FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING

STRATEGY PROFILES
OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN GREECE

Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey* and Zoe Kantaridou**

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki*

University of Macedonia**

Abstract: The purpose of the present study is to provide a profile of

university students’ most frequently used language learning strate-
gies when they learn or study foreign languages in an academic
context. A total of 1555 students from two universities in Thessa-
loniki, Greece, attending foreign language courses in eight fields of
study participated in a survey in order to (a) provide the students’
overall profile of language learning strategies and (b) examine the
students’ differences in the use of strategies in relation to variables
such as field of study, level of proficiency, and gender. The results
indicated significant differences in the between-subjects tests in all
six types of language strategies but, in particular, more differences
were indicated in the cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategies.
Proficiency level and gender also indicated significant differences
with higher level students and females reporting using more strate-
gies. Conclusions suggest that instructors should implement strategy
instruction in their language courses mainly according to field of
study, following the students’ preferences to achieve highest motiva-
tion and participation in the language courses.

1. Introduction
In the last thirty five years or so research on language learning strategies has
been thriving as a result of the increased interest in the learner and the focus

JAL 25 (2009) 107

108 Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Zoe Kantaridou

on learner-centred models of language teaching. Numerous studies have

contributed to the accumulation of data and knowledge about how language
learners manage their second/foreign language learning by selecting different
strategies; how some learners have been more successful than others in orches-
trating their use according to the demands of the learning situation; or how
others are less successful learners because, although they may use a large
number of strategies, they do so in a random, non-systematic way. The present
research aims at providing learning strategy profiles of Greek university
students learning foreign languages in an academic context by investigating
relationships between strategy use and fields of study, level of proficiency in the
target language(s), and differences according to gender. The investigation of
these profiles has another purpose: to assist learner-centred instructors
towards developing appropriate teaching materials for their university foreign
language classes.

2. Literature review
Research on language learning strategies has offered useful insights into the
processes involved in language learning and has contributed positively to
learner-focused second/foreign language instruction. Learning strategies have
been defined as “steps taken by students to enhance their own learning”
(Oxford 1990: 1, Rigney 1978) in order to facilitate the acquisition, storage,
recall, and use of information (Cohen 1998: 4, O’Malley and Chamot 1990: 1,
Oxford 1990: 8, 1992/93: 18).
A number of variables have been identified as influencing students in their
choice of language learning strategies, such as major field of study or career
orientation, level of language proficiency, gender, age, learning style, motiva-
tion, attitudes and beliefs, types of task, cultural background, and nationality
(Carrell 1989, Chamot and El-Dinary 1999, Ehrman and Oxford 1990, Green
and Oxford 1995, Griffiths 2003, Horwitz 1987, Lan and Oxford 2003, Okada,
Oxford and Abo 1996, O’Malley and Chamot 1990, Oxford 1989, Oxford, Holl-
away and Horton-Murillo 1992, Peacock and Ho 2003, Purdie and Oliver 1999,
Schmitt and Watanabe 2001, Psaltou-Joycey 2008, Papaefthymiou-Lytra 1987,
Politzer and McGroarty 1985, Reid 1995, Wen and Johnson 1997).
From the above variables, the present study looks at three, namely, ‘field
of study’, ‘level of L2 language proficiency’, and ‘gender’ in the cultural and
educational context of Greek tertiary education, which constitutes a new
context for research of this type. In the Greek context, with overwhelmingly
homogenous L1 background learners, who learn foreign – not second –
Foreign Language learning strategy profiles of university students in Greece 109

languages, there has been little research on similar issues (but see Gavriilidou
and Papanis, this volume, Kantaridou 2004, Kazamia 2003, Papaefthymiou-
Lytra 1987, ¶·¿Ó˘ 2008).
Internationally, relevant literature has documented several studies which
have focused on the field of study, proficiency level, and gender. Politzer and
McGroarty (1985), Oxford and Nyikos (1989), Mochizuki (1999), Peacock
(2001), and Peacock and Ho (2003) among others have investigated the use of
strategies by students of different fields of study. They all concluded that
university major is a strong variable affecting selection of strategies in language
learning. Most of these studies have found for example that students majoring
in Humanities or Foreign Languages make higher use of strategies than
students majoring in other fields.
The level of proficiency in the foreign language has also been shown to
affect directly selection and frequency of use of learning strategies (Green and
Oxford 1995, Griffiths 2003, Oxford and Nyikos 1989, Mochizuki 1999,
Peacock 2001, Peacock and Ho 2003). As the language proficiency level
increases from low- to medium- to high- so does the frequency of overall
strategy use and the quality of individual strategies employed, although it
should be noted that in a number of studies this increase was not always linear
or quantitative but rather qualitative in nature (Hong-Nam and Leavell 2006,
Kantaridou 2004, Kazamia 2003, Phillips 1991).
Furthermore, in most studies in which gender differences in language
learning strategy use have been reported, females seem to use a wider range of
strategies than males (Ehrman and Oxford 1989, Green and Oxford 1995,
Motsizuki 1999, Oxford and Nyikos 1989, Peacock and Ho 2003). However,
one must note that in some other studies focusing on multinational groups no
such differences were found between female and male students (Griffiths 2003,
Psaltou-Joycey 2008). Also, few studies have shown that male students use
more strategies than females (Tercanlioglu 2004, Tran 1988) probably because
of different cultural and educational settings.

3. Research method
3.1 Purpose of the study
The primary aim of this study is to provide descriptive data on the language
learning strategy profile of Greek university students across fields of study,
language proficiency level and gender in order to identify potential differences
in strategy use among them. This would ideally provide a springboard for the
development of Language for Academic Purposes (LAP) teaching materials
110 Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Zoe Kantaridou

appropriate for each field of study and relevant to the strategy profile of its
students. More specifically, the following research questions have been posed.
1) Which is the frequency of strategy use by Greek university students?
2) Which are the most and the least frequently used language learning
strategies?
3) Are there any strategy differences in relation to field of study?
4) Are there any strategy differences in relation to proficiency level?
5) Are there any strategy differences in relation to gender?
3.2 Participants
The participants were mainly first and second year1 undergraduates (N=1555)
from the University of Macedonia and the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
Greece. There were 397 male students (26.4%) and 1104 females (73.6%) with
a mean age of 19.5 years. They belonged to eight fields of study: Humanities
(includes students from departments of Greek Philology, History, Pedagogy,
Psychology), Foreign Languages majors (English, French, German), Engi-
neering (Architecture, Electrical Engineering, Chemical Engineering,
Mechanical Engineering), Sciences (Mathematics, Physics, Geology, Agricul-
ture, Forestry), Medicine (Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmaceutics), Economics
(Economics, Business Administration, Finance, Marketing), Education
(Primary Education, Pre-school Education) and Computer Science (Applied
Informatics, Technology Management).
Students were also grouped according to the level of the highest language
certificates they held2 in any language into a) “zero” —the ones that had no
certificate at all (N=238, 15.3%), b) “B2” —the ones who had a level B2 certifi-
cate according to the Common European Framework of References (CEFR) in
any of the European languages taught at tertiary level (English, French, Italian,
German, Spanish) (N=840, 54%), c) “C1” —the ones who had a level C1
certificate (N=42, 2.7%), and d) “C2” —the ones who had a level C2 certificate
(N=435, 28%). Table 1 summarises the details of the above characteristics.

