness, 13(2), 116-130.
Gu Y. (2007). Strategy-based instruction. In T. Yashima & T. Nabei (eds) Proceedings of
the International Symposium on English Education in Japan: Exploring New Frontiers,
Osaka: Yubunsha, p.21-38.
Macaro, E. (2001). Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms.
London, UK: Continuum.
Nguyen, L. T. C., & Gu, Y. (2013). Strategy-based instruction: A learner-focused
approach to developing learner autonomy. Language Teaching Research, 17(1),
9-30.
Nunan, D. (1997). Does learner strategy training make a difference? Lenguas
Modernas, 24, 123-142.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies. Harlow,
England: Pearson Education.
Facilitator Guide
1. Welcome and Objectives (3 min)
i. Preview of the intended outcomes of the present workshop. Explain that
there will be two main sections in the workshop: a) a theoretical and b) a
practical one. The length of each will depend on the participants’
familiarization with the topic of LLS and strategy instruction. The times
indicated below refer to an audience with an average LLS background.
ii. Brainstorm session on the participants’ perceptions of/ knowledge of
language learning strategies. Sample questions:
 What are language learning strategies?
 What are the benefits of teaching them?
 What are the stages of effective strategy instruction?
 Do the books provided by the Ministry of Education practice strategies?
 Do they make students aware of the value of strategies?
 Have participants observed any deficiencies in the performance of their
students with regard to cognitive and metacognitive skills?
iii. Include a short Q & A (questions and answers) section after each main
theoretical point to check comprehension, familiarization with the topic and
encourage interaction between participants and facilitator.
Part 1: Theoretical background to LLS and SI (25 min)
Why teach strategies?
Research of the past 40 years has shown that learners who employ language
learning strategies are more effective and motivated. They plan, organize and
evaluate their thinking and learning processes. They have a repertoire of strategies
they have built over the years and know which strategy or, rather, cluster of
strategies works best in which contexts.
What are strategies?
Language learning strategies (LLS) first appeared in ESL/EFL research literature in

the early seventies. They are part of the general shift from teacher-centered
approaches to learner-centered methods. A look at some of the most influential
definitions, suggests that, although there is a proliferation of definitions and
conceptual approaches, there are certain characterisics strategies possess. Let’s look
at some of the definitions:
What they are What they are

used for
Rubin (1975: 43) “Strategies are the techniques techniques or development

or devices a learner may use to acquire devices of learner
knowledge”. In other words, strategies interlanguage/
contribute to the development of learner assist learning
interlanguage and influence the learning process
(Rubin 1987).
O’Malley & Chamot (1990: 1) thoughts or to

behaviours comprehend,
“Learning strategies are special thoughts or
learn or retain
behaviours that individuals use to comprehend,
information
learn or retain information”.
Oxford (1990: 16) “Learning strategies are Actions to make

specific actions taken by the learner to make learning
learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more easier, faster,
selfdirected, and more transferable to new more

situations. In other words, they are actions that enjoyable,
assist the learner in the acquisition, storage, more
retrieval and use of information”. selfdirected
Cohen (1998: 4) “Language learning and language Processes to enhance the

use strategies are defined as those processes learning or use
which are consciously selected by learners and of a second or
which may result in actions taken to enhance the foreign
learning or use of a second or foreign language, language,
through the storage, retention recall and through the
application of information about that language”. storage,
retention
recall and
application of
information
Griffiths (2008: 87) “LLS are activities consciously Activities To regulate

chosen by learners for the purpose of regulating learning
their own language learning”.
Oxford (2011: 12) “Self-regulated L2 learning deliberate, to manage and

strategies are defined as deliberate, goal-directed goal-directed control efforts
attempts to manage and control efforts to learn attempts to learn the L2
the L2. These strategies are broad, teachable
actions that learners choose from among
alternatives and employ for L2 learning
purposes”.
Table 1: Definitions of LLS
Strategies are purposeful, goal-directed activities, actively controlled by the learner

to facilitate learning and language use across all skills. They involve choice on the
part of the learner according to the task and often appear in groups.
Short Q & A session:
In your mind, which of these definitions do you agree with?

Which do you think most appropriate for the classroom?
Classification of strategies
While several classification systems have been proposed (Cohen 1998; O’Malley &
Chamot 1990, Wenden 1991), the work most often referenced is Oxford’s (1990)
taxonomy. We present you a list of her 6 categories, so that you can pause and
consider which you find your students using and which you have found to be
effective over the years.
Memory strategies: Examples
 Creating mental linkages Grouping: classifying & reclassifying lg

o Grouping material into meaningful units (using
o Associating/elaborating min-maps/ semantic mapping) based
o Placing new words in context on
 Applying images and sounds
o Using imagery Topic: weather
o Semantic mapping Practical function: parts of car
o Using keywords
o Representing sounds in Linguistic function: apology, requaest
memory
 Reviewing well Similarity: warm, hot, tepid, tropical
o Structured review Dissimilarity: cooperative/competitive
 Employing action
o Using physical response
o Using mechanical techniques
Cognitive strategies: Examples
 Practicing Practice naturalistically by making

o Repeating conversations in your mind or aloud
o Formally practicing with with potential interlocutors, in
sounds and writing systems potential situations
o Recognizing formulas and
patterns
o Recombining Getting the idea quickly, ie
o Practicing naturalistically
 Receiving and sending messages skimming to determine the main idea
o Getting the idea quickly and whether to read carefully OR
o Using resources for receiving scanning for specific info. Preview
and sending messages questions on a text are helpful in this
 Analyzing and reasoning direction.
o Reasoning deductively
o Analyzing expressions
o Analyzing contrastively
(across languages)
o Translating
o Transferring
 Creating structure for input and
output
o Taking notes
o Summarizing
o Highlighting
Compensation strategies: Metacognitive strategies:
 Guessing intelligently (inferencing)  Centering learning

o Using linguistic clues o Overviewing and linking
o Using other clues already known material
 Overcoming limitations o Paying attention
o Switching to the mother o Delaying production to focus
tongue on listening
o Getting help  Arranging and planning your
o Using mime and gesture learning
o Avoiding communication o Finding out about language
partially or totally learning
o Selecting topic o Organizing
o Adjusting or approximating o Setting goals
the message o Identifying the purpose of a
o Coining words language task
o Using circumlocution or o Planning for the language
synonym task
o Seeking practice
opportunities
 Evaluating your learning
o Self-monitoring
o Self-evaluating
Affective strategies: Social strategies:
 Lowering your anxiety  Asking questions

o Using progressive relaxation o Asking for clarification or
o Using music verification
o Using laughter o Asking for correction
 Encouraging yourself  Cooperating
o Making positive statements o Cooperating with peers
o Taking risks wisely o Cooperating with proficient
o Rewarding yourself users of the new language
 Taking your emotional temperature  Empathizing with others
o Listening to your body o Developing cultural
o Using a checklist understanding
o Writing a language learning o Becoming aware of others’
diary thoughts and feeling

o Discussing your feelings with
someone else
Table 2: Oxford’s taxonomy of LLS (1990)
Parameters affecting strategy use
Not all learning strategies can be used by all learners in all contexts. The choice of
strategies depends on
- Parameters unrelated to the learner (situational), like the type, rate and quality
of instruction, task requirements and materials, the opportunity to practice, the
importance invested in the course status (i.e., compulsory vs elective course),
teacher practices. And
- Parameters related to the learner, gender, aptitude, proficiency level,

motivation, learning style, cultural background, attitudes and beliefs, field or
study or career orientation, and various personality traits such as anxiety, self-
esteem, tolerance of ambiguity, and general personal flexibility.
Benefits from strategy use & Effectiveness of strategy intervention
LLS and motivation: Concerning secondary education, studies have shown that
strategy use increases with the learners’ motivation. More motivated learners tend
to use more strategies.
Strategy use has two basic benefits for learners.
1. it improves learners’ performance through a learning spiral by increasing their

motivation and, in turn, their performance (Griffiths 2013) ‘tornado effect’.
2. it promotes learner autonomy both in language learning as well as language use.
Benefits of strategy instruction have been demonstrated in most skills, bringing

about improved strategy performance, but also confidence in the learners. The most
researched skill was reading, but there have been studies regarding vocabulary,
writing, listening and speaking. Gains from strategy use have been checked with
delayed post tests as well and the results demonstrated that the positive effects
were long-lasting.
Strategy use also has benefits for the teachers as well:

The role of the teacher shifts from being the sole source of target language
provision to that of a facilitator of the learning process. Her role shifts from
providing exposure to the language system, to an alternative, more interactive
approach.
Short Q & A session
Which of these strategies do you use most frequently in the classroom? Why?
Have you found them successful for yourselves as learners? For your students?
The most recent Strategic Self-Regulation model of language learning proposed by

Oxford 2011 incorporates LLS into the concept of self-regulation from educational
psychology for methodological and epistemological issues which we will not get
into here. A brief overview of this model is:
Metastrategies of the cognitive, affective and sociocultural-interactive dimention:

