Third International Conference on Situating Strategy Use:
Stepping Into a New Era of Strategy Research and Practice
Osaka, 13-15/10/2019

Language learning strategy promotion byteachers in dual-immersion schools in
GreeceZoe Gavriilidou & Lydia Mitits

Democritus University of Thrace

Outline
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. RQs
4. Method-Statistics
5. Results (5.1 Questionnaire, 5.2 Observation, 5.3 Interview) andDiscussion
6. Conclusions/Future research1. Introduction
Teacher related variables have to do with teachers' perceptions, beliefs, attitudes
and motivation toward language teaching, which affect adoption of teachingapproaches and preferred classroom practices as well as promotion of certain
types of tasks and teaching materials (Bernaus, Wilson & Gardner 2009; Julkunen
2001; Kern 1995; Richards Gallo & Renandya 2001; William & Burden 1997).
For language learning strategies (LLSs) to become an integral part of language
curricula, teachers need to develop expertise in effective language learning
strategy instruction (LLSI) (Chamot 2017). One way is in-service teacher training(workshops, seminars, etc.)
Ø There is a limited number of studies on LLS promotion by classroom teachers.
Ø There are no studies comparing LLS promotion between L1 and L2 teachers(of languages other than English).

Our study focuses on 102 teachers’(a) self-evaluation,(b) reflection and(c) observationof the LLSs they promote in the classroom.

2. Literature review
The majority of relevant studies refer to teachers' perceptions of what LLSs they
believe their students might be using and are compared with students’
perceptions on the same issue (O'Malley et al. 1985; Griffiths & Parr 2001;
Griffiths 2007; Khan 2012; Tamjid & Babazadeh 2012).
A small 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 ofstrategy use.
• Sen and Sen (2012) investigated the awareness levels in LLS of 70 EFL
teachers, their beliefs on the effectiveness of strategies on language learningand their perceived ease of strategy instruction (SILL and semi-structured
interview)• Amiryousefi (2015) explored 72 Iranian EFL teachers' beliefs about theusefulness of different types of vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs) (VLS
questionnaire designed by the researcher).

EFL teachers’ strategy promotion studies in Greece (the instrument - questionnaire based on
Oxford’ (1990) SILL developed as part of the Thales project for profiling EFL teachers’ LLS
promotion in class (Psaltou-Joycey, Penteri & Gavriilidou 2016)) :Ø The 63 primary and lower secondary schools teachers’ means fell within the high range of LLS
use (3.71-4.2) while the order of LLS in terms of decreasing frequency of reported use ismetacognitive, cognitive, compensation, social, memory, and affective categories (PsaltouJoycey et al. 2017).
Ø Another study found that 26 public lower secondary teachers reported they more frequently
practiced, in descending order, metacognitive, cognitive, compensation, social, memory andaffective strategies (Papadopoulou et al. 2017).
Ø Gavriilidou et al. (2017) reported that, in Thrace, 28 minority primary and secondary schools
teachers' means for metacognitive, memory and compensation strategies fall within the highrange of LLS use (4.83-3.71) while means for cognitive, affective and social strategies fallwithin the medium range (3.47-3.20).
Psaltou-Joycey (2008) investigated Greek as a FL teachers' preferences of classroom procedures
and activities and found that such preferences affect the students' reported order of strategy use.

3. Research questions

RQ1
RQ2

What language learning strategies do teachersin dual-immersion schools promote?
Do variables such as gender, age, teachingexperience, postgraduate studies, and languagetaught effect the language learning strategy
promotion?

4. Methods and data collection• This presentation reports on the results of a mixed-methods study of LLSs
promoted by Greek L2 and Turkish L1 teachers in dual-immersion primaryschools in Thrace, Greece. Those schools provide education for the Muslim
minority children whose L1 is mainly Turkish, but there are also Pomak anda small number of Roma L1 speakers. The curriculum is divided into
subjects taught in L1 Turkish and L2 Greek. Overall, language proficiency
level and academic achievement in those schools are low.
• The study was conducted as a part of first/second language in-service
teacher training program held in the frame of the Project “Education ofMuslim minority children” and was designed and implemented to provide
teachers of Greek L2 and Turkish L1 with additional teaching methodology
on LLS.