3.3 Instrument
The instrument used was the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)
(Oxford 1990: 293-300). This instrument has been widely used to check strategy
use in many research studies and in a variety of languages and cultures but
never to such an extent with L1 Greek learners of different foreign languages
in an academic context. The SILL 7.0 form consists of 50 Likert scale items
(scale 1 to 5) grouped into six categories of learning strategies: ‘memory’,
‘cognitive’, ‘compensation’, ‘metacognitive’, ‘affective’ and ‘social’. The relia-
Foreign Language learning strategy profiles of university students in Greece 111

Table 1: Distribution and (percentages) of the participants in the eight

fields of study in the variables of gender and proficiency level

Fields of study N Male Female Zero B2 C1 C2

Humanities 269 40 225 57 162 6 44

(HUM) (17.3%) (15.1%) (84.9%) (21.2%) (60.2%) (2.2%) (16.4%)
Foreign
224 19 196 29 93 7 95
Languages
(14.4%) (8.8%) (91.2%) (12.9%) (41.5%) (3.1%) (42.4%)
majors (FL)
Engineering 112 44 61 8 53 1 50
(ENG) (7.3%) (41.9%) (58.1%) (7.1%) (47.3%) (0.9%) (44.6%)
Sciences 125 70 50 29 77 2 17
(SC) (8%) (58.3%) (41.7%) (23.2%) (61.6%) (1.6%) (13.6%)
Medicine 212 52 152 18 84 7 103
(MED) (13.6%) (25.5%) (74.5%) (8.5%) (39.6%) (3.3%) (48.6%)
Economics 391 125 255 55 237 11 88
(ECON) (25.1%) (32.9%) (67.1%) (14.1%) (60.6%) (2.8%) (22.5%)
Education 99 11 82 22 61 5 11
(EDU) (6.4%) (11.8%) (88.2%) (22.2%) (61.6%) (5.1%) (11.1%)
Computer 123 36 83 20 73 3 27
Science (CS) (7.9%) (30.3%) (69.7%) (16.3%) (59.3%) (2.4%) (22%)
1555 397 1104 238 840 42 435
Total
(100%) (26.4%) (73.6%)3 (15.3%) (54%) (2.7%) (28%)

bility of the SILL questionnaire in its Greek translation used in the present
study (see Appendix) was found to be relatively high, Cronbach a= .9073.
Furthermore, students had to provide background information about their age,
sex, the university school or department they are registered in and the foreign
language course they attend, the highest level foreign language certificates they
hold, and reasons for learning foreign languages.
3.4 Procedure
The questionnaire was administered to the students by their language teachers
during the Foreign Language course. Because attendance is not compulsory in
Greek universities, the students who happened to be present in each class on
the day of the administration of the questionnaire were considered as repre-
senting a randomly selected body of participants.
112 Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Zoe Kantaridou

4. Data Analysis
The data were analysed in two ways: (a) descriptive statistics, in order to calcu-
late the frequencies and percentages of strategy use of the whole student popu-
lation, as well as the least and the most frequently used strategies, and (b) a
series of GLM analyses of variance to compare the differences in learning
strategies (dependent variables) among the various fields of study, between
the two genders, and among the certificate levels (independent variables). The
analyses were checked for multiple comparisons post hoc according to the
Tukey HSD test. The data were all analysed using the statistical programme
SPSS 17 and the significance level was set at 5%, p<0.05.

5. Results
The presentation of our results will follow the order of the research questions
that were posed at the beginning.

5.1 Q1: Which is the frequency of strategy use by Greek university students?
The average mean scores of the total population in the present study in the six
categories of learning strategies indicated medium use (2.50 to 3.40, according
to Oxford 1990: 300) ranging from 3.17, the highest, in compensation, to 2.69,
the lowest, in memory strategies. Medium strategy use has also been reported
by other researchers (Bedell and Oxford 1996, Green and Oxford 1995,
Kazamia 2003, LoCastro 1994, Mochizuki 1999, Yang 1993a, 1993b in Bedell
and Oxford 1996: 51-52).
The order of preference (descending) in strategy use by the Greek univer-
sity students was shown to be: (a) compensation (M=3.17), (b) metacognitive
and social, which indicated the same mean score (M=3.09), (c) cognitive
(M=2.93), (d) affective (M=2.71), and (e) memory (2.69). A relatively similar
order of preference has also been attested by Kazamia (2003: 127) who
reported a declining order of use in metacognitive, social, compensation,
cognitive, memory, and affective strategies with her Greek civil servants.
Considering that Kazamia’s subjects were older adults (civil servants), the
attested relative correspondence of our results with hers is a strong indication
of the prevailing pattern of strategy use among Greek adults in foreign
language learning. The order of preference in strategy use can be justified by
the language learning setting (FLL) in Greece in which our students do not
have many opportunities to get actively exposed to the target language outside
the classroom. In such settings use of compensation strategies helps learners
overcome possible limitations of language knowledge in order to remain in the
Foreign Language learning strategy profiles of university students in Greece 113

communicative situation; use of social strategies allows learners to seek help

from more proficient speakers; additionally, use of metacognitive strategies
shows that university students are in a position to plan and regulate their
studies in order to develop linguistically.

5.2 Q2: Which are the most and the least frequently used strategies?
Descriptive statistics indicated overall medium use in individual strategies as
well. Specifically, there were thirty two strategies that ranged between 2.50 and
3.40, nine strategies that indicated low use, including one (43) that ranked very
low, and nine that indicated high use. The least frequently used strategies
belonged mostly to the categories of ‘memory’ (SILL No 5, 6, 7), ‘affective’ (41,
43, 44), ‘cognitive’ (14, 23) and one in ‘social’ (47). The most frequently used
strategies belonged mostly to the categories of ‘metacognitive’ (32, 33, 38),
‘compensation’ (24, 29), and one each in ‘memory’ (1), ‘cognitive’ (18), ‘affec-
tive’ (42), and ‘social’ (45). The least and the most frequently used strategies
highly correspond with the order of preferences in the previous section. Table
2 summarises the means of the 9 most and the 9 least frequently used indi-
vidual strategies.