 Paying attention
 Planning
 Obtaining and using resources
 Organising
 Implementing plans
 Orchestrating strategy use
 Monitoring
 Evaluating
6 strategies in the cognitive 2 strategies in the 3 strategies in the

dimension: affective dimension: sociocultural-
interactive dimension:
 Using the senses to  Activating
understand and remember supportive  Interacting to learn
 Activating knowledge emotions, beliefs, and communicate
 Reasoning (inductively, and attitudes (online, in person,
deductively)  Generating and verbally or non-
 Conceptualising with maintaining verbally)
details (making distinction, motivation  Overcoming
analysing and decoding, (positive imagery, knowledge gaps in
sequencing, classifying, self- communication
comparing) entertainment,  Dealing with
 Conceptualizing broadly extrinsic rewards, sociocultural contexts
(synthesising, summarising, defensive and identities
linking) mechanisms, self-
 Going beyond the talk, counter-
immediate data (prediction, discourse)
inference)
Table 3: Strategic Self-Regulation model of language learning (Oxford 2011)
This model is more consistent with latest research research results both from
language learning and educational psychology.
If one wants to go deeper into LLS, one can start from Oxford 1990, “What every
teacher should know” but also peruse the new Strategic self-regulation model for
language learning (2011).
Short Q & A session
Which main differences can you spot between the 2 models?
ANSWER: emphasis on the overarching metacognition, and the affective and

sociocultural domains of learning
Part 2: Strategy Instruction (SI)
Research has demonstrated the positive effect of strategy intervention upon

learning under the proper conditions (Nunan, 1997; Oxford, 2011; Plonsky, 2011).
In the mid-eighties, it was believed that only ‘good’ learners possessed strategic
attributes and poorer ones didn’t. However, research showed that both successful
and unsuccessful learners used language learning strategies. The difference lies in
the way they use them. Unsuccessful learners used strategiess but in a random way
(Ehrman & Oxford 1995).
The key to success was, in fact, metacognitive awareness of the learners. That is,
knowledge of what strategy is appropriate for the task (Anderson 2008) and for their
personality, goals and stage of learning (Ehrman & Oxford 1995). In other words, it
is the quality of the strategies used, not the quantity. Not how many strategies they
used, but how well they selected them, combined and applied them to the task at
hand (Chamot 2008).
Moreover, strategies are not inherently good or bad but they have the potential to
be used effectively. The success or failure of a strategy hinges on the orchestration
of different components of strategic behavior. From selectively attending to a task,
to the analysis of the task, to the choice of decisions, to strategy deployment and
execution, to monitoring and modifying of the plan, and to the evaluation of
strategy effectiveness, flexibility and appropriateness come in every step of the way
(Gu 2007:26).
Explicit and integrated strategy instruction
So, what kind of instruction will be conducive to success on the part of the learners?
Oxford (2011) proposes the term ‘self-regulated strategy instruction’ to refer to the
type of learner behavior we just mentioned: The learner who manages her own
learning, who is aware of how to select and when, and then of what worked and
what didn’t.
Research has shown that this kind of learning behavior is facilitated by explicit
integrated strategy instruction for effective transfer of strategies to new tasks
(Chamot 2004, 2005; Oxford 2011).
As you may infer from the term, explicit strategy instruction is when the teacher
clearly names the strategy, demonstrates its use, explains its usefulness, in a sense
the Teacher thinks aloud while executing the strategy, modeling it. The learners
practice the strategy, evaluate it and discuss how it can be transfered to new tasks
(Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary & Robbins 1999; Grenfell & Harris 1999; Oxford 1990).
In implicit teaching of strategies, on the other hand, advice is provided to learners
on how to perform classroom activities but no explanation or modelling is provided
(Oxford 2011). Research into L1 acquisition (Graham & Harris, 2000) and L2 (Grenfell
& Harris 2004) is in favour of explicit language learning strategy instruction.
The best-known example of explicit language strategy instruction is CALLA

Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach developed by Chamot & O’Malley
in the 1980’s to teach English as a second language together with academic content,
what we today call CLIL Content and Language Intergrated instruction. You can visit
their website at http://apling611-s12-
kiss.wikispaces.umb.edu/CALLA+%28Cognitive+Academic+Language+Learning+Appr
oach%29
And you watch an informative video on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bH1ktKhB2A
Given the young age and the needs of learners in primary and secondary education,
research has shown that direct, explicit instruction of strategies has a strong
advantage and in fact, ideally it should be practiced by teachers of all subject areas
to be effectively mastered by the students (Chamot 2008).
Classroom models of strategy intervention
A number of classroom models for teaching language learning strategies have been
developed over the years (for instance, Chamot et al. 1999; Cohen 1998; Grenfell &
Harris 1999; Macaro 2001; Oxford 1990). They all start instruction with a lot of direct
explicit assistance (or scaffolding), which is gradually withdrawn so that learners
can increase the responsibility they assume for strategy use. This is known as
scaffolding and a good example of how it is to be implemented is Chamot’s 2004
CALLA model as well as others (Grenfell & Harris 1999; Macaro 2001; Oxford 2011)
Most models share a sequence of five steps:
1) Preparation: the teacher raises learners’ awareness of the strategies they are
already using. In this phase, when there is enough time, Oxford (1990, 2011)
proposes a variety of strategy awareness games (such as the Embedded Strategies
Game and the Strategy Search Game, both in Oxford 1990: 24-35). In these games,
learners are given various tasks/situations, and have to brainstorm the strategies
which they will need to accomplish them. In this way, discovery of strategies and
assessment of those used can be conducted through play in an enjoyable manner.
2) Presentation: the teacher uses a simple, easy-to-remember name for the new
strategy, models (i.e., demonstrates) it and explains its use.
3) Practice: the learners are provided with a lot of opportunities to practise the new
strategy.
4) Evaluation: the learners reflect on their strategy use to assess its usefulness.
5) Expansion: the learners transfer the strategy to new tasks in order to realise its
effectiveness in a variety of contexts.
TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY
Preparation
Presentation Attend
Participate
Practice
Apply strategies
with guidance
Evaluation
Assess strategies
Expansion
Use strategies independently
Transfer strategies to new tasks
STUDENT RESPONSIBILITY
Figure 1: A graphic representation of strategy instruction framework for Strategy-based Instruction

(SBI) is the following (Chamot, El-Dinary & Robins 1999).
Preparation 5 min
Presentation
 Step 1: explaining
 Step 2: modeling 15 min
Practice 25 min
Evaluation 10 min
Expansion:
 Similar tasks in assignment
 Other tasks
Table 4: Structure of an SBI lesson (Gu 2007: 29)
Teachers should always be reminded:
 SBI should be integrated into regular teaching

 Students should be encouraged to form the habit of using strategies in language
learning & use
 Teachers should be flexible in using SBI as long as they stay in track
The question is longer whether SBI is effective and should be promoted, but rather
how this can be done (Gu 2007: 32).
In-depth discussion of stages of strategy instruction:
RAISING AWARENESS of strategies
1- begin with a short introduction on strategies
2- use very simple language to explain that strategies are the tools to make learning
easier, faster and more enjoyable. Perhaps mention how even in Ancient Greece,
‘bards’ (eg. Homer) or storytellers used mnemonic (or memory) techniques or
devices to help them remember their lines.
3- identify the strategies your learners are already using. You can use:
 SILL v7: https://richarddpetty.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/sill-english.pdf
 Cohen & Oxford’s (2002) Young Learners’ Language Strategy Use Survey
 Cohen, Oxford & Chi (2002) Language strategy use survey (strategies by skills:
reading, writing, listening speaking, plus vocabulary and grammar
 Andrew Cohen’s site:
https://sites.google.com/a/umn.edu/andrewdcohen/home
You can invite students to write down what they did in order to complete a task
beneath the task. From their responses you could form the picture of the class
strategy profile and base your instruction according to this.
Some students do not realise what they do constitutes a learning strategy or even
that it is ‘legitimate’ do it. So, having the T model the strategy, or possibly
‘legitimise’ it, is beneficial (Cohen 2005: 16).
DEMONSTRATING STRATEGY USE/ MODELLING
4- You can start with a popular task (reading a text, speaking to a stranger on the
street, Cohen 2005:16) be analytical when modeling the strategy. This can be done
by ‘thinking aloud’ during the performance of an L2 task. In other words, you can
describe how you think and, explain in detail every single step you. Afterwards you
can ask students what they remember about what you did first, second, etc. Perhaps
this can be done like a game in which you divide your classroom into groups before
the think-aloud, they write down the actions you took (you will then refer to them
as strategies) and the order in which you took them.
5- Then name the strategy, saying, for example, “I used the strategy of ‘predicting’
to figure out what the story is about”. Since some learners might already know the
strategy, you can ask them if they have used it and why. That is an important way to
get learners to become aware of what strategy is suitable for a task (Rubin et al.,
2007).
Some researchers have produced visual reminders of strategies, some for youger
ages (primary school such as mascots (Gunning et al. 2006, 2007; Robbins n.d.). or
stuffed animals (“Monitoring Monkey”, “Planning Panda”, “Checking Chick”,
“Cooperating Cow”, and many more were created) . Posters with pictures of pre-
adolescent characters for the fifth and sixth grades, or smileys for higher grades.
Gunning et al. (2002) also employed a “strategy wheel” with smiley illustrations and
simple names of strategies. Of course, all these visualization tools should be adjusted
by the learners’ age and personality.
So, perhaps Pokemon strategy characters can be created, in fact TOGETHER with the
students, so they can feel implicated in the process. Once they have understood the
strategy, they can work in pairs, make a Pokemon strategy character and create the
class poster of strategies. Maybe this can be a presentation at a conference, for all
you know! Or a project you can present when the State education consultant
(‘symvoulos’) evaluates your performance as teachers!
PRACTISING
6- You must practice and practice again. The key here is that tasks should pose some
degree of challenge in order to require some strategy intervention. If tasks are too
easy, the learners will not need to use strategies. At initial practice stages, you can
offer them the assistance they need, but gradually you will withdraw, giving them
the responsibility to choose which strategy combination is required by a given task
(scaffolding).
Remember, it is a delicate issue to choose an activity just above your learners’ level
of proficiency, not too easy but neirther too difficult to shatter their confidence. Ok,
this may be easier said than done, but this is one of the challenges of being a
teacher.
Also let us not forget the value of pair- and group-work, that gives learners the
opportunity to observe their more capable/ seasoned peers use and possibly explain
the strategies to one another.
PROJECT TIP: TO POST ON SCHOOL WEBSITE OR TO PARTICIPATE IN A COMENIUS-