4.1 Sample
102 primary school teachers
n=69 (67.6%) Greek language teachers
n=33 (32.4%) Turkish language teachers
n=43 males (42.2%) and n=59 (57.8%) females

Age

Age
41

21%

35

2%
36%

24-30
31-40
41-50

21

50+

41%
2
24-30

31-40

41-50

50+

Years of service

Years of service
53

14%
5-10

34

11-15

52%
34%

14

5-10

11-15

15+

• There are also 15 Master’s degree holders (14.9%) and 1 with a PhD.

15+

4.2 Data collection procedure•

No one data source or methodology will sufficiently
answer all critical educational questions. Multiple
measures or indicators of instruction are needed tohelp capture a more comprehensive picture of whatgoes on in classrooms. One of the new directions forclassroom observation research is combining both
qualitative and quantitative methods.

•

The teacher self-evaluation was measured with aquestionnaire based on Oxford’ (1990) SILL
developed as part of the Thales project in Greece for
profiling EFL teachers’ LLS promotion in class(Psaltou-Joycey, Penteri & Gavriilidou 2016).

•

It was followed by class observations and 12 teacher
interviews.

4.2.1 The questionnaire• It includes memory (6 items), cognitive (16 items), compensation (4items), metacognitive (10 items), affective (4 items), and social strategies(7 items). It was piloted and its wording and number of items were
adjusted accordingly. Reliability statistics has shown high Cronbach’s
Alpha .902 on the 47 five-point Likert scale items.
• Respondents were asked to indicate how often they promote each strategy,
using a five-point Likert 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, previous teaching experience, etc.

4.2.2 The observation
The purpose of the observation was to describe the language learning
strategy instruction processes and identify instructional problems in orderto provide supplementary, detailed and precise evidence to thequestionnaire and the interviews.
The observer had received previous training in strategy instruction. The
specific observational focus were the 47 strategy promotion items fromthe questionnaire as well as the description of the particular schools interms of the role of Greek language teachers, Turkish language teachers,
parents, textbooks, classroom management, teaching methods, teacher
training, etc.
The observation was conducted by the school advisor for 1 school year in
all the minority primary schools in the Rodopi region of Thrace, Greece(n= 82). The method to record the data were a rating scale and a narrativedescription.

4.2.3 The interview
A semi-structured interview
12 teachers: 8 Greek language teachers and 4 Turkish language teachers (apurposeful sample)
Interview questions:
1. How do you manage your class?
2. How do you help your students memorize new information?
3. How much time do you allocate for teaching each of the four skills(listening, speaking, reading, writing)?
4. How do you encourage student cooperation and their positive attitude
towards school?
5. Do you try to empathize with your student with regard to their language
learning?
6. Which language learning strategies do you believe are useful for yourstudents? Which strategies do you promote in your classroom and in whichway?
7. What is the learner-centered teaching to you?

4.3 Statistics› SPSS v.25
› Descriptives for the mean scores and sd in LLS
promotion› To check the effect of gender, age, teaching experience
post-graduate studies, language taught on LLS
promotion- One-way ANOVAs (post-hoc Tukey HSD)

5. Results-Discussion

5.1 Questionnaire
5.1.1 descriptive statistics• The whole sample of teachers (Greek L2 and Turkish L1)
report a generally high use of LLSs, both overall and inall 6 categories.
• There are no statistically significant differences between
the categories.