5.3 Q3: Are there any strategy differences in relation to field of study?
The results of the between-subjects comparisons indicated statistically signifi-
cant differences in all six categories. However, the multiple comparisons post
hoc did not indicate any significant differences in memory strategies among the
eight fields of study. All eight fields demonstrated low medium use of memory
strategies ranging from 2.63 to 2.80. Table 3 summarises the means, standard
deviation (SD) and significance level (p) of the six learning strategy categories
in the eight fields of study. The number index (in the power position) next to
the mean score indicates significant differences in the given strategy category
between the two fields of study, for example, 1 indicates that HUM and FL
differ significantly in the cognitive category.

5.4 Q4: Are there any strategy differences in relation to proficiency level?
The results in the between-subjects comparisons indicated statistically signifi-
cant differences in all learning strategies but the affective category. The mean
scores still indicate medium strategy use in all four language proficiency levels
with the C2 level students ranging higher than the rest. Multiple comparisons
also indicated significant differences between the C2 and B2 level students in
the five strategy categories, i.e., memory, cognitive, compensation, metacogni-
tive and social. Moreover, C2 level students indicated differences with zero
114 Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Zoe Kantaridou

Table 2: The most and the least frequently used strategies

Item No Language learning strategies means
(SILL)
HIGH 29 If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase
USE that means the same thing. 4.02
24 To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses. 3.73
32 I pay attention when someone is speaking English. 3.72
42 I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying
or using English. 3.70
45 If I do not understand something in English, I ask
the other person to slow down or say it again. 3.69
38 I think about my progress in learning English. 3.60
1 I think of relationships between what I already know
and new things I learn in English. 3.57
33 I try to find out how to be a better learner of English. 3.57
18 I first skim an English passage (read over the passage
quickly) then go back and read carefully. 3.53
LOW 47 I practise English with other students. 2.47
USE 23 I make summaries of information that I hear
or read in English 2.43
41 I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English. 2.40
14 I start conversations in English. 2.32
44 I talk to someone else about how I feel
when I am learning English. 2.08
5 I use rhymes to remember new English words. 1.96
6 I use flashcards to remember new English words. 1.79
7 I physically act out new English words. 1.64
43 I write down my feelings in a language learning diary. 1.33

certificate holders in cognitive, compensation, metacognitive and social strate-

gies. Table 4 summarises the mean scores, standard deviation (SD) and signif-
icance level of the six strategy categories in the four language proficiency levels.
The letter index (in the power position) next to the mean score indicates signif-
icant differences in the given strategy between the two proficiency levels, for
example, a indicates that B2 and C2 differ significantly in the memory strategy
category.
Foreign Language learning strategy profiles of university students in Greece 115

Table 3: Means, (SD) and significance level (p) of the six learning strategy
categories in the eight fields of study and their significant differences

ME CO COMP MC AF SO
2.65 2.88 1,15,27 3.14 3.16 2,5 2.76 3.13 6
HUM
(.55) (.62) (.65) (.79) (.59) (.83)
2.76 3.05 1,3,7 3.19 3.37 2,4,8,12,13 2.79 9,14 3.22 10
FL
(.54) (.57) (.70) (.76) (.60) (.78)
2.76 2.80 3,16,28 3.25 3.04 4 2.78 3.23 11
EDU
(.60) (.53) (.75) (.79) (.53) (.84)
2.63 2.81 7,17,29 3.12 2.91 5,8,18,30 2.63 9 2.91 6,10,11,19
ECON
(.57) (.60) (.67) (.77) (.57) (.77)
2.66 2.88 20 3.01 21,31 2.97 12,22 2.69 2.98 23
SC
(.56) (.64) (.60) (.76) (.62) (.78)
2.71 2.96 24 3.22 3.01 13,25 2.60 14 3.07 26
MED
(.53) (.58) (.68) (.73) (.51) (.79)
2.80 3.22 15,16,17,20,24 3.33 21 3.32 18,22,25 2.75 3.38 19,23,26
ENG
(.53) (.66) (.70) (.75) (.68) (.83)
2.75 3.09 27,28,29 3.27 31 3.15 30 2.77 3.08
CS
(.54) (.55) (.67) (.67) (.57) (.74)
Total 2.69 2.93 3.17 3.09 2.71 3.09
F(7:1556) 2.509 9.699 3.132 10.036 3.472 6.697
p .014 .000 .003 .000 .001 .000

5.5 Q5: Are there any strategy differences in relation to gender?

The results indicated that there are significant differences between the two
genders in all six categories with female students indicating higher mean scores
than males. Table 5 summarizes the mean scores, standard deviation (SD) and
significance level (p) of the six learning strategy categories in the two genders.

6. Discussion of results and teaching suggestions

6.1 Overall profile of language learning strategies
Overall, students majoring in all eight academic fields reported using compen-
sation strategies the most and affective and memory strategies the least.
Compensation strategies were found to be the most frequently used strategies
by university students in other educational contexts in second and foreign
116 Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Zoe Kantaridou

Table 4: Means, (SD) and significance level (p) of the six

strategy categories in the four language proficiency levels

Zero B2 C1 C2 p
Memory 2.68 2.67a 2.66 2.76a .039
(.63) (.55) (.57) (.54)
Cognitive 2.81b 2.86c 2.90d 3.15bcd .000
(.61) (.59) (.59) (.59)
Compensation 3.02e 3.14f 3.28 3.31ef .000
(.68) (.66) (.74) (.67)
Metacognitive 3.02g 3.02h 3.17 3.27gh .000
(.76) (.76) (.84) (.73)
Affective 2.77 2.69 2.65 2.72 —
(.62) (.58) (.63) (.59)
Social 3.02i 3.03j 3.02 3.25ij .000
(.85) (.78) (.86) (.79)