TYPE PROGRAM-
Teachers can make a video of students performing a task using a set of strategies,
thinking aloud then assessing the effectiveness of their strats. It can even take the
form of an ‘experiment’ whereby 2 groups follow different paths and then check the
effectiveness of their strategy mix. This ‘project’ can also help highlight the proper
form that evaluation should have in education, as feedback to progress/ diagnostic
tool, raising awareness of one’s capabilities and mistakes.
Ways to facilitate SELF-EVALUATION

7- This is the most important but least practiced stage according to our research. Its
usefulness cannot be stressed enough, not just for learners to create a repertoire of
strategies for given tasks. Overall, it is an invaluable study skill for ALL school
subjects, professional life as well as life as a citizen.
This is the metacognitive strategy of ‘evaluation’: ask your students to note down
the strategies they used for a given activity or assignment, how each strategy
worked for them, and indicate any adjustment they made for each strategy. Then
they can start a class discussion about the usefulness of the strategies for the task.
This can be done with a checklist which learners can then include in their portfolio
or learning log/ diary (Chamot et al. 1999).
The ultimate goal is to create a list of strategies that work for the specific learner,
from which s/he can choose in subsequent, SIMILAR tasks.
8- the stage of metacognitive awareness is essential for transfer to take place.
After the performance of the activity, you can discuss with learners how particular
strategies can be used in different contexts.
More extensive Q & A session as this is the end of the theoretical section.
QUESTIONS
1. What kind of strategy instruction (SI) shall we choose?

2. How many stages are there in the implementation of SI?
3. Which are the most important?
Research results T/F
1. Teach as many strategies as possible FALSE

2. Less is more TRUE
3. Focus on few strategies and apply them in reading only FALSE/TRUE
4. Focus on few strategies and apply them in different skills. TRUE
5. Practice and repractice a chain of strategies at frequent intervals TRUE
6. Practice strategies for language production only. FALSE
Part 3: Strategic profile of Greek secondary education students (THALES PROJECT)

(10 min)
We will now proceed to a reference to the research project we have participated in,
focusing on least practiced strategies by students and teachers.
The research we participated in was conducted in the school year 2013-14. In the
student part of the project 1680 students participated from various districts of
Greece.
I read books and magazines in English for pleasure.

COGNITIVE: Naturalistic learning
I try to learn about the culture of people speaking English

SOCIAL: intercultural awareness
20. I look for people with whom I can speak English.

SOCIAL: speaking
21. I look for opportunities to read in English as much as possible.

METACOGNITIVE: reading
13. I try to guess what the person I am talking to in English will say next.
COMPENSATION: listening
19. I plan my schedule so that I will have enough time to study English.
METACOGNITIVE: Study skills, arrange schedule
3. I use flashcards to remember new words.

MEMORY: visualization
10. I summarise what I hear or read in English.

COGNITIVE: cluster of strategies
24. I discuss with my friends and family how I feel about learning English.
26. I practice English with my classmates.
SOCIAL: Socio-interactive context - family and peers
Table 5: STUDENTS’ use of strategies: LEAST FREQUENTLY used
Q & A session
Do you recognise any of these strategies in your students?

Do these results surprise you? Are they expected?
Which of these do you consider more important so they need some kind of
intervention?
Is there any difference in terms of age? Are 3rd graders different from 1st graders?
When I teach a new word, I pronounce it and at the same time present an
image or use real objects so that students can memorise it easier. MEMORY
I teach a new word using dialogues, stories, songs, etc. MEMORY
When I teach new words, I use rhyme so that students can memorise them
easier (e.g. away-day- play/cry-buy-imply). MEMORY
I ask students to summarise information they hear or read in English.

COGNITIVE
I encourage students to use gestures when they cannot think of a word as they
speak English. COMPENSATION
I advise students to search unknown words necessary for understanding a text

in a dictionary. COMPENSATION
After an exercise or activity in which I asked my students to use strategies, I

discuss with them their impressions concerning the effectiveness of the
particular strategies, whether they found them useful or not. METACOGNITIVE
I urge students to discuss with others (eg. friends and family) how they feel
when they learn English. AFFECTIVE
To help the students relax, I use songs, role-play or handicraft. AFFECTIVE
I recommend to students to ask people who can speak English fluently to

correct them when they make mistakes. SOCIAL
Table 6: TEACHER practices indicating THE LOWEST frequency of use
The practices with lowest (medium in terms of SILL) frequency of use (3.4-2.5),
which are used in a less systematic way, are according to the categories of the
questionnaire 3 of the memory, 2 of the compensation, and one from the cognitive,
affective and social categories of teacher SI practices. In other words, teachers do
not make regular use of the significant cognitive strategies of summarising,
teaching words in context and using independent learning resources like the
dictionary (print or online). Moreover, while teachers perform the initial stages of
strategy instruction, modelling and practising, they place less emphasis on the
evaluation stages, whereby students are invited to self-reflect on the effectiveness
of the strategy and the appropriateness for the task. Research suggests that more
‘monitoring-focused training is needed for consolidation and transfer. When first
applying a strategy and in order for learners to understand its utility it is beneficial
to highlight all its details and go through all the five stages of implementation.
Summing up and drawing on our presentation on teacher practices yesterday,

research has demonstrated that SI is more effective when we
a) when we focus on fewer strategies rather than the whole spectrum (Plonsky
2011:1014), and
b) when we focus on specific skills such as vocabulary or writing, what Chamot

(1994) called the ‘less-is-more approach’, Moreover, when we
c) implement the intervention for longer time periods for effective consolidation,
which allows the learners to build their individual repertoire of strategies.
BREAK
Part 4: Training in Strategy Instruction (75 min in total)
LEARNING ACTIVITY 1: Summarising (30 min)
Facilitator Note: Facilitators are encouraged to provide copies of activity 7 of the

FLLSI guide (p.144-150). They briefly go over the activity with the workshop
participants, who act as students in the classroom (microteaching). They draw
attention to the importance of going through all 5 stages of the activity. If time and
the resources (computer lab with internet access) allow, they ask trainees to find
other texts to use for summarizing either from online resources or from the set
textbooks. Trainees may exchange texts to prepare mindmaps of the main points.
Participant Materials: activity handout
Key Discussion Points and Take-Away
Discussion can revolve around:
1. the usefulness of summarising for reading comprehension and writing in

general but also for development of further writing tasks such as compositions
and essay writing. It is also important to demonstrate how EFL teachers and
students you can easily produce your own mind-maps.
2. The fact that summarizing involves a cluster of strategies such as: reading for
gist, getting the idea quickly, highlighting the main points and identifying the
supporting examples to be deleted in the subsequent summary, reasoning
deductively, recombining ideas to indicate their relationship (e.g. cause – effect,
order of events). This is the reason why summarizing is considered such a
difficult task for students of all ages. In other words, textbooks or EFL teachers
mostly treat it as an activity which proves to be very complex cognitivewise for
young learners and thus they either avoid it or mess it up. The purpose here is to
break down the summarizing process into its cognitive constituents such as
refered to above, so that students can grasp it effectively.
LEARNING ACTIVITY 2: developing cultural understanding (social strategy) (15 min)
Facilitator Note: Facilitators are encouraged to provide copies of activity 5 of the

FLLSI guide. They briefly go over the activity with the participants, drawing
attention to the importance of going through all 5 stages of the activity.
Description of the activity: strange facts about other countries
The strategy name is empathising with others/ (Oxford 1990: 172-3)
This section raises awareness of the function of English as International Language, a

means of communication among people from different cultural backgrounds.
Crosscultural differences may give rise to misunderstandings.
Preparation
Participants brainstorm on strategies they already use to work around cross-

cultural misunderstandings and are made aware of the strategies of developing
cultural understanding (social), making comparisons (cognitive), suspending

judgement and guessing intelligently by using non-linguistic clues.
Modelling
The facilitator illustrates how the strategies work on one example from the
handout.
Practice/Scaffolding
Participants are invited to practice the strategy on the remaining cases on the
handout.
Evaluation
Partcipants are invited to reflect on whether they found the strategy helpful.
Expansion/Transfer
The facilitator suggests how further practice can be made on other topics (silence
tolerance, distance, table manners, food preferences, etc).
After the activity, discussion can revolve around ways in which learners can become
aware of possible areas of cross-cultural mismatches. The facilitator can indicate the
ethnographic approach (Byram, M. & Fleming, M. (Eds.) (1998) Language Learning in
Intercultural Perspective; Approaches through drama and ethnography, Cambrige, CUP),
whereby the effective cross-cultural communicator can become aware of cross-
cultural differences by observing communication events.
LEARNING ACTIVITY 3: Encouraging yourself, taking risks wisely (affective strategy)

(20 min)
Facilitator Note:
Facilitators are encouraged to provide copies of activity 9 of the FLLSI guide. They
briefly go over the activity with the participants, drawing attention to the
importance of going through all 5 stages of the activity.
Raising awareness
Participants are made aware of the tendency most language users have of avoiding
communication in order not to make mistakes, and how this insecurity deprives
learners of language practice and learning opportunities. They are made aware of
the need to encourage learners to use whtever resources are available to them to
communicate.
Description of the activity
Participants are made aware of the strategies of encouraging yourself, and taking
risks wisely.
Preparation
Participants are given instructions for the activity. In order to be relieved of

performance stress, they will participate in a role-play activity, not as themselves
but as others, of varying Proficiency levels.
Modelling
Facilitators provide an example of the range of responses anticipated.
Practice/ Scaffolding:
Participants practice
Evaluation
Participants are asked if they found the activity helpful. Lower proficiency
prticipants may be asked if they noticed linguistic means that more proficient
participants used that they would like to use in the future.
Expansion/Transfer
Participants can be encouraged to take risks and speak about other subjects,
especially pleasant for them to alleviate possible stress.