Strategy categories - means

3.99

3.88

3.88
3.85

3.85

3.80
3.77

MEMORY (2)COGNITIVE (4)COMPENSATION (2)METACOGNITIVE (1)

AFFECTIVE (3)SOCIAL (5)OVERALL

The 10 most reportedly promoted strategies
Q13 I recommend that my students read books and magazines in Greek/Turkish in their free time.
(mean=4.29 sd=0.852) cognitive
Q34 I encourage my students to speak Greek/Turkish disregarding the mistakes they may make.
(mean=4.28 sd=0.893) metacognitive
Q6 I recommend that my students revise what they are learning in Greek/Turkish. (mean=4.25 sd=0.783)
memoryQ28 I urge my student to observe their mistakes in order to improve. (mean=4.24 sd=0.800) metacognitive
Q27 I advise my students to take all the opportunities to practice their Greek/Turkish orally and in writing.
(mean=4.23 sd=0.780) metacognitive
Q31 I help my students to read as much as possible in Greek/Turkish (stories, lyrics, webpages, video
games instructions, etc.). (mean=4.23 sd=0.806) metacognitive
Q1 When I teach something new in Greek/Turkish, I link it to my students’ previous knowledge.
(mean=4.19 sd=0.720) memory
Q5 When I teach new words, I use gestures and facial expressions to enable understanding. (mean=4.18
sd=0.841) memory
Q29 I ask my students to pay attention when somebody is speaking Greek/Turkish. (mean=4.18 sd=0.878)
metacognitive
Q39 I use humor to attract my students’ attention (e.g. jokes, anecdotes). (mean=4.16 sd=0.842) affective

The 10 least reportedly promoted strategies
Q46 I advise my students to learn about Greek/Turkish culture. (mean=3.47 sd=1.037) social
Q15 I ask my students to initially read a Greek/Turkish text quickly and then in detail. (mean=3.47
sd=1.045) cognitive
Q3 I present new words in context (dialogue, story, song, etc.). (mean=3.44 sd=0.921) memory
Q38 I urge my students to talk about how they feel about learning Greek/Turkish with others.
(mean=3.38 sd=1.015) affective
Q33 I ask my students to monitor their progress in Greek/Turkish (e.g. through oral or writtencomments, written tests, portfolio, etc.). (mean=3.30 sd=0.944) metacognitive
Q36 After a strategy application activity, I discuss with my students whether they consider theparticular strategy useful or not. (mean=3.27 sd=0.935) metacognitive
Q42 I recommend that my students ask for corrections when they have the opportunity to speak
Greek/Turkish with a native speaker. (mean=3.26 sd=1.107) social
Q20 I assign summary writing of the information they listen to or read about in Greek/Turkish to mystudents. (mean=3.12
sd=1.032) cognitive
Q4 I use rhyme when I teach new words. (mean=3.11 sd=1.081) memory
Q19 I generally don’t ask my students to do a word-for-word translation. (mean=3.11 sd=1.202)
cognitive5.1.2 Effect of gender• Female teachers report higher frequency of social strategy
category promotion (mean=3.87, sd=.54) than males (mean=3.61,
sd=.51).
• Women teachers appear to be better negotiators who encourage
students to communicate with peers and more proficient users of
Greek and Turkish and not to be afraid to ask clarificationquestions.
• They also seem to promote the cultivation of cooperation atexpense of competition and to empathize with their students more
frequently than their male colleagues.

One-way Analysis of Variance of Gender by LLS categories and overall
Sourcedf
SSMS

memorycognitivecompensation
metacognitive
affectivesocialoverall

Between Groups

1

0.10

0.10

Within Groups
Total

93
94

20.07
20.17

0.22

Between Groups

1

0.09

0.09

Within Groups
Total

81
82

20.72
20.81

0.26

Between Groups

1

1.03

1.03

Within Groups
Total

94
95

26.22
27.25

0.28

Between Groups

1

0.76

0.76

Within Groups
Total

92
93

26.50
27.27

0.29

Between Groups

1

0.13

0.13

Within Groups
Total

93
94

31.42
31.55

0.34

Between Groups

1

1.46

1.46

Within Groups
Total

87
88

24.86
26.32

0.29

Between Groups

1

0.19

0.19

Within Groups
Total

72
73

13.24
13.43

0.18

F

p

0.46

.50

0.35

.56

3.68

.06

2.65

.11

0.38

.54

5.11

.03

1.02

.32

5.1.3 Effect of age• There is not an even distribution for the youngest group of teachers, but
apart from that significant differences are found between the 31-40 age
range teachers and those who are 41+, pointing towards a trend thatolder teachers report using more affective LLSs than their younger
colleagues.
• The 41+ teachers seem to influence the emotional atmosphere of theclassroom more effectively by advising their students how to control
their anxiety when learning Greek/Turkish, by providing increased
amount of naturalistic communication, by using humor to attract
students attention, by employing songs, role play or craftwork to help
their students relax, and by teaching students how to use thosestrategies themselves.