Table 5: Means, (SD) and significance level (p) of the six

strategy categories in the two genders

Male Female p
ME 2.59 2.73 .000
(.55) (.55)
CO 2.86 2.96 .003
(.65) (.59)
COMP 3.11 3.20 .029
(.68) (.68)
MCO 2.88 3.18 .000
(.77) (.76)
AFF 2.62 2.74 .001
(.64) (.57)
SO 2.93 3.14 .000
(.78) (.80)
Foreign Language learning strategy profiles of university students in Greece 117

language settings (Bedell and Oxford 1996, Chang 1990 as cited in Bedell and
Oxford 1996, Peacock and Ho 2003, Yang 1993a, 1993b, as cited in Oxford
1996). With regard to metacognitive and cognitive strategies, which are the
categories related to knowledge of how to learn and to approach specific
language learning tasks, Greek university students in the eight fields of study
indicated higher scores in metacognitive than in cognitive strategies. This could
imply that they are aware of what language learning entails and are able to plan
and organise their studies in a more general fashion but they do not apply their
cognition systematically in a more specialised manner according to individual
learning tasks. In memory strategies, the present results were in line with
previous studies which found that university students report using them infre-
quently (Oxford and Nyikos 1989, Reiss 1985, Mochizuki 1999, Psaltou-Joycey
2003). A general comment in relation to the overall medium strategy use could
be the need to approach or adopt strategy training in Greek higher education
by considering the specific educational context (Language for Academic
Purposes) and by taking into account the students’ preferences which will show
where students need to be helped the most.
As far as individual strategies are concerned, from the nine that indicated
low or very low use (least frequently used) six also appeared in the least
frequently used strategies by Hong Kong students (Peacock 2001). Kazamia
(2004) also reported similar results from the interview findings of her adult
Greek civil servants who stated that they do not use the memory and affective
strategies that follow and which were found to have low and very low use in our
study, namely, acting out (7), using rhymes (5), flashcards (6), diaries (43),
rewarding oneself (41), or talking about feelings (44). We speculate that it may
be true that such strategies are not suitable for adult learners. As for
summarising, we realise that its low use is rather disheartening. However, one
has to admit that summarising involves a rather demanding procedure which
requires complex mental processes and, thus, students probably avoid using it.
On the other hand, it is of major importance both for language learning and for
the students’ academic progress and cognitive development in general, hence,
teachers must make its importance apparent to their students and practise it
frequently in their classes. A possible solution could be to use a mixed code (i.e.,
mother tongue and target language) at least in the planning stage for better
comprehension of the text and its background. After all, use of the students’ L1
in the planning stage has been shown to increase the learners’ ability to generate
ideas in writing (Cohen and Brooks-Carson 2001, Freidlander 1990, Knutson
2006) and it is especially helpful in self-learning foreign language contexts
118 Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Zoe Kantaridou

(Papaefthymiou-Lytra 2001) as it reduces anxiety. On the other hand, it is worth

noting that strategies such as skimming (18), guessing (24) and using advance
organisers (1) are most frequently used and that provides students with an
advantage and a good starting point in their strategy training. This, coupled
with the fact that they seek opportunities to become better learners (33), will
allow teachers to implement strategy training through communicative and task-
based activities to practise team projects, speaking/negotiating tasks and
summary/report writing to improve low use of strategies 47, 23, and 14.

6.2 Fields of study

When interpreting the results of this study in the light of fields of academic
study several issues emerge. To start with, students of FL, ENG, and CS make
the most use of learning strategies whereas students of SC and ECON make
the least. These findings are certainly useful for language instructors who
should consider how they can make the most of these tendencies in their
respective Faculties.
Moreover, in a more detailed analysis of the results, students with
different career prospects were found to select significantly different categories
of strategies in five of the six strategy categories (except the memory group). In
general, the results of the study indicated that major field of study strongly
affects preference for specific categories of language learning strategies.
Several patterns emerged from the comparison of fields of study. Specifically,
• FL students use significantly more metacognitive and cognitive strategies
than HUM and EDU although their fields of study and their subsequent
professional careers are very closely related (most of them become school
teachers). Moreover, FL students make the highest use of affective strate-
gies of all eight fields. This may be attributed to the fact that they are
academically engaged in L2 learning and they indulge in the activity for
future professional purposes, hence they are more sensitive toward foreign
language learning.
• Students of ENG differed significantly from five of the other fields (HUM,
SC, MED, ECON and EDU) in the use of cognitive strategies. They also
differ in other strategy categories from SC, MED, and ECON. They indi-
cated the highest mean scores in four categories of strategies (memory,
cognitive, compensation and social) and the second highest in metacogni-
tive. Generally, students of ENG make significantly higher use of strate-
gies than most other fields of study and they seem to be more resourceful
than other fields as far as learning strategy use is concerned.
Foreign Language learning strategy profiles of university students in Greece 119

• Students of SC use significantly fewer compensation, cognitive, metacogni-

tive and social strategies than students from related fields such as ENG.
This is an interesting finding as such a difference affects students of exact
sciences but with different career prospects and hence draws a distinction in
learning processes among these groups of learners. Generally, students of
SC indicated a low medium use of strategies in all categories. Similar results
were also reported in Mochizuki (1999) and in Peacock and Ho (2003).
• Students of ECON made the lowest use of memory, metacognitive and
social strategies. They differ significantly in their use of various kinds of
strategies from most of the other fields. Taking into consideration that (a)
language is a powerful tool in the field of Economics especially in the
framework of European and global markets, (b) flexibility and adaptability
to varying economic conditions will be major assets in their future careers
and (c) since these students indicated low medium mean scores in their
strategy use, there is urgent need for strategy training in this field.
• Students of MED indicated the lowest score in affective strategies. These
students, who are generally considered the elite of studentship as they usually
get the highest marks required for the university entrance exams in Greece,
differ significantly in their cognitive, metacognitive and social strategy use
from students of ENG, the second in the elite of university entrance exams.
Also, they differ from FL in metacognitive and affective strategy use. It seems
that medical students, contrary to FL majors, do not indulge in language
learning at all, they merely view it as a tool for more ‘valued’ learning goals.
• Students of EDU indicated the lowest mean score in cognitive strategies
and the second highest in social and affective. Their future career, which
demands ability to approach young learners/children for the teaching of
the L1 may predispose them to approach language learning in a more
emotional rather than cognitive manner which is demonstrated in their
preference for social and affective strategies. However, low score in cogni-
tive strategies should be amended during their own studies, as instruction
in how to use them more frequently and efficiently will (a) increase their
proficiency level in the target language and (b) help them transfer such an
experience and apply it to their future teaching careers.
• CS students in the present study mostly indicated a satisfactory high
medium strategy use contrary to Peacock and Ho (2003) where their CS
students indicated very low strategy use. Their satisfactory level of strategy
use may be attributed to the fact that these students come in contact with
120 Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Zoe Kantaridou

foreign languages much more in their subject matter than students of other
fields and in order to succeed they resort to using all types of strategies.
• Students of HUM in the present study mostly indicated lower strategy use
than students of ENG contrary to results reported in Politzer and
McGroaty (1985). However, our results partially agree with Oxford and
Nyikos (1989) where HUM used strategies more frequently than business
majors (economics in our case), and with Chang (1990 in Bedell and
Oxford 1996) in that HUM used more strategies than SC majors.
Similarly to other studies (Ehrman and Oxford 1989, Oxford and Nyikos
1989, Politzer and McGroarty 1985, Reid 1987), the present one has shown that
major field of study greatly affects selection of language learning strategies.
Probably this can be attributed to the ‘ideal self’ theory (Dörnyei 2005, Dörnyei
and Ushioda 2009) according to which a person projects an image of the ideal or
professional self that s/he wants to be and then tries to achieve this goal. This
happens quite early in the students’ life in order to provide the necessary moti-
vation and incentive to continue their studies and achieve their aim, and it prob-
ably exercises a powerful influence on language learning as well.