After the activity, discussion can revolve around linguistic areas that can be taught
and practiced in this way to enhance less confident/ proficient language users to
take risks and seek opportunities to use the language.
Lower-level students are exposed to higher levels of linguistic ability and gain
second-hand experience of what they could say if they improved their language
competence. The fact that this is done through their (more advanced) peers rather
than the teacher helps them realise the feasibility of the task.
PLENARY DISCUSSION
Discussion can revolve around:
1. The feasibility of incorporating strategy instruction into the curriculum,

without diverging from its main aims, how it can be harmonized with the
teaching materials of Lower Secondary Education.
2. The suggestion can be made that each instructor could take the pulse of her
own class, discover her students’ strategy needs, even introduce an
individualized strategy portfolio.
3. It is important to highlight the need for systematic practice of few strategies
rather than the whole range for better consolidation and effective
implementation by the students (p. Plonsky 2011)
4. It is also important to decide on names for the strategies, ideally suggested
by the students in a playful way, and create a poster for the classroom wall
to remind students and for the teachers to easily refer back to them when
needed.
CLOSING DOWN THE SESSION
The facilitator can underline the significance of strategies for enhancing the
learners’ self-regulation. She can stress how language materials in the knowledge
and internet era abound, and how strategies can empower learners to make the
most of resources (physical or virtual) and communication opportunities (similarly,
physical or otherwise) to improve their language competence as well as their sense
of accomplishment.
APPENDIX: PARTICIPANT HANDOUTS
ACTIVITY 7: GETTING THE GIST WITH MIND MAPS, FLLSI, p.144

Strategy name: summarising (cognitive)
Assisting strategies: highlighting, getting the idea quickly, taking notes (cognitive),
paying attention, organising (metacognitive)
Teaching material A
Aardvarks live throughout Africa, south of the Sahara. Their name comes from
South Africa's Afrikaans language and means "earth pig." A glimpse of the
aardvark's body and long snout brings the pig to mind. On closer inspection, the
aardvark appears to include other animal features as well. It boasts rabbitlike ears
and a kangaroo tail—yet the aardvark is related to none of these animals.
Aardvarks are nocturnal. They spend the hot African afternoon holed up in cool
underground burrows dug with their powerful feet and claws that resemble small
spades. After sunset, aardvarks put those claws to good use in acquiring their
favorite food—termites.
While foraging in grasslands and forests aardvarks, also called "antbears," may
travel several miles a night in search of large, earthen termite mounds. A hungry
aardvark digs through the hard shell of a promising mound with its front claws and
uses its long, sticky, wormlike tongue to feast on the insects within. It can close its
nostrils to keep dust and insects from invading its snout, and its thick skin protects
it from bites. It uses a similar technique to raid underground ant nests.
Female aardvarks typically give birth to one newborn each year. The young remain
with their mother for about six months before moving out and digging their own
burrows, which can be extensive dwellings with many different openings.
Alternative Teaching material
An alternative text is an encyclopedic text on

cyberbullying.
Cyberbullying
Bullying among children and teenagers is not something new but thanks to modern
methods of communication it has risen extremely.
Cyberbullying happens when a child or teenager is threatened, embarrassed or put

in danger by another child or teenager. This is done especially through modern
means of communication like the Internet, social media networks or mobile phones.
This kind of bullying has become extremely popular because it allows teens and
children to stay anonymous. It is easier to become aggressive towards someone on
the Internet than it is face to face. Many think they won’t get caught.
Cyberbullies act in many different ways. They harass others by sending photos or
text messages to cell phones or by posting them on Facebook. Sometimes they send
junk mail with sexual remarks or steal passwords of other children or teenagers and
log on to websites with false identities. Children play internet games in which they
tease each other in various ways.
Many children and adolescents act this way out of different reasons. They might be
frustrated or jealous because someone else has better marks. They want to take
revenge on somebody for something that has happened to them. At other times,
they do it just for fun or become cyberbullies because they are bored and have
nothing else to do.
Parents face the fact that they don’t know their child is a cyberbully. They realize it
when the victim or the victim’s parents contact them.
For victims it is important not to respond to bullies and ignore them. They should
not play a bully’s game or answer their emails and text messages. It is also
important to get help from parents and teachers. Many children are afraid to tell
anyone that they are being harassed because they feel ashamed.
Often schools get involved. They bring together the parents of victims and
cyberbullies and talk with them. Cyberbullying does not always end at school. Often,
parents go to the police and press charges against cyberbullies.
ACTIVITY 5- STRANGE FACTS ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES, FLLSI, p.134
Strategy name: empathising with others/ developing cultural understanding (social)

(Oxford 1990: 172-3)
Assisting strategies: making comparisons (cognitive), guessing intelligently by using

non-linguistic clues (compensation)
Yiannis met Hiro at University. They became friends and Hiro invited him
to his home in Japan. Yiannis brought 12 white roses for Hiro’s mum and a
tie for his dad. The tie was not wrapped; it was in a Duty Free bag. He gave
the roses with his left hand and the tie with his right hand. Surprisingly,
Hiro’s mum and dad seemed displeased and didn’t smile.
What went wrong?
http://www.1worldglobalgifts.com/japangiftgivingetiquette.htm
Clue: ‘why are we told with which hands he gave the gifts?’ Are they significant or
are they distractions?’
Answer: White for the Japanese means death and white flowers are not a good gift.
Gifts should be wrapped and given with both hands to show respect.
Practice/Scaffolding
Case 1-
Yiannis went to Morocco to visit a friend’s family. Yiannis is left

handed. They sat down at the table where the food was served. He
reached out for the food and everyone gave him an angry look.
What went wrong?
Clue- ‘why are we told he is left-handed?’
Case 2-
Yiannis left for Paris on a student exchange trip. He’s out dining with
his new friends’ family.
His wine glass is empty, so he reaches out for the bottle and refills it. His company is
not impressed.
What went wrong?
Clue- ‘why would ‘refilling your glass’ be considered rude?’
Case 3-
Yiannis went to Hungary on a student exchange program. He visits his

friend’s house bringing a lovely Greek wine as a gift. He had trouble
finding the house, so he is 40 minutes late.
His friend’s mum gets to the door but is not as enthusiastic as Yiannis had hoped.
What went wrong?

Clue- ‘what gift do you bring when you visit someone for the first time?’
KEY
Answer 1: In India and Morocco people eat with their hands but they only use the
right hand for food. The left hand is considered unclean and it is for other duties.
Answer 2: In France it is rude to only refill your glass without refilling everybody
else’s.
Answer 3: In Hungary you are not supposed to show up late and you’d better bring
chocolates, flowers or some liquor, but not wine. Hungarians are proud of their
wine.
Links to visit:
http://www.1worldglobalgifts.com
http://www.travelandleisure.com/slideshows/worlds-worst-cultural-mistakes/6
ACTIVITY 9- AS GOOD AS IT GETS, FLLSI, p.158
Strategy name: encouraging yourself, taking risks wisely.
Assisting strategies: cooperating with peers (social), adjusting or approximating the

message/overcoming limitations in speaking (compensation).
Topic: ‘complaining about the facilities of a hotel (service, heating and furniture).
Team1- Portuguese football player
I got the cheap room because I had no money. The service was bad. The room was
cold and the furniture was bad.
Team 2- Chinese exchange student
I got the cheap room because I didn’t have enough money. The service was bad. The
room was cold and the furniture was in bad condition.
Team 3- snobbish Vivian
I booked the inexpensive room because I couldn’t afford a more expensive one. The
service was poor/ of low quality. There was no heating and the furniture was in
poor repair.
Extra teaching material
Data card ONE:
Describing our favourite star
Points to be mentioned:
Nationality
Job
Physical appearance
Work he/she is most known for
Data card TWO:
Describing your ideal holiday destination
Points to be mentioned:
Location
Natural sight
Cultural sight
Traditional dish to be sampled

Στρατηγικές εκμάθησης της ελληνικής για μαθητές των μειονοτικών σχολείων:
Δημιουργία δραστηριοτήτων βασισμένων στην ύλη των σχολικών εγχειριδίων
Λύδια Μίτιτς & Γεωργία Χαμζαδάκη
lydiamitits@gmail.com, youham@hotmail.com
Περιγραφή του εργαστηρίου
Το εργαστήριο απευθύνεται στους δασκάλους και φιλολόγους οι οποίοι διδάσκουν
την Ελληνική ως ξένη ή δεύτερη γλώσσα στο επίπεδο Γ2 είτε σε μαθητές των
μειονοτικών δημοτικών σχολείων και γυμνασίων/λυκείων είτε σε τμήματα ένταξης.
Ο στόχος είναι η γνωριμία με τις στρατηγικές εκμάθησης της γλώσσας και ο τρόπος
με τον οποίο αυτές μπορούν να ενταχτούν στην διδασκαλία των σχολικών
εγχειριδίων (συνολική διάρκεια 3 ώρες).
Τα προσδοκώμενα αποτελέσματα:
Οι συμμετέχοντες:
1. Να γνωρίσουν στρατηγικές εκμάθησης μιας γλώσσας.
2. Να κατανοήσουν τη σημασία της χρήσης στρατηγικών εκμάθησης μιας γλώσσας
και αναγνώριση της στρατηγικής που χρησιμοποιούν.
3. Να είναι σε θέση να εναλλάσσουν τις στρατηγικές τους ανάλογα με το είδος της
δραστηριότητας (εκμάθηση λεξιλογίου, σύγκριση παλιάς με νέα γνώση,
ενεργοποίηση του ενδιαφέροντος των μαθητών για συγκεκριμένη περιοχή γνώσης,
απομνημόνευση πληροφοριών, συστηματοποίηση της νέας γνώσης).