One-way Analysis of Variance of Age by LLS categories and overall
Sourcememorycognitivecompensation

metacognitive

affectivesocialoverall

df

SS

MS

F

p

Between Groups

3

0.68

0.23

1.09

.36

Within Groups
Total

90
93

18.68
19.36

0.21

Between Groups

3

1.29

0.43

1.77

.16

Within Groups
Total

78
81

18.93
20.22

0.24

Between Groups

3

0.57

0.19

0.66

.58

Within Groups
Total

91
94

26.49
27.06

0.29

Between Groups

3

1.35

0.45

1.58

.20

Within Groups
Total

89
92

25.31
26.66

0.28

Between Groups

3

2.78

0.93

2.88

.04

Within Groups
Total

90
93

28.93
31.71

0.32

Between Groups

3

1.62

0.54

1.92

.13

Within Groups
Total

84
87

23.65
25.27

0.28

Between Groups

3

1.28

0.43

2.54

.06

Within Groups
Total

69
72

11.55
12.83

0.17

Age
24-30
31-40
41-50
50+

N
2
34
38
20

Subset foralpha = 0.05
13.37503.6691
3.99344.00005.1.4 Effect of teaching experience in dual-immersion schools• Again, there is an apparent tendency to self-rate affective
strategy promotion higher according to the experience
gained from teaching the particular learner population.
• Teachers who have accumulated the knowhow byteaching bi-/multi-lingual students in the particularlearning/teaching context appear to be more sensitive totheir students’ emotional needs and raise motivation tolearn Greek and Turkish respectively.

One-way Analysis of Variance of Teaching experience by LLS categories and overallmemorycognitivecompensation

metacognitive

affectivesocialoverall

Source

df

SS

MS

F

p

Between Groups

2

0.13

0.06

0.29

.75

Within Groups

93

20.05

0.22

Total

95

20.18

Between Groups

2

0.23

0.12

0,.5

.64

Within Groups

81

20.65

0.26

Total

83

20.88

Between Groups

2

0.05

0.03

0.09

.92

Within Groups

94

27.96

0.30

Total

96

28.01

Between Groups

2

0.30

0.15

0.52

.60

Within Groups

92

27.08

0.29

Total

94

27.38

Between Groups

2

2.47

1.23

3.89

.02

Within Groups

93

29.50

0.32

Total

95

31.97

Between Groups

2

0.67

0.34

1.13

.33

Within Groups

87

25.78

0.30

Total

89

26.45

Between Groups

2

0.31

0.16

0.84

.44

Within Groups

72

13.25

0.18

Total

74

13.56

Teachingexperience
5-10

N
14

Subset for alpha= 0.051
2
3.482111-15

313.862915+51

3.86293.95595.1.5 Effect of postgraduate studies• Teachers holders of MA report higher compensation strategy category
promotion (mean=4.15, sd=.51) than those without (mean=3.82,
sd=.52).
• They seem to be more flexible than their colleagues in accepting
compensation and language production despite limitations inknowledge, especially in the areas of grammar and vocabulary.
• Intelligent guessing, dictionary use, extralinguistic clues, synonyms andparaphrase are encouraged by higher educated teachers, unlike theircolleagues who may embrace more traditional approaches to teaching.