6.3 Proficiency level

Strategy results further support significant/major differences between C2
students, on the one hand, and B2 or zero-certificate holders, on the other.
Indeed, knowing a foreign language to such an advanced level as C2, presup-
poses mastery of language learning strategies as other studies have also indi-
cated (Green and Oxford 1995, Griffiths 2003, Oxford and Nyikos 1989,
Mochizuki 1999, Peacock 2001, Peacock and Ho 2003).
This may strongly suggest that C2 level learners could be exempted from
classroom instruction. Instead, they may be directed into more autonomous/
collaborative language projects through which they will practise language and
further specialise in their field of study by developing academic and future
professional skills through independent project work (presentations, debates,
argumentative writing, book reviews or in the form of content summaries).
Such learners could even be directed towards a more self-learning approach
through multimedia materials (Papaefthymiou-Lytra 2001) and electronic
contact with the instructors or fellow students, provided they get the right
instructions and are determined to adhere to deadlines set by the class teacher.
Class sessions, on the other hand, should mainly concentrate on upgrading the
B2 level students’ language abilities (which represent the majority in the
student population) in order to cope with their current academic bibliography
Foreign Language learning strategy profiles of university students in Greece 121

and future professional environment. Zero-certificate holders should also be

dealt with individually, to the extent that this is feasible, in an attempt primarily
to complete their course requirements but mainly in order to overcome affec-
tive barriers to language learning and get useful lifelong strategies.
6.4 Gender
Female learners indicated significantly higher scores in all strategy categories.
This suggests that females can self-manage their language learning better than
males and are probably more aware of what this learning entails. Our findings
comply with those of other studies which investigated both overall and indi-
vidual strategy use (Gavriilidou and Papanis this volume, Green and Oxford,
1995, Mochizuki 1999, Peacock and Ho 2003). However, it must be pointed out
that difference in strategy use does not necessarily imply higher proficiency in
second/foreign languages by women, as the research literature has shown.
Therefore, as both men and women can reach high levels of language profi-
ciency, it has been argued that the two genders approach language learning
differently due to their respective socio-cultural roles that have been imposed
on them from an early age by the society in which they live (Green and Oxford
1995, Nyikos 1990, Peacock 2001).
The low frequency of strategy use in all categories by males needs special
attention as we contend they will benefit from more direct training in strategy
use, especially in the use of individual strategies that will assist their language
development and proficiency.

7. Conclusion and research suggestions

In this paper we have presented the strategies Greek university students report
using when they engage in foreign language learning. We have attempted to show
the overall profile as well as various different patterns that have risen in relation to
field of study, proficiency level and gender of the respective students. We hope
that our results will be useful for instructors who teach foreign languages in acad-
emic contexts in Greece and who, by combining results from the present study,
may want to instruct their students how to use what are the most appropriate
strategies for them when they engage in foreign language learning for academic
purposes. Our study may also instigate further research of a more qualitative
nature which will test whether the reported use of strategies matches what
students actually do when they develop their academic language skills in the
foreign language. Furthermore, more learner characteristics, such as motivation
and learning styles, could be investigated in order to create a more complete
picture of the factors which affect second language learning in tertiary education.
122 Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Zoe Kantaridou

Notes
1. A small minority were students of higher semesters who had not yet completed the
foreign language course requirement for their degree.
2. These certificates are awarded by international or national examination boards that
run exams, usually twice a year, to assess the candidates’ language proficiency.
3. The sum of the numbers for male and female students does not correspond to the total
number in the present research because some students did not indicate their gender.

References
Bedell, D.A. and R.L. Oxford (1996). Cross-cultural comparisons of language learning
strategies in the People’s Republic of China and other countries. In R.L. Oxford
(ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 47-60.
Carrell, P.L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern
Language Journal, 73 (2): 121-134.
Chamot U. and P.B. El-Dinary (1999). Children’s learning strategies in immersion
classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 83 (3): 319-341.
Cohen, A.D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Harlow:
Longman.
Cohen, A.D. and A. Brooks-Carson (2001). Research on direct versus translated writing:
Students’ strategies and their results. Modern Language Journal, 85 (2): 169-188.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Dörnyei, Z. and E. Ushioda (ed.) (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2 ideal
self. UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ehrman, M.E. and R.L. Oxford (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and
psychological type on adult language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal,
73 (1): 1-13.
Ehrman, M.E. and R.L. Oxford (1990) Adult learning styles and strategies in an inten-
sive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 74 (3): 311-326.
Freidlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in
English as a second language. In B. Kroll (ed.), Second language writing: Research
insights for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109-125.
Gavriilidou, Z. and A. Papanis (this volume). The effect of strategy instruction on
strategy use by Muslim pupils learning English as foreign language. Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 25.
Green, J.M. and R. Oxford (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency,
and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1): 261-297.
Foreign Language learning strategy profiles of university students in Greece 123

Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31(3): 367-383.
Hong-Nam, K. and A.G. Leavell (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL
students in an intensive English learning context. System, 34 (3): 399-415.
Horwitz, E.K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In A.L.
Wenden and J. Rubin (eds), Learner strategies in language learning. London: Pren-
tice-Hall, 119-129.
Kantaridou, Z. (2004). Motivation and involvement in learning English for academic
purposes. Unpublished PhD thesis. Department of Theoretical and Applied
Linguistics, School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Kazamia, V. (2003). Language learning strategies of Greek adult learners of English.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Leeds, UK.
Knutson, E.M. (2006). Thinking in English, writing in French. The French Review, 80
(1): 88-109.
Lan, R. and R.L. Oxford (2003). Language learning strategy profiles of elementary
school students in Taiwan. IRAL, 41: 339-379.
LoCastro, V. (1994). Learning strategies and learning environments. TESOL Quarterly,
28: 409-414.
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: Socialisation
and memory factors. Modern Language Journal, 74 (3): 273-287.
Okada, M., R.L. Oxford and S. Abo (1996). Not all alike: Motivation and learning
strategies among students of Japanese and Spanish in an exploratory study. In R.L.
Oxford (ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century. Honolulu,
HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa, 105-120.
O’Malley, J.M. and A.U. Chamot (1990). Learning strategies in second language acqui-
sition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R.L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with
implications for strategy training. System, 17 (2): 235-247.
Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R.L., M.E. Hollaway and D. Horton-Murillo (1992). Research and practical
implications for teaching in a multicultural tertiary ESL/EFL classroom. System, 20
(4): 439-456.
Oxford, R.L. and M. Nyikos (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning
strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73: 291-300.
Papaefthymiou-Lytra, S. (1987). Communicating and learning strategies in English as a
foreign language with particular reference to the Greek learner of English. Saripolos
Library No 65, School of Philosophy. Athens: The University of Athens.
124 Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Zoe Kantaridou