4. Να κατανοήσουν τη σημασία του διαλόγου και της εργασίας σε ομάδες
προκειμένου να αποκτήσει ενδιαφέρον η εκπαιδευτική διαδικασία και να
εμπλουτιστεί η παραγόμενη εργασία των μαθητών.
5. Να μάθουν πώς να σχεδιάζουν δραστηριότητες οι οποίες περιέχουν την διδασκαλία
των στρατηγικών.
Σχεδιασμός:
Το εργαστήριο χωρίζεται σε τρία μέρη. Στο πρώτο μέρος γίνεται η γνωριμία μεταξύ
των συμμετεχόντων και των σκοπών του εργαστηρίου. Το δεύτερο μέρος αποτελεί τη
θεωρητική παρουσίαση του θέματος. Το τρίτο μέρος είναι βιωματικό και αποτελεί
εφαρμογή στρατηγικών εκμάθησης σε συγκεκριμένο υλικό.
Εξοπλισμός και υλικό:
Παρουσίαση power point, κοχύλια για τις δραστηριότητες γνωριμίας και κλεισίματος
της συνάντησης, φωτοτυπημένες καρτέλες Bingo, φωτοτυπίες πινάκων καταγραφής
ομαδικών εργασιών για κάθε δραστηριότητα.
Πηγές:
Ξενόγλωσση βιβλιογραφία
Borzova, E. (2014). Mingles in the Foreign Language Classroom. English Teaching

Forum N. 2. pp. 20-27.
Houston ISD Literacy Project (2012). Literacy in the Content Areas. Region 4, Education
Service Center. http://www.esc4.net/users/0212/Participant%20Handout.pdf
Ανακτηθηκε στις 5-05-2015.
Joyce, C. (2008). Venn diagrams. Ministry of Education, Wellington, New Zealand. New
Zealand Council for Educational Research.
https://arbs.nzcer.org.nz/strategies/venn.php Ανακτήθηκε στις 5-05-2015.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New
York: Newbury House / Harper & Row. Now Boston: Heinle & Heine.
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.
Ελληνόγλωσση βιβλιογραφία
Βιβλία αγγλικής γλώσσας (Αγγλικά Ε΄Δημοτικού - Pupils Book (ΟΕΔΒ).
Εγχειρίδια Γεωγραφίας Ε΄Δημοτικού: Μαθαίνω την Ελλάδα (σελ. 69, Κεφάλαιο 20ο).
Εγχειρίδια προγράμματος Μουσουλμανοπαίδων Στ΄Δημοτικού: Βιβλίο 1ο – Μάθημα:
«Το πάντα Γίγας», σελ.22.
Οδηγίες για τον επιμορφωτή
1ο Μέρος
Καλωσόρισμα και στοχοθέτηση (20 λεπτά)
Δραστηριότητα 1 (Δραστηριότητα γνωριμίας με κοχύλια) (10 λεπτά)
Ο καθένας/μια διαλέγει τρία κοχύλια. Καθόμαστε σε κύκλο και καθένας/μια βάζει
ένα κοχύλι στο κουτί που είναι στη μέση λέγοντας μια σημαντική πληροφορία για
τον εαυτό του. Κάθε φορά τοποθετείται μόνο ένα κοχύλι. Έτσι ο γύρος γίνεται 3
φορές.
Δραστηριότητα 2 (Τεχνική «Ανταλλάσσοντας απόψεις» (Borzova 2014) (10 λεπτά)
Οι επιμορφούμενοι περπατούν και σκέφτονται ποιες προσδοκίες και ποιους φόβους
έχουν για το σεμινάριο. Μόλις ακουστεί το κουδουνάκι σταματούν και συζητούν με
τον κοντινότερο σε αυτούς συνάδελφο για τους φόβους και τις προσδοκίες που
έχουν από το σεμινάριο.
Κουδουνάκι- περπάτημα. Κουδουνάκι- συζήτηση με διαφορετικό άτομο. Η διαδικασία
γίνεται τρεις φορές. Καθόμαστε σε κύκλο και ανακοινώνουν αυτά που άκουσαν.
Χωρισμός σε ομάδες των 5 ατόμων

Μέρος 2ο Θεωρητικό μέρος
Α. Εξοικείωση των συμμετεχόντων με το θέμα και χρήση της τεχνικής «Ιδεοθύελλα»
(brainstorming) για ανάκτηση πληροφοριών σχετικών με το θέμα
Δραστηριότητα 3 ( 10 λεπτά)
Σχόλιο επιμορφωτή: Απαντήστε στις ερωτήσεις του ερωτηματολογίου. (βλ.
παράρτημα 1)
Υλικό για τους συμμετέχοντες: Ερωτηματολόγιο (Oxford 1990) (βλ. παράρτημα 1)
Περιγραφή: Οι συμμετέχοντες απαντούν στις ερωτήσεις του ερωτηματολόγιου.
Τα βασικά σημεία συζήτησης και τα αποκομισθέντα οφέλη: Ενεργοποίηση των
σχετικών γνώσεων και εμπειριών.
Σχόλιο επιμορφωτή: Κατηγοριοποιήστε τις στρατηγικές του ερωτηματολόγιού
σύμφωνα με την παραπάνω ταξινόμηση. (βλ. παράρτημα 2)
Υλικό για τους συμμετέχοντες: Ερωτηματολόγιο και φωτοτυπημένο υλικό.
Περιγραφή: Οι συμμετέχοντες διαβάζουν την κατηγοριοποίηση και προσπαθούν να
εντάξουν τις μεμονωμένες στρατηγικές.
Τα βασικά σημεία συζήτησης και τα αποκομισθέντα οφέλη: Εξοικείωση των
συμμετεχόντων με τις στρατηγικές.
Σχόλιο επιμορφωτή: Θυμηθείτε τις δικές σας εμπειρίες όταν μαθαίνατε μια
καινούργια γλώσσα. Ποιες από τις έξι κατηγορίες στρατηγικών (Μνημονικές,
Γνωστικές, Αντισταθμιστικές, Μεταγνωστικές, Συναισθηματικές, Κοινωνικές)
χρησιμοποιούσατε πιο συχνά/λιγότερο; Ποιες δεν χρησιμοποιήσατε ποτέ; Συζητήστε

πώς θα μπορούσε η χρήση αυτών των στρατηγικών να σας φανεί χρήσιμη. Δώστε
παραδείγματα για το πώς εσείς χρησιμοποιήσατε κάποιες στρατηγικές. Συζητήστε
πώς θα μπορούσαν οι μαθητές σας να χρησιμοποιούν στρατηγικές για να μάθουν την
ελληνική.
Υλικό για τους συμμετέχοντες: Φωτοτυπημένο υλικό.
Περιγραφή: Συζήτηση σε ομάδες.
Τα βασικά σημεία συζήτησης και τα αποκομισθέντα οφέλη: Εμβάθυνση και εμπέδωση
του θέματος.
Β. Θεωρητικό υπόβαθρο
1. Οι στρατηγικές μάθησης αποτελούν πνευματικές δραστηριότητες, γεγονός
που σημαίνει ότι παρουσιάζουν είτε φυσική είτε πνευματική συμπεριφορά.
2. Είναι συχνά συνειδητές. Αν και οι στρατηγικές μπορεί κάποιες φορές να
χρησιμοποιούνται αυτόματα, αυτό αφορά κυρίως το εκτελεστικό κομμάτι και
όχι τη συνολική εκδήλωση της στρατηγικής.
3. Η στρατηγική συμπεριφορά υποδηλώνει δραστηριότητα που στοχεύει στην
επίτευξη ενός στόχου, στόχων ή προθέσεων.
4. Οι στρατηγικές μάθησης επιλέγονται από τους μαθητές και η επιλογή αυτή
εξαρτάται από παράγοντες που αφορούν στο συγκείμενο περιβάλλον
(μέθοδος μάθησης/διδασκαλίας, μαθησιακή κατάσταση ή απαιτήσεις
συγκεκριμένης δραστηριότητας), το άτομο (κίνητρα, στυλ μάθησης, ηλικία,
φύλο, εθνικότητα, κουλτούρα, προσωπικότητα) και τη φύση του μαθησιακού
στόχου.
5. Οι στρατηγικές μάθησης είναι προσανατολισμένες στη λύση ενός
προβλήματος. Οι μαθητές χρησιμοποιούν μια συγκεκριμένη στρατηγική για