One-way Analysis of Variance of Postgraduate studies by LLS categories and overallmemorycognitivecompensation

metacognitive

affectivesocialoverall

Source

df

SS

MS

F

p

Between Groups

2

0.64

0.32

1.52

.22

Within Groups

93

19.54

0.21

Total

95

20.18

Between Groups

2

0.91

0.45

1.84

.17

Within Groups

81

19.97

0.25

Total

83

20.88

Between Groups

2

2.10

1.05

3.81

.03

Within Groups

94

25.91

0.28

Total

96

28.01

Between Groups

2

0.38

0.19

0.64

.53

Within Groups

92

27.00

0.29

Total

94

27.38

Between Groups

2

0.54

0.27

0.80

.45

Within Groups

93

31.43

0.34

Total

95

31.97

Between Groups

2

0.26

0.13

0.44

.65

Within Groups

87

26.19

0.30

Total

89

26.45

Between Groups

2

0.56

0.28

1.54

.22

Within Groups

72

13.00

0.18

Total

74

13.56

5.1.5 Effect of language taught• No effect of language taught on strategy categories andoverall strategy promotion, but there was a significant effecton individual items (in all instances it is the Greek language
teachers who report higher frequency of strategy promotion).
• The different approaches seem to mirror the differences in
the nature of L1 and L2 acquisition but also the separate
programs of pre- and in-service training that Greek L2 andTurkish L1 teachers undergo.

Strategy promotion items
Q4 I use rhyme when I teach new words (memory) [F(1,95)=5,144, p=0.023]
Q6 I recommend that my students review what they are learning in Greek/Turkish (memory) [F(1,95)=2,300,
p=0.031]
Q18 I encourage my students to find the meaning of a word by dividing it into parts which they can understand(cognitive) [F(1,95)=4,876, p=0.031]
Q20 I assign summary writing of new language material to my students (cognitive) [F(1,96)=8,395, p=0.005]
Q22 I recommend that mu students learn new words/expressions from signs, product packaging, advertisements,
TV, the Internet, etc.(cognitive) [F(1,95)=7,459, p=0.008]
Q23 I encourage my students to guess the meaning of new words (compensation) [F(1,94)=15,938, p=0.000]
Q25 I encourage my students to look up the unknown words in a dictionary to help them understand a text
(compensation) [F(1,94)=4,904, p=0.029]
Q34 I encourage my students to speak Greek/Turkish disregarding the mistakes they make (metacognitive)[F(1,94)=8,498, p=0.004]
Q38 I urge my students to talk about how they feel about learning Greek/Turkish with others (affective)[F(1,92)=8,819, p=0.004]
Q40 I use songs, role play and crafts work to help my students relax (affective) [F(1,94)=5,627, p=0.02]
Q41 If my students cannot understand something in Greek/Turkish, I encourage them to ask the other person toslow down or say it again (social) [F(1,93)=4,905, p=0.029]
Q43I urge my students to practice their Greek/Turkish with their classmates (social) [F(1,94)=4,615, p=0.034]
Q44 I encourage my students to ask Greek/Turkish native speakers for help (social) [F(1,94)=10,354, p=0.002]

5.2 Observation results

Here is what the observation showed about the 10 most frequently reported
strategy promotion behaviors.

Q13 I recommend that my students read books and magazines in Greek/Turkish in their free time. (cognitive)
All the teachers make such recommendations but they don’t generally read for pleasure themselves nor do they conduct creative reading
activities. A small number of teachers inform their students about the school landing library. Children living in the particular rural
areas generally have no access to print material other than textbooks.
Q34 I encourage my students to speak Greek/Turkish disregarding the mistakes they may make. (metacognitive)
Mistakes are generally considered as a hindrance and a problem and should be avoided. Errors are not viewed as a part of the learning
process.
Q6 I recommend that my students revise what they are learning in Greek/Turkish. (memory)
The teachers’ recommendations are daily but without specific strategy employment. Students are not given strategy options to facilitate
revision (e.g. semantic maps, diagrams, highlighting, record keeping).
Q28 I urge my student to observe their mistakes in order to improve. (metacognitive)
It is just verbal. There is no systematic planned self-evaluation program.
Q27 I advise my students to take all the opportunities to practice their Greek/Turkish orally and in writing. (metacognitive)
It is just verbal. There is no strategic instruction.
Q31 I help my students to read as much as possible in Greek/Turkish (stories, lyrics, webpages, video games instructions, etc.).
(metacognitive)
It is only in the form of advice without concrete strategies proposal or modeling.
Q1 When I teach something new in Greek/Turkish, I link it to my students’ previous knowledge. (memory)
They rely almost exclusively on the previous knowledge without exploring further claiming that new knowledge is too complex for theparticular students to grasp.
Q5 When I teach new words, I use gestures and facial expressions to enable understanding. (memory)More than half of the teachers do that, mainly female teachers.
Q29 I ask my students to pay attention when somebody is speaking Greek/Turkish. (metacognitive)
It is just verbal. There is no strategic instruction.
Q39 I use humor to attract my students’ attention (e.g. jokes, anecdotes).
This depends on each teacher’s character. A vast majority of teachers seem disillusioned and dissatisfied.