Papaefthymiou-Lytra, S. (2001). Awareness and language switch in self-learning FL

contexts. In A. Psaltou-Joycey and M. Valiouli (eds), Proceedings of the 12th Interna-
tional Conference: The contribution of language teaching and learning to the promotion
of a peace culture. Thessaloniki: Greek Applied Linguistics Association, 395-404.
¶·¿Ó˘, ∞. (2008). ™ÙÚ·ÙËÁÈΤ˜ ÂÎÌ¿ıËÛ˘ ÙˆÓ ªÔ˘ÛÔ˘ÏÌ·ÓÔ·›‰ˆÓ Ù˘ £Ú¿Î˘
Ô˘ Ì·ı·›ÓÔ˘Ó ÙËÓ ·ÁÁÏÈ΋ ˆ˜ ͤÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·. ¢È‰·ÎÙÔÚÈ΋ ‰È·ÙÚÈ‚‹, ΔÌ‹Ì· ∂È-
ÛÙËÌÒÓ Ù˘ ∂Î/Û˘ ÛÙËÓ ¶ÚÔÛ¯ÔÏÈ΋ ∏ÏÈΛ·, ¢ËÌÔÎÚ›ÙÂÈÔ ¶·ÓÂÈÛÙ‹ÌÈÔ.
Peacock, M. (2001). Language learning strategies and EAP proficiency: Teacher views,
student views, and test results. In J. Flowerdew and M. Peacock (eds), Research
perspectives on English for academic purposes. Cambridge University Press, 268-285.
Peacock, M. and B. Ho (2003). Student language learning strategies across eight disci-
plines. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13 (2), 179-198.
Phillips, V. (1991). A look at learner strategy use and ESL proficiency. CATESOL
Journal, 4: 57-67.
Politzer, R. and M. McGroarty (1985). An explanatory study of learning behaviors and
their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL
Quarterly, 19 (1): 103-124.
Psaltou-Joycey, A. (2003). Strategy use by Greek university students of English. In E.
Mela-Athanasopoulou (ed.), Selected Papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics
of the 13th International Symposium of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, School
of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 591-601.
Psaltou-Joycey, A. (2008). Cross-cultural differences in the use of learning strategies by
students of Greek as a second language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 29 (3): 310-324.
Purdie, N. and R. Oliver (1999). Language learning strategies used by bilingual school-
aged children. System, 27: 375-388.
Reid, J.M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly,
21 (1): 87-111.
Reid, J.M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Reiss, M-A. (1985). The good language learner: Another look. Canadian Language
Review, 41 (3): 511-523.
Rigney, J.W. (1978). Learning strategies: A theoretical perspective. In H.F. O’Neill
(ed.), Learning strategies. New York: Academic Press, 165-205.
Schmidt, R. and Y. Watanabe (2001). Motivation, strategy use, and pedagogical prefer-
ences in foreign language learning. In Z. Dörnyei, and R. Schimidt (eds), Motivation
and second language acquisition. Manoa: University of Hawai’i, SLTCC, 313-359.
Tercanlioglu, L. (2004). Exploring gender effect on adult foreign language learning
strategies. Issues in Educational Research 14 (2): 181-193. Retrieved on 14 March,
2006 from http://education.curtin.edu.au/iier/iier14/tercanlioglu.html
Foreign Language learning strategy profiles of university students in Greece 125

Tran, T.V. (1988). Sex differences in English language acculturation and learning
strategies among Vietnamese adults age 40 and over in the United States. Sex Roles,
19: 747-758.
Wen, Q. and R.K. Johnson (1997). L2 learner variables and English achievement: A
study of tertiary-level English majors in China. Applied Linguistics, 7 (2): 27-48.

Appendix
The Greek translation of SILL used in the present study.

·/· ™ÙÚ·ÙËÁÈΤ˜ ÁψÛÛÈ΋˜ ÂÎÌ¿ıËÛ˘

1 μÚ›ÛΈ Û¯¤ÛÂȘ ·Ó¿ÌÂÛ· Û fi,ÙÈ ‹‰Ë ÁÓˆÚ›˙ˆ Î·È ÛÙ· Ó¤· Ú¿ÁÌ·Ù·
Ô˘ Ì·ı·›Óˆ ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·
2 ÃÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈÒ ÙȘ Ӥ˜ ϤÍÂȘ Ù˘ ͤÓ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜ Û ÚÔÙ¿ÛÂȘ
ÁÈ· Ó· ÙȘ ·ÔÌÓËÌÔÓ‡ۈ
3 ™˘Ó‰˘¿˙ˆ ÙÔÓ ‹¯Ô ÌÈ·˜ Ó¤·˜ Ϥ͢ ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ· Ì ÙËÓ ÂÈÎfiÓ·
Ù˘ Ϥ͢ ÒÛÙ ӷ ÙËÓ ·ÔÌÓËÌÔÓ‡ۈ
4 ∞ÔÌÓËÌÔÓ‡ˆ Ì›· Ó¤· ͤÓË Ï¤ÍË Û¯ËÌ·Ù›˙ÔÓÙ·˜ ÛÙÔ Ì˘·Ïfi ÌÔ˘ Ì›·
ÂÚ›ÛÙ·ÛË ÛÙËÓ ÔÔ›· ı· ÌÔÚÔ‡Û ӷ ¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈËı› Ë Ï¤ÍË ·˘Ù‹
5 ÃÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈÒ ÛÙ›¯Ô˘˜/ÔÌÔÈÔηٷÏËÍ›· ÁÈ· Ó· ·ÔÌÓËÌÔÓ‡ˆ ÙȘ Ӥ˜
ϤÍÂȘ Ù˘ ͤÓ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜ Ô˘ Ì·ı·›Óˆ
6 ÃÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈÒ Î·Ú٤Ϙ ÁÈ· Ó· ·ÔÌÓËÌÔÓ‡ˆ ÙȘ Ӥ˜ ϤÍÂȘ
7 ∞Ó··ÚÈÛÙÒ Ì ·ÓÙƠ̷̂ ‹ ΛÓËÛË Ì›· ͤÓË Ï¤ÍË
8 ∫¿Óˆ Û˘¯Ó¤˜ Â·Ó·Ï‹„ÂȘ ÙˆÓ Ì·ıËÌ¿ÙˆÓ ÌÔ˘ ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·
Ô˘ Ì·ı·›Óˆ
9 ∂Óı˘ÌÔ‡Ì·È Ó¤Â˜ ϤÍÂȘ Ù˘ ͤÓ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜ Ô˘ Ì·ı·›Óˆ ηıÒ˜ ʤÚÓˆ ÛÙË
ÌÓ‹ÌË ÌÔ˘ ÙË ı¤ÛË Ô˘ ›¯·Ó Û ÌÈ· ÛÂÏ›‰·, ÛÙÔÓ ›Ó·Î· ‹ Û ÌÈ· ÂÈÁÚ·Ê‹
10 ∂·Ó·Ï·Ì‚¿Óˆ ‹ Áڿʈ ÙȘ Ӥ˜ ͤÓ˜ ϤÍÂȘ ÔÏϤ˜ ÊÔÚ¤˜ ÁÈ· Ó· ÙȘ Ì¿ıˆ
11 ¶ÚÔÛ·ıÒ Ó· ÌÈÏÒ Û·Ó ÙÔ˘˜ Ê˘ÛÈÎÔ‡˜ ÔÌÈÏËÙ¤˜ Ù˘ ͤÓ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜
Ô˘ Ì·ı·›Óˆ
12 ∫¿Óˆ ÂÍ¿ÛÎËÛË ÛÙÔ˘˜ ÊıfiÁÁÔ˘˜ Ù˘ ͤÓ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜ Ô˘ Ì·ı·›Óˆ
13 ÃÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈÒ ÙȘ ͤÓ˜ ϤÍÂȘ Ô˘ ÁÓˆÚ›˙ˆ Ì ‰È·ÊÔÚÂÙÈÎÔ‡˜ ÙÚfiÔ˘˜
126 Angeliki Psaltou-Joycey, Zoe Kantaridou