να ανταποκριθούν σε συγκεκριμένες μαθησιακές ανάγκες και να ξεπεράσουν
ένα συγκεκριμένο πρόβλημα.
6. Μια στρατηγική μάθησης είναι αποτελεσματική, όταν συνδυάζεται με άλλες
στρατηγικές, είτε ταυτόχρονα ή σε ακολουθία, δημιουργώντας με αυτό τον
τρόπο δεσμίδα στρατηγικών.
7. Οι στρατηγικές μάθησης δεν περιορίζονται μόνο σε γνωστικές και
μεταγνωστικές λειτουργίες, αλλά περιλαμβάνουν και την
κοινωνικοσυναισθηματική πλευρά.
8. Οι μαθητές χρησιμοποιούν τις στρατηγικές μάθησης, για να κατευθύνουν ή να
ελέγξουν τη μάθησή τους. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο, αποκτούν μεγαλύτερη
αυτοπεποίθηση, συμμετέχουν ενεργά στην εκπαιδευτική διαδικασία και
γίνονται σταδιακά περισσότερο υπεύθυνοι και αυτόνομοι.
9. Οι στρατηγικές μπορούν να αποτελέσουν αντικείμενο διδασκαλίας και είναι
σημαντικές, επειδή ακριβώς συμβάλλουν στην αποτελεσματική εκμάθηση.
10. Οι στρατηγικές διευρύνουν το ρόλο του εκπαιδευτικού κάνοντάς τον πιο
ποικίλο και δημιουργικό. Ειδικότερα, στο πλαίσιο της διδασκαλίας των
στρατηγικών ο εκπαιδευτικός έχει ρόλο συμβουλευτικό, βοηθητικό,
συντονιστικό, διαγνωστικό, διευκολύνει τη διαδικασία μάθησης και
επικοινωνεί με τους μαθητές.
Γ. Ομαδικές εργασίες – εμπέδωση της θεωρίας
Σχόλιο επιμορφωτή: Οι μαθητές είναι υπεύθυνοι για την εκμάθηση της γλώσσας απόλυτα
και ολοκληρωτικά. Εκείνοι θέτουν τους στόχους, ορίζουν το περιεχόμενο, επιλέγουν τις
μεθόδους και τις τεχνικές που θα χρησιμοποιήσουν, επιβλέπουν την διαδικασία μάθησης
και αξιολογούν τα αποτελέσματα. Οι δάσκαλοι μπορούν να βοηθήσουν τους μαθητές να
αναλάβουν αυτή την ευθύνη, αλλά η τελική ευθύνη είναι των μαθητών.
Συμφωνείτε;
Υλικό για τους συμμετέχοντες: PowerPoint με το παραπάνω απόσπασμα.
Περιγραφή: Συζήτηση σε ομάδα.
Τα βασικά σημεία συζήτησης και τα αποκομισθέντα οφέλη: Ευκαιρία για τους
συμμετέχοντες να χρησιμοποιούσουν τις καινούριες γνώσεις για να
επιχειρηματολογήσουν.
Σχόλιο επιμορφωτή: Διαβάστε την παρακάτω λίστα στην οποία περιγράφονται
κάποιες συμπεριφορές διαχείρισης της τάξης και απαντήστε στις ακόλουθες
ερωτήσεις.
Υλικό για τους συμμετέχοντες: Φωτοτυπημένο υλικό.
Περιγραφή: Ατομική άσκηση.
Τα βασικά σημεία συζήτησης και τα αποκομισθέντα οφέλη: Σκιαγράφηση του προφίλ
του εκπαιδευτικού σχετικά με το στρατηγικό του προφίλ.
Συμπεριφορές
1. Ενθαρρύνω πολύ τους μαθητές για τις προσπάθειες που κάνουν.
2. Ορίζω την θέση μου ως κυρίαρχη σε σχέση με τους μαθητές.
3. Αγνοώ την έλλειψη πειθαρχίας αλλά επαινώ τη σωστή συμπεριφορά.
4. Καθιστώ τους μαθητές υπευθύνους για την μάθησή τους.
5. Μαθαίνω τα ονόματα των μαθητών γρήγορα.
6. Κρατάω της απουσίες και βάζω βαθμούς τακτικά.

7. Είμαι ζεστός/η, φιλικός/η και ανοιχτός/η με τους μαθητές.
8. Καθορίζω την ημερησία και εβδομαδιαία ρουτίνα.
9. Απειλώ με τιμωρία τους μαθητές που είναι απείθαρχοι.
10. Οργανώνω δραστηριότητες οι οποίες πραγματοποιούνται σε απόλυτη ησυχία.
Ερωτήσεις
1. Ποιες από τις παραπάνω συμπεριφορές είναι οι πιο κατάλληλες στην τάξη;
2. Ποιες προαπαιτούν την επιβολή κύρους του δασκάλου;
3. Ποιες περιέχουν τη μείωση της κοινωνικής απόστασης ανάμεσα σε δάσκαλο και
μαθητή;
4. Ποιες συμπεριφορές έχουν σχέση με την ολοκλήρωση μιας δραστηριότητας;
5. Πώς επηρεάζουν αυτές οι συμπεριφορές τα κίνητρα των μαθητών;
6. Ποιες συμπεριφορές περιμένουν από σας οι μαθητές σας; Οι γονείς τους; Η διοίκηση
του σχολείου;
7. Τι σχέση έχουν αυτές οι συμπεριφορές με τις έξι ομάδες στρατηγικών που μάθαμε
σήμερα (Μνημονικές, Γνωστικές, Αντισταθμιστικές, Μεταγνωστικές,
Συναισθηματικές, Κοινωνικές);
3ο Μέρος
Εφαρμογή στρατηγικών εκμάθησης και δραστηριότητες που βασίζονται στην ύλη
των σχολικών Εγχειριδίων
Δραστηριότητα 8 (20 λεπτά)
Σχόλιο επιμορφωτή: Γνωρίζω το βιβλίο μου (Γνωριμία με το εγχειρίδιο του
μαθήματος)
Υλικό για τους συμμετέχοντες: Εγχειρίδιο: Αγγλικά Ε΄Δημοτικού - Pupils’ Book
(ΟΕΔΒ)
Περιγραφή: Στο βιβλίο αγγλικών της Ε΄ Δημοτικού ανακαλύψτε σε ποια σελίδα
αναφέρεται
Τα βασικά σημεία συζήτησης και τα αποκομισθέντα οφέλη: Η γνωριμία και η
εξοικείωση των μαθητών με το εγχειρίδιο που θα χρησιμοποιήσουν στη διάρκεια της
χρονιάς είναι πολύ σημαντική. Ορίστε έναν εκπρόσωπο της ομάδας και ανακοινώστε
στην ολομέλεια:
α)Ποιες στρατηγικές χρησιμοποιήσατε για να βρείτε τα σημεία αυτά στο βιβλίο;
β)Σε ποια κατηγορία ανήκει αυτή η στρατηγική;
γ)Σε τι μας βοηθάει να βρίσκουμε ποια στρατηγική χρησιμοποιήσαμε;
Σχόλιο επιμορφωτή: Τεχνικές Χαρτογράφησης της σκέψης (Brainstorming-
Ξέρω/Θέλω να μάθω/Έμαθα-Τεχνική ελεύθερης συζήτησης με όλους τους
συμμετέχοντες – Τεχνική Venn Diagram (Joyce 2008)
Υλικό για τους συμμετέχοντες: Βιβλίο Γεωγραφίας Ε΄Δημοτικού Μαθαίνω την Ελλάδα
σελ. 69 - Κεφάλαιο 20ο
Περιγραφή:
 Ιδεοθύελλα (Brainstorming) με τη λέξη «λίμνη». Πείτε ό,τι σας έρχεται
αυθόρμητα ακούγοντας τη λέξη «λίμνη».
 Ξέρω/Θέλω να μάθω/Έμαθα.
Γράψτε στον πίνακα – τι ξέρετε ήδη για το θέμα- τι θα θέλατε να μάθετε ακόμη – στο
τέλος σημειώστε τι καινούριο μάθατε.

 Τεχνική Venn Diagram (Joyce 2008)
Χωριστείτε σε 4 ομάδες. Κάθε ομάδα θα μελετήσει μόνο τα κεφάλαια που αφορούν
τις λίμνες που αναφέρονται στο έντυπο που θα συμπληρώσετε με τις πληροφορίες
που σας ζητούνται:
1η ομάδα: λίμνη Τριχωνίδα- λίμνη Στυμφαλία
2η ομάδα: λίμνη Στυμφαλία- λιμνοθάλασσα Μεσολογγίου
3η ομάδα: λίμνη Τριχωνίδα- λιμνοθάλασσα Μεσολογγίου
4η ομάδα: λίμνη Τριχωνίδα-λίμνη Ιωαννίνων
Κατόπιν καταγράψτε τα διαφορετικά χαρακτηριστικά τους. Στους δυο τεμνόμενους
κύκλους γράψτε στο κέντρο τα κοινά στοιχεία των δυο λιμνών. Σε κάθε κύκλο
γράψτε τα διαφορετικά στοιχεία που καταγράψατε στον πίνακα.
Τίθεται η ερώτηση: Πώς οι λίμνες της Μικρής και Μεγάλης Πρέσπας μπορούν να
ενώσουν τους λαούς των γειτονικών χωρών)
 Τεχνική ελεύθερης συζήτησης – Περπατήστε ελεύθερα στο χώρο κα συζητήστε
με τους συναδέλφους σας τις απόψεις και τις ιδέες σας για το ερώτημα που τέθηκε.
Στη συνέχεια καθίστε στην ομάδα σας και καταγράψτε τις ιδέες που σας φάνηκαν πιο
σημαντικές.
Τα βασικά σημεία συζήτησης και τα αποκομισθέντα οφέλη: Η χαρτογράφηση των
πρότερων γνώσεων και των αυθόρμητων ιδεών των μαθητών για ένα θέμα είναι
πολύ σημαντική έτσι ώστε να μπορέσουμε να κατευθύνουμε τη διδασκαλία μας στα
σημεία που υπάρχουν δυσκολίες, αλλά και να μπορέσουμε να δώσουμε την ευκαιρία
στους μαθητές μας να κάνουν τη σύγκριση των λανθασμένων πρότερων εντυπώσεών
τους με τις νέες πληροφορίες έτσι ώστε να τις ανασκευάσουν. Η τεχνική της
χαρτογράφησης μας δίνει τη δυνατότητα να ενεργοποιήσουμε την περιέργεια των