Here is what the observation showed about the 10 least frequently reported strategy promotion behaviors.
Q46 I advise my students to learn about Greek/Turkish culture. (social)
The teachers are reluctant to do this as they may be accused by the parents and the minority community of trying to change the students’cultural and religious identity.
Q15 I ask my students to initially read a Greek/Turkish text quickly and then in detail. (cognitive)
This is not done at all. The texts only serve as a way to learn the pronunciation of words.
Q3 I present new words in context (dialogue, story, song, etc.). (memory)
This is rarely done as there are too many unknown words and the teachers do not have a systematic approach to introducing new
vocabulary.
Q38 I urge my students to talk about how they feel about learning Greek/Turkish with others. (affective)
The students do not have such opportunities as they live in communities where Greek is not spoken.
Q33 I ask my students to monitor their progress in Greek/Turkish (e.g. through oral or written comments, written tests, portfolio, etc.).
(metacognitive)
Not done.
Q36 After a strategy application activity, I discuss with my students whether they consider the particular strategy useful or not.
(metacognitive)
The teachers say that the students’ very limited knowledge of Greek impedes a possibility of a discussion.
Q42 I recommend that my students, when they have the opportunity, speak Greek/Turkish with a native speaker to ask for corrections.
(social)The teachers believe that the students are not interested in learning Greek and would not engage in such an activity.
Q20 I assign summary writing of the information they listen to or read about in Greek/Turkish to my students. (cognitive)
The teachers are not aware of the advantages of summary writing.
Q4 I use rhyme when I teach new words. (memory)
Not done.
Q19 I generally don’t ask my students to do a word-for-word translation. (cognitive)
They actually do it quite often. Only those who have some knowledge of the Turkish language or those who are willing to ask for help
from their Turkish language colleagues.

5.3 Interview results
Q1. Social strategies
ü Establishing classroom rules with the students
ü Class discussion
ü Clear and succinct instructions
ü Safe and trusting atmosphereü Rewards
ü Differentiated instruction
ü Different teaching methodologies
ü Parental involvement
ü The teacher determines the rules and conduct of behavior (4)Q2. Memory strategies
ü Mnemonics: lists, drawings, role play, revision, semantic maps, keywords, vocabulary book,context, word etymology, songs, games, multimodal texts, activation of prior knowledge,
flashcards
ü Multiple intelligences theory and different learning styles
ü Traditional teacher-centered approach (2)Q3. Applying LLSs to four language learning skills
ü Greek L2 language teachers dedicate more time to listening and speaking than reading andwriting while the opposite is the case with Turkish L1

Q4. Social and affective strategies
ü General comments reflecting a lack of specific strategy promotionü Group work
ü Students take responsibility for various choresü By varying activitiesü Class discussion
ü GamesQ5. Affective strategies (empathy)
ü By remembering their own language learning experiences (1)ü Only general observations
Q6. Individual LLSs
ü Revision, self-correction, summary writing, extensive reading, memory and cognitive are
the most important (1), underliningü 2 teachers knew the strategy categories and individual strategies
Q7. Autonomous learning (learning-to-learn)ü 3 teachers gave a satisfactory definition

6. Conclusions/Future researchü The observation showed that teachers’ views, expressed
through self-rating of their strategy promotion, do not
generally reflect their classroom practices.
ü The interview revealed teachers’ limited knowledge of
specific LLSs and a lack of LLSI expertise. The strategy
teaching is sporadic and intuitive.