14 ∞Ú¯›˙ˆ ÚÒÙÔ˜/Ë ÌÈ· Û˘ÓÔÌÈÏ›· ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ· Ô˘ Ì·ı·›Óˆ

15 ¶·Ú·ÎÔÏÔ˘ıÒ Í¤Ó· ÚÔÁÚ¿ÌÌ·Ù· ÛÙËÓ ÙËÏÂfiÚ·ÛË ‹ ËÁ·›Óˆ ÛÙÔÓ
ÎÈÓËÌ·ÙÔÁÚ¿ÊÔ ÁÈ· Ó· ‰ˆ ¤ÚÁ· ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·
16 ¢È·‚¿˙ˆ ΛÌÂÓ· ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ· ÁÈ· ¢¯·Ú›ÛÙËÛË
17 °Ú¿Êˆ ÛËÌÂÈÒÛÂȘ, ÌËӇ̷ٷ, ÁÚ¿ÌÌ·Ù· ‹ ÂÎı¤ÛÂȘ ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·
18 ™ÙËÓ ·Ú¯‹ ‰È·‚¿˙ˆ ÛÙ· ÁÚ‹ÁÔÚ· ¤Ó· ΛÌÂÓÔ ÁÚ·Ì̤ÓÔ ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·
Î·È ÌÂÙ¿ ÙÔ Í·Ó·‰È·‚¿˙ˆ ÈÔ ÚÔÛÂÎÙÈο
19 濯ӈ Ó· ‚Úˆ ϤÍÂȘ ÛÙË ÌËÙÚÈ΋ ÌÔ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ· Ô˘ Â›Ó·È ·ÚfiÌÔȘ
Ì ÙȘ Ӥ˜ ͤÓ˜ ϤÍÂȘ
20 ¶ÚÔÛ·ıÒ Ó· ·Ó·Î·Ï‡„ˆ Ì ÔÈ· Û˘ÛÙ‹Ì·Ù· ÏÂÈÙÔ˘ÚÁ› Ë Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·
Ô˘ Ì·ı·›Óˆ
21 μÚ›ÛΈ ÙË ÛËÌ·Û›· ÌÈ· ͤÓ˘ Ϥ͢ ¯ˆÚ›˙ÔÓÙ¿˜ ÙËÓ Û ̤ÚË Ô˘ ηٷϷ‚·›Óˆ
22 ¶ÚÔÛ·ıÒ Ó· ÌË ÌÂÙ·ÊÚ¿˙ˆ ϤÍË-ÚÔ˜-ϤÍË
23 ∫¿Óˆ ÂÚÈÏ‹„ÂȘ ·˘ÙÒÓ Ô˘ ·ÎÔ‡ˆ ‹ ‰È·‚¿˙ˆ ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·
24 ¶ÚÔÛ·ıÒ Ó· Ì·ÓÙ‡ˆ ÙË ÛËÌ·Û›· ¿ÁÓˆÛÙˆÓ Û ̤ӷ Í¤ÓˆÓ Ï¤ÍˆÓ
25 ŸÙ·Ó ‰ÂÓ ı˘Ì¿Ì·È Ì›· ͤÓË Ï¤ÍË Î·Ù¿ ÙË ‰È¿ÚÎÂÈ· ÌÈ·˜ Û˘ÓÔÌÈÏ›·˜
οӈ ¯ÂÈÚÔÓƠ̂˜ ‹ ÌÈÌ‹ÛÂȘ
26 ¢ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÒ Ó¤Â˜ ϤÍÂȘ fiÙ·Ó ‰ÂÓ ÁÓˆÚ›˙ˆ ÙȘ ηٿÏÏËϘ ϤÍÂȘ
ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·
27 ¢È·‚¿˙ˆ ΛÌÂÓ· ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ· ¯ˆÚ›˜ Ó· ·Ó·˙ËÙÒ ÙË ÛËÌ·Û›·
Ù˘ οı Ӥ·˜ Ϥ͢ ÛÙÔ ÏÂÍÈÎfi
28 ¶ÚÔÛ·ıÒ Ó· Ì·ÓÙ¤„ˆ ÙÈ ı· ÂÈ Ô Û˘ÓÔÌÈÏËÙ‹˜ ÌÔ˘ ÛÙË Û˘Ó¤¯ÂÈ·
fiÙ·Ó ÂÈÎÔÈÓˆÓÒ ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·
29 ŸÙ·Ó ‰ÂÓ ÌÔÚÒ Ó· ı˘ÌËıÒ Ì›· ͤÓË Ï¤ÍË ¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈÒ Ì›· ¿ÏÏË Ï¤ÍË
‹ Ì›· ÊÚ¿ÛË Ô˘ ¤¯ÂÈ ÙÔ ›‰ÈÔ ÓfiËÌ·
30 ¶ÚÔÛ·ıÒ Ó· ‚Ú›ÛΈ fiÛÔ ÙÔ ‰˘Ó·ÙfiÓ ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚ˜ ¢ηÈڛ˜ ÁÈ· Ó·
οӈ ¯Ú‹ÛË Ù˘ ͤÓ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜ Ô˘ Ì·ı·›Óˆ
31 ™ËÌÂÈÒÓˆ Ù· Ï¿ıË Ô˘ οӈ ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ· Î·È ¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈÒ ÙËÓ
ÏËÚÔÊÔÚ›· ·˘Ù‹ ÁÈ· Ó· ‚ÂÏÙȈıÒ
32 ¶·Ú·ÎÔÏÔ˘ıÒ Ì ÚÔÛÔ¯‹ οÔÈÔÓ Ô˘ ÌÈÏ¿ÂÈ ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·
Ô˘ Ì·ı·›Óˆ
33 ¶ÚÔÛ·ıÒ Ó· ‚Ú›ÛΈ ÙÚfiÔ˘˜ ÁÈ· Ó· Á›Óˆ ηχÙÂÚÔ˜ ÛÙËÓ ÂÎÌ¿ıËÛË
Ù˘ ͤÓ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜
34 ¶ÚÔÁÚ·ÌÌ·Ù›˙ˆ Ù· Û¯¤‰È¿ ÌÔ˘ ÒÛÙ ӷ ¤¯ˆ ·ÚÎÂÙfi ¯ÚfiÓÔ ÁÈ· ÌÂϤÙË
Ù˘ ͤÓ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜
Foreign Language learning strategy profiles of university students in Greece 127