μαθητών μας για τη νέα γνώση, να μπουν στη διαδικασία να αναρωτηθούν τι θα τους
ενδιέφερε να μάθουν, έτσι ώστε να κερδίσουμε την προσοχή τους και τη διάθεσή τους
να ερευνούν μόνοι τους. Ενεργοποιούμε επίσης την ικανότητά τους να θέτουν
ερωτήματα και να συνειδητοποιούν τη νέα γνώση που προσέγγισαν σε κάθε μάθημα.
Η τεχνική της σύγκρισης των πληροφοριών και η συστηματική καταγραφή των
κοινών και διαφορετικών χαρακτηριστικών οδηγεί στη συστηματοποίηση και την
απομνημόνευση πληροφοριών. Η συζήτηση τέλος με κίνηση μέσα στην τάξη δίνει
την ευκαιρία για μεγαλύτερη αλληλεπίδραση με το σύνολο των μαθητών της τάξης.
Προάγει τη διάθεση για διάλογο και ανταλλαγή απόψεων και αναπτύσσει τις
ικανότητες διαλόγου.
Σχόλιο επιμορφωτή: Παιχνίδι Bingo για την εκμάθηση λεξιλογίου
Υλικό για τους συμμετέχοντες: Καρτέλες με τις λέξεις που καλούνται να μάθουν την
ερμηνεία τους.
Περιγραφή: Κάθε ομάδα παίρνει μια καρτέλα Bingo με 6 νέες λέξεις που
περιλαμβάνονται στο μάθημα. Κάθε φορά που ακούνε μια ερμηνεία από τον
επιμορφωτή, θα κοιτάζουν τις λέξεις τους και θα βάζουν ένα Χ στη λέξη που
αντιστοιχεί η ερμηνεία. Η πρώτη ομάδα που θα συμπληρώσει όλη την καρτέλα
φωνάζει bingo !!!
Τα βασικά σημεία συζήτησης και τα αποκομισθέντα οφέλη: Το παιχνίδι bingo αυξάνει
την προσοχή των παιδιών και ενεργοποιεί τις δυνατότητές τους να
απομνημονεύσουν το νέο άγνωστο λεξιλόγιο.
Σχόλιο επιμορφωτή: Μέθοδος I.N.S.E.R.T. (Interactive Noting System for Effective

Reading and Thinking) (Houston ISD Literacy Project 2012)
Υλικό για τους συμμετέχοντες: Κείμενο από το βιβλίο του προγράμματος
Μουσουλμανοπαίδων «Βιβλίο με Λόγια» - Τάξη Στ΄ - Βιβλίο 1ο – Μάθημα: «Το πάντα
Γίγας», σελ. 22
Περιγραφή: Διαβάστε το κείμενο και δίπλα από τις προτάσεις σημειώστε:
√ όταν διαβάζετε κάτι που το γνωρίζετε
- όταν διαβάζετε κάτι που έρχεται σε αντίθεση με αυτό που ξέρατε
+ αν μάθατε μια καινούρια πληροφορία
? αν κάτι σας μπερδεύει, δεν καταλαβαίνετε καθόλου ή θέλετε περισσότερη
ενημέρωση
Δε χρειάζεται να σημαδεύετε κάθε πρόταση παρά μόνο αυτές που σας φαίνονται
σημαντικές
Σε ζευγάρια συζητήστε για τα σημάδια που βάλατε και συμπληρώστε από κοινού τον
πίνακα.
Τα βασικά σημεία συζήτησης και τα αποκομισθέντα οφέλη: Πρόκειται για μια τεχνική
κριτικής ανάγνωσης ενός κειμένου. Υπάρχει ταυτόχρονη καταγραφή των σημείων
που ήδη γνωρίζει ο μαθητής, των αποριών που θα θέσει για την πληρέστερη
κατανόηση του κειμένου, των σημείων που εγείρουν το ενδιαφέρον του για
περαιτέρω αναζήτηση, σημεία σύγκρουσης της ήδη υπάρχουσας γνώσης και
αποκατάσταση της σωστής άποψης.
Συζήτηση ολομέλειας
Σε τι πιστεύετε ότι βοηθάνε οι στρατηγικές και οι τεχνικές που χρησιμοποιήσαμε;
Είναι εφαρμόσιμες στις τάξεις των σχολείων; Ποια είναι η αρμοδιότητα του
δασκάλου; Ποιες δυσκολίες έχει να αντιμετωπίσει διδάσκοντας τις στρατηγικές; Ποια
είναι η άποψή σας για τη χρησιμότητα των στρατηγικών αυτών;
Κλείσιμο της συνεδρίας
Καθόμαστε σε κύκλο. Ο καθένας λέει κάτι που του έκανε εντύπωση και θα θυμάται
από το σεμινάριο. Σηκωνόμαστε όρθιοι και πιανόμαστε από τα χέρια. Καθένας λέει
αυτό που αισθάνεται με μια λέξη.
Παράρτημα 1
Τι από τα παρακάτω είναι αλήθεια όταν μαθαίνεις Αγγλικά. Απάντησε σύμφωνα με

το τι κάνεις εσύ. Μην απαντάς τι πιστεύεις ότι θα έπρεπε να κάνεις ή τι κάνουν οι
άλλοι. Δεν υπάρχουν σωστές η λάθος απαντήσεις. Κύκλωσε τον αριθμό που σε
εκφράζει.
1. Ποτέ ή σχεδόν ποτέ δεν το κάνω.

2. Σπάνια το κάνω.
3. Συνήθως το κάνω .
4. Συχνά το κάνω .
5. Πάντα το κάνω.
1. Προσπαθώ να συνδυάσω τα καινούργια πράγματα που 1 2 3 4 5

μαθαίνω με αυτά που ξέρω στα Αγγλικά.
2. Χρησιμοποιώ καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις σε προτάσεις 1 2 3 4 5
για να τις θυμάμαι.
3. Συνδυάζω την προφορά μιας καινούριας αγγλικής λέξης 1 2 3 4 5
με την εικόνα της λέξης για να τη θυμάμαι καλύτερα.
4. Χρησιμοποιώ ομοιοκαταληξίες για να θυμάμαι 1 2 3 4 5
καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις.
5. Χρησιμοποιώ καρτέλες για να θυμάμαι καινούριες 1 2 3 4 5
αγγλικές λέξεις.
6. Παίζω θέατρο με τις καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Κάνω συχνά επανάληψη τα Αγγλικά μου. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Θυμάμαι καινούριες αγγλικές λέξεις και φράσεις επειδή 1 2 3 4 5

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. 1 2 3 4 5
10. Προσπαθώ να μιλάω όπως οι άνθρωποι που έχουν την 1 2 3 4 5

Αγγλική μητρική τους γλώσσα.
11. Επαναλαμβάνω την προφορά των αγγλικών λέξεων για 1 2 3 4 5
να τις μάθω.
12. Χρησιμοποιώ τις αγγλικές λέξεις που γνωρίζω σε 1 2 3 4 5
διαφορετικές προτάσεις.
13. Ξεκινώ ο ίδιος/η ίδια συζητήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5
14. Παρακολουθώ αγγλικές εκπομπές η πηγαίνω στο σινεμά 1 2 3 4 5

να δω ταινίες στα Αγγλικά.
15. Διαβάζω βιβλία και περιοδικά στα Αγγλικά για 1 2 3 4 5
ευχαρίστηση.
16. Γράφω σημειώματα, μηνύματα, γράμματα και εργασίες 1 2 3 4 5
στα Αγγλικά.
17. Πρώτα ρίχνω μια γρήγορη ματιά στο αγγλικό κείμενο 1 2 3 4 5
και ύστερα το διαβάζω προσεκτικά.
18. Ψάχνω λέξεις στην γλώσσα μου που να μοιάζουν με τις 1 2 3 4 5
καινούργιες αγγλικές λέξεις.
19. Προσπαθώ να βρω μόνος/μόνη μου κανόνες της 1 2 3 4 5
αγγλικής γλώσσας.
20. Βρίσκω τη σημασία της αγγλικής λέξης με το να την 1 2 3 4 5
χωρίζω σε μέρη που καταλαβαίνω.
21. Αποφεύγω να μεταφράζω λέξη-προς-λέξη από τη μια 1 2 3 4 5
γλώσσα στην άλλη.
22. Κάνω περιλήψεις αυτών που ακούω ή διαβάζω στα 1 2 3 4 5
Αγγλικά.
23. Χρησιμοποιώ γλωσσάριο ή λεξικό για να βοηθηθώ στη 1 2 3 4 5
χρήση των Αγγλικών.
24. Για να καταλάβω τις λέξεις που δεν ξέρω στα Αγγλικά, 1 2 3 4 5
προσπαθώ να μαντεύω τι σημαίνουν.
25. Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά 1 2 3 4 5
σε μια συζήτηση, χρησιμοποιώ χειρονομίες.
26. Φτιάχνω δικές μου λέξεις όταν δεν ξέρω πώς να πω κάτι 1 2 3 4 5
στα Αγγλικά.
27. Όταν διαβάζω Αγγλικά, αποφεύγω να ψάχνω κάθε 1 2 3 4 5
άγνωστη λέξη στο λεξικό.
28. Προσπαθώ να μαντέψω τι θα πει στη συνέχεια ο 1 2 3 4 5
άνθρωπος με τον οποίο συζητάω στα Αγγλικά.
29. Όταν δεν μου έρχεται στο μυαλό μια λέξη στα Αγγλικά, 1 2 3 4 5
χρησιμοποιώ μια συνώνυμη λέξη ή φράση .
30. Προσπαθώ να βρίσκω όσο το δυνατό περισσότερες 1 2 3 4 5
ευκαιρίες για να χρησιμοποιώ τα Αγγλικά .
31. Δίνω προσοχή στα λάθη που κάνω στα Αγγλικά, ώστε να 1 2 3 4 5
τα μαθαίνω καλυτέρα.
32. Όταν κάποιος μιλάει Αγγλικά, τον ακούω προσεκτικά. 1 2 3 4 5
33. Προσπαθώ να βρω τρόπους για να μαθαίνω καλύτερα τα 1 2 3 4 5