• Our results indicate that the teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about LLS
promotion mismatch their practices. However, their high reported
promotion witnesses their awareness about the positive outcomes of LLS
use in L1 and L2 learning and also their positive stance towards LLS use
and promotion in classroom, although they may not know exactly how toachieve that educative goal in practice.
• This positive stance 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.
• Research shows that learners benefit more from explicit rather than implicit
strategy instruction and therefore there is need to systematically instructboth L1 and L2 teachers in LLSI (see Cohen & Weaver 2005; PsaltouJoycey 2015; Chamot 2017).

v Priorities shape educational curricula and call for appropriate teaching
methodologies promoting self-regulation and ownership of the learning
process by the learner (Cheng 2011; Staron et al. 2006).
vLearner-centered methodologies are required to enhance metacognition, selfregulation and autonomy, particularly when it comes to bi-/multilingual
learners who are developing at least two languages at the same time.
Such a methodology is direct LLSI - learners are coached in ways that will
make learning more efficient and pleasurable, building an awareness of whatworks for them and in what contexts, enabling them to become autonomous,
lifelong learners (Cohen 2014; Gu 2007; Nguyen & Gu 2013; Wolters 2010).

References
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

Amiryousefi, M. (2015). Iranian EFL learners' and teachers' beliefs about the usefulness of
vocabulary learning strategies. SAGE Open. DOI: 10.1177/2158244015581382
Bernaus, M., Wilson, A. & Gardner, R. C. (2009). Teachers' motivation, classroom strategy use,
students' motivation and second language achievement. Porta Linguarum 12, 25-36.
Chamot, 2017
Gavriilidou, Z. Mitits, L. Kambakis-Vougiouklis, P. Petrogiannis K (2017). Profiling learners’ strategy
use and teachers’ strategy promotion in minority primary and secondary schools. Implications forforeign language teaching. In Gavriilidou, Z., Petrogiannis, K. Platsidou, M. and Psaltou-Joycey, A.,(Eds.) Language Learning Strategies: theoretical issues and applied perspectives, Kavala, Saita
publications, 124-149 http://www.saitabooks.eu/2017/06/ebook.173.html.
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 Journal61(2): doi:10.1093/elt/ccm001.
Julkunen, K. (2001). Situation-and task-specific motivation in foreign language learning andteaching. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.29-42).
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Students' and teachers' beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language
28(1), 71-92.
Khan, M. F. R. (2012). Language Learning Strategies: A Study of Teacher and Learner Perceptions.
BUP Journal 1(1), 140-153

•
•

•
•

•
•
•
•
•

O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kiipper, L. & Russo, R. P. (1985). Learning
strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning 35(1), 21-46.
Papadopoulou, I., Z. Kantaridou, I. Agaliotis, & M. Platsidou (2017). Foreign Language Teachers’
Strategy Instruction Practices in Greek Secondary Education. In Z. Gavriilidou, K.
Petrogiannis, M. Platsidou & A. Psaltou-Joycey (Eds) Language learning Strategies: theoreticalissues and applied
perspectives,
Kavala:Saita
Publications,ISBN
978-6185147-52-5,
96-123.
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., Agathopoulou, E., Petrogiannis, K. & Z. Gavriilidou (2017) Teachers’ and learners’
reported language learning strategy use: How do they match. Language Learning Strategies:
Theoretical
IssuesandAppliedPerspectives,
pp.71-95.
http://www.saitabooks.eu/2017/06/ebook.173.html.
Psaltou-Joycey, A., E. Penderi and Z. Gavriilidou (2016), Development of a questionnaire to investigate
FL teachers’ promotion of language learning strategies. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics
and TEFL 5, Νο 1: 193–211.
Richards, J. C., Gallo, P. B. & Renandya. W. A. (2001). Teachers' beliefs and the processes ofchange. PAC Journal 1(1), 41-64.
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 accessunder CC BY-NC-ND license. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.390.
Tamjid, N. H. & Babazadeh, N. (2012). Comparing intermediate EFL students' and teachers'
perceptions of listening comprehension strategy use. World Applied Sciences Journal 16(9), 13081313.
Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist
Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thankyou!