35 濯ӈ Ó· ‚Úˆ ·ÓıÚÒÔ˘˜ Ì ÙÔ˘˜ ÔÔ›Ô˘˜ ÌÔÚÒ Ó· ÌÈÏ‹Ûˆ ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·
36 濯ӈ Ó· ‚Úˆ ¢ηÈڛ˜ ÒÛÙ ӷ ‰È·‚¿˙ˆ fiÛÔ Á›ÓÂÙ·È ÂÚÈÛÛfiÙÂÚÔ Î›ÌÂÓ·
ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·
37 Œ¯ˆ ηı·ÚÔ‡˜ ÛÙfi¯Ô˘˜ ÁÈ· ÙÔ Ò˜ ı· ‚ÂÏÙÈÒÛˆ ÙȘ ‰ÂÍÈfiÙËÙ¤˜ ÌÔ˘
ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·
38 ªÂ ··Û¯ÔÏ› Ë ÚfiÔ‰fi˜ ÌÔ˘ ÛÙËÓ ÂÎÌ¿ıËÛË Ù˘ ͤÓ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜
39 ¶ÚÔÛ·ıÒ Ó· ¯·Ï·ÚÒÛˆ fiÙ·Ó ÊÔ‚¿Ì·È Ó· ¯ÚËÛÈÌÔÔÈ‹Ûˆ ÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·
40 ∂Óı·ÚÚ‡Óˆ ÙÔÓ Â·˘Ùfi ÌÔ˘ Ó· ÌÈÏ¿ÂÈ ÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ· ·ÎfiÌË Î·È fiÙ·Ó
ÊÔ‚¿Ì·È Ì‹ˆ˜ οӈ Ï¿ıË
41 ∞ÓÙ·Ì›‚ˆ ÙÔÓ Â·˘Ùfi ÌÔ˘ Ì οÙÈ fiÙ·Ó Ù· ËÁ·›Óˆ ηϿ ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·
42 ∫·Ù·Ï·‚·›Óˆ fiÙÂ Â›Ì·È ·Á¯ˆÌ¤ÓÔ˜/Ë ‹ Ó¢ÚÈÎfi˜/‹ ηٿ ÙË ‰È¿ÚÎÂÈ· Ù˘
ÌÂϤÙ˘ ÌÔ˘ ‹ ¯Ú‹Û˘ Ù˘ ͤÓ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜
43 ∫·Ù·Áڿʈ Ù· Û˘Ó·ÈÛı‹Ì·Ù¿ ÌÔ˘ Û ¤Ó· ËÌÂÚÔÏfiÁÈÔ ÂÎÌ¿ıËÛ˘
Ù˘ ͤÓ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜
44 ∂ÎÌ˘ÛÙËÚ‡ÔÌ·È Û οÔÈÔÓ ¿ÏÏÔÓ Ù· Û˘Ó·ÈÛı‹Ì·Ù¿ ÌÔ˘ Û¯ÂÙÈο Ì ÙËÓ
ÂÎÌ¿ıËÛË Ù˘ ͤÓ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜
45 ŸÙ·Ó ‰ÂÓ Î·Ù·Ï·‚·›Óˆ οÙÈ ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ· ˙ËÙÒ ·fi ÙÔÓ Û˘ÓÔÌÈÏËÙ‹ ÌÔ˘
Ó· ÌÈÏ¿ ÈÔ ·ÚÁ¿ ‹ Ó· Â·Ó·Ï¿‚ÂÈ ·˘Ùfi Ô˘ ›Â
46 ∑ËÙÒ ·fi ÙÔ˘˜ Ê˘ÛÈÎÔ‡˜ ÔÌÈÏËÙ¤˜ Ù˘ ͤÓ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜ Ó· Ì ‰ÈÔÚıÒÓÔ˘Ó
fiÙ·Ó ÌÈÏ¿ˆ
47 ∫¿Óˆ ÂÍ¿ÛÎËÛË ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ· Ì ¿ÏÏÔ˘˜ ÛÔ˘‰·ÛÙ¤˜
48 ∑ËÙÒ ‚Ô‹ıÂÈ· ·fi Ê˘ÛÈÎÔ‡˜ ÔÌÈÏËÙ¤˜ Ù˘ ͤÓ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜ Ô˘ Ì·ı·›Óˆ
49 ∫¿Óˆ ÂÚˆÙ‹ÛÂȘ ÛÙËÓ Í¤ÓË ÁÏÒÛÛ·
50 ¶ÚÔÛ·ıÒ Ó· ·ÔÎÙ‹Ûˆ ÁÓÒÛÂȘ Û¯ÂÙÈΤ˜ Ì ÙËÓ ÎÔ˘ÏÙÔ‡Ú· ÙˆÓ Ê˘ÛÈÎÒÓ
ÔÌÈÏËÙÒÓ Ù˘ ͤÓ˘ ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜ Ô˘ Ì·ı·›Óˆ