Αγγλικά.
34. Κανονίζω το πρόγραμμα μου έτσι ώστε να έχω αρκετό 1 2 3 4 5
χρόνο για να μελετώ Αγγλικά.
35. Ψάχνω να βρω ανθρώπους με τους οποίους μπορώ να 1 2 3 4 5
μιλήσω Αγγλικά.
36. Ψάχνω ευκαιρίες για να διαβάζω όσο το δυνατόν 1 2 3 4 5
περισσότερο στα Αγγλικά.
37. Ξέρω καλά τι πρέπει να κάνω για να βελτιώσω τα 1 2 3 4 5
Αγγλικά μου.
38. Παρακολουθώ την πρόοδο μου στα Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5
39. Προσπαθώ να χαλαρώσω κάθε φορά που φοβάμαι να 1 2 3 4 5

μιλήσω στα Αγγλικά.
40. Ενθαρρύνω τον εαυτό μου να μιλήσει Αγγλικά ακόμα 1 2 3 4 5
και όταν φοβάμαι μην κάνω λάθος.
41. Επιβραβεύω τον εαυτό μου όταν τα πάω καλά στα 1 2 3 4 5
Αγγλικά.
42. Καταλαβαίνω εάν έχω άγχος όταν διαβάζω ή 1 2 3 4 5
χρησιμοποιώ Αγγλικά.
43. Πάντα προσπαθώ να μαντεύω την σημασία των λέξεων 1 2 3 4 5
ή να μιλάω παρόλο που μπορεί να κάνω κάποια λάθη.
44. Συζητάω με άλλους για το πώς νιώθω όταν μαθαίνω 1 2 3 4 5
Αγγλικά.
45. Όταν δεν καταλαβαίνω κάτι στα Αγγλικά, ζητώ από το 1 2 3 4 5

συνομιλητή μου να μιλάει πιο σιγά ή να επαναλάβει
αυτό που είπε.
46. Ζητώ από τους ανθρώπους που η μητρική τους γλώσσα 1 2 3 4 5
είναι τα Αγγλικά να με διορθώνουν όταν μιλάω.
47. Κάνω εξάσκηση στα Αγγλικά με τους συμμαθητές μου. 1 2 3 4 5
48. Ζητώ βοήθεια από αυτούς που μιλούν Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5
49. Κάνω ερωτήσεις στα Αγγλικά. 1 2 3 4 5
50. Προσπαθώ να μάθω για το πολιτισμό των ανθρώπων 1 2 3 4 5

που μιλούν Αγγλικά.
«Οι στρατηγικές μάθησης είναι συγκεκριμένες πράξεις στις οποίες καταφεύγει ο μαθητής
για να κάνει τη μάθηση πιο εύκολη, γρήγορη, ευχάριστη, αυτοκατευθυνόμενη,
αποτελεσματική και πιο εύκολα μεταφερόμενη σε άλλες καταστάσεις.» Oxford (1990:8)
Γνωρίζω το βιβλίο μου (Γνωριμία με το εγχειρίδιο του μαθήματος)
1. Ποιες στρατηγικές χρησιμοποιήσατε;
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Σε ποια κατηγορία ανήκει αυτή η στρατηγική;
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Σε τι μας βοηθάει να βρίσκουμε ποια στρατηγική χρησιμοποιήσαμε;
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Activities for Minority Schools [213]
The idea of Saita publications emerged in July 2012, having as a primary

goal to create a web space where new authors can interact with the
readers directly and free.
Saita publications’ aim is to redefine the relationship between

publisher-author-reader, by cultivating a true dialogue, and by
establishing an effective communication channel for authors and
readers alike. Saita publications stay far away from profit, exploitation
and commercialization of literary property.
The strong wind of passion for reading,

the sweet breeze of creativity,
the zephyr of innovation,
sirocco of imagination,
the levanter of persistence,
the deep power of vision,
guide the saita of our publications.
We invite you to let books fly free!

This volume brings together a team of leading experts to explore language

learning strategies. By studying language learning strategies in the Greek
setting, the contributors shed new light on a range of theoretical constructs,
empirical data and teacher training workshops that collectively provide
important insights into LLS use of students attending mainstream and Muslim
minority, elementary and secondary schools in Greece. In addition, the volume
provides a comparative analysis of learners’ and teachers’ strategy use by
employing two matching questionnaires, developed specifically for the THALES
project: a 29-item learners’ questionnaire, based on the SILL and a 47-item
newly developed innovative teachers’ questionnaire designed to assess
teachers’ foreign language learning strategy instruction practices for the
promotion of LLS in the classroom.
This study is part of the Thales project MIS 379335 (Coordinator Professor Zoe Gavriilidou). It was
held in the frame of the National Strategic Reference Frame (Ε.Σ.Π.Α) and was co-funded by resources
of the European Union (European Social Fund) and national resources.
ISBN: 978-618-5147-52-5

Language Learning Strategies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Learning Strategies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Learning Strategies: Theoretical issues

and applied perspectives

Edited by Zoe Gavriilidou

Proof reading: Lydia Mitits

Cover design www.bianoti.com

Page layout: Iraklis Lampadariou

Language parallels: Theory and teaching practice

Creative Commons license

About the Editors .............................................................................................................................................. 8

About the Authors .......................................................................................................................................... 10

Part A - Theoretical and methodological issues

Language Learner Strategies: From Theory to Practice ............................................................................. 22

Alexandra Karousou, Konstantinos Petrogiannis, & Zoe Gavriilidou

Efthymia Penderi, Konstantinos Petrogiannis, & Zoe Gavriilidou

Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Eleni Agathopoulou, Konstantinos Petrogiannis, & Zoe Gavriilidou

Iris Papadopoulou, Zoe Kantaridou, Maria Platsidou & Ioannis Agaliotis

Zoe Gavriilidou, Lydia Mitits, Penelope Kambakis-Vougiouklis & Konstandinos Petrogiannis

An introduction to teaching language learning strategies ...................................................................... 145

Encouraging language learning strategies - empowering the learner .................................................... 160

Zoe Kantaridou, Iris Papadopoulou

Λύδια Μίτιτς & Γεωργία Χαμζαδάκη

Παράρτημα 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 204

Παράρτημα 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 207

Παράρτημα 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 211

testing, and pedagogical lexicography.

Konstantinos Petrogiannis (BA, MSc, PhD) is a Professor of Developmental Psychology at the

Hellenic Open University, Greece. He graduated from the Department of Philosophy,

Wales-Cardiff. He has worked as a researcher on a number of projects. His main areas of

care and education impact upon children's development, parents-child relationship,

parental involvement, children’s resilience, computer use effects on preschool children’s

socio-emotional development, and language development.

Maria Platsidou is an Associate Professor of Developmental Psychology at the University of

a Visiting Scholar at Max-Planck Institute in Munich and in Fuller School of Psychology,

of the University of Macedonia, member of the Board of Editors or a reviewer in a number

subjective wellbeing, learning strategies.

Linguistics, School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Her academic and

Styles, English/Greek as an S/FL, Interlanguage Studies, and Multilingualism. In the field of

Greek] (2011), co-edited Cross-Curricular Approaches to Language Education (2014) and

Ioannis Agaliotis is a Professor at Department οf Educational & Social Policy Department of

Macedonia. Academic qualifications: B.A. in Education, Pedagogical Academy of

Thessaloniki, 1979. B.A. in Special Education, Marasleio Didaskaleio University of Athens,

Department of Primary Education University of Athens, 1997. Research Interests:

Mathematics to students with disabilities. Social-emotional dimensions of mild disabilities -

Assessment and Instruction. Assessment and remediation of Reading and Writing

Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, School of English, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle

of Education, University of London, a Royal Society of Arts Diploma in the Teaching of

of holding a lifelong-learning stance towards teaching and training.

Eleni Agathopoulou is an Associate Professor at the Department of Theoretical and Applied

Linguistics, School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. She holds an M.A. in

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. She is interested in various aspects of applied

presented papers on second language morphology, focus-on-form instruction and learning

Penelope Kambakis-Vougiouklis is a Professor of Linguistics, Department of Greek,

mathematical models in language teaching, communication strategies with emphasis on

guessing as a processing and/or a learning as well as confidence as a factor of success in

communication, and, finally Modern Greek dialectology.

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece). She is a teacher of English for Academic

Business English for Higher education students in Greece.

Alexandra Karousou is an Assistant Professor of Cognitive and Language development at the

research include communicative and linguistic development, language evaluation, interface

of linguistic and cognitive development.

Lydia Mitits is a post-doctoral researcher at the Greek Department of the Democritus

multilingualism, language learning strategies, instrument adaptation, etc. in books, journals

language learning methodology and language development.