Content uploaded by Konstantinos Petrogiannis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Konstantinos Petrogiannis on May 30, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Education Applications & Developments
Advances in Education and Educational Trends Series
Edited by: Mafalda Carmo
Edited by:
Mafalda Carmo,
World Institute for Advanced Research and Science, WIARS,
Portugal
Published and distributed by:
Rua Tomas Ribeiro, 45, 1ºD, 1050-225 Lisboa, Portugal
www.insciencepress.org
Printed by:
GIMA - GESTÃO DE IMAGEM EMPRESARIAL, LDA
CET - Centro Empresarial Tejo, Rua de Xabregas Nº 6 - Lote B
1900-440 Lisboa, Portugal
Printed on acid-free paper
ISSN of Collection: 2183-2978
ISBN of this Volume: 978-989-97866-8-4
Legal Deposit: 393052/15
All Rights Reserved
© 2015 inScience Press
This work is under inScience Press Open Access License. This publication may be read, downloaded,
printed, copied, distributed, displayed, reproduced and performed, but only for non-commercial
purposes, provided acknowledgement of the original source and its author(s) is made, with a link to
inScience Press.
This publication will be available online in http://insciencepress.org/ and limited hard copies can be
ordered from:
InScience Press,
Rua Tomas Ribeiro, 45, 1ºD
1050-225 Lisboa, Portugal
Contents
i
CONTENTS
Foreword
v
Contributors
xvii
Section 1: Teachers and Students
Chapter 1
Teacher education and professional development: Text production and school
management in focus
Ana Luzia Videira Parisotto & Renata Portela Rinaldi
3
Chapter 2
Student perception of teachers’ National Council for the Accreditation of
Teacher Education and California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
dispositions
Kimberly R. Hudson
12
Chapter 3
Academic transition and peer tutoring: A case study at the University
of Padova
Lorenza Da Re & Giuseppe Zago
25
Chapter 4
Levels of adjustment to college, gender and academic achievement in
first-year Spanish students
Mª Fernanda Páramo, Carolina Tinajero, & Mª Soledad Rodríguez
35
Chapter 5
Primary teacher mathematics anxiety, teacher efficacy and mathematics
avoidance
Sharon Jaggernauth & Madgerie Jameson-Charles
45
Chapter 6
The teacher’s development plan in the initial teaching degree
Susana Aránega Español
59
Chapter 7
The influences and motivations for becoming a preschool teacher:
Turkish case
Belkıs Tekmen & Güler Küçükturan
71
Chapter 8
The bridge between theory and practice
Güler Küçükturan & Belkıs Tekmen
83
Chapter 9
Calculated questions and e-Cheating: A case study
Juan Carlos González de Sande
92
Contents
ii
Section 2: Projects and Trends
Chapter 10
HbbTV history and its educational possibilities: Teaching options in times of
the Internet
Joan-Francesc Fondevila-Gascón, Pedro Mir-Bernal,
Marta Carreras-Alcalde, & Swen Seebach
103
Chapter 11
Concept maps as knowledge-building and argument-systematizing tools:
Experimenting with undergraduate students
Marcus Vinicius Santos Kucharski
113
Chapter 12
Does creativity rely on expertise? How the Danish reform-pedagogical
agenda is related to present attempts to understand and facilitate
creativity and personal expression among children
Mikkel Snorre Wilms Boysen
122
Chapter 13
A U.S. University’s development of an inclusive early childhood education
preparation program: The journey
Deborah G. Wooldridge, Mary M. Murray, & Dawn Shinew
130
Chapter 14
Evaluating MOCEP’s pilot program in Lebanon in Palestinian camps
Ahmad Oweini & Ghassan Issa
142
Chapter 15
Aspects of pragmatic communication difficulties in persons with symptomatic
speech disorders
Kateřina Vitásková & Alena Říhová
158
Chapter 16
Education for nurses in the context of sustainable development
Ruta Renigere
169
Chapter 17
Custom developed software to simulate the use of UV/Vis spectroscopy in
quantitative chemical analysis
Emilia Bertolo & Simon Clay
178
Chapter 18
Exploring the views of pre-service teachers on the use of the e-Portfolio as a
learning platform
Caroline Koh, Woon Chia Liu, Stefanie Chye, & Mingming Zhou
186
Chapter 19
Written narratives: Potentialities for research and teacher professional
development
Renata Portela Rinaldi & Ana Luzia Videira Parisotto
195
Contents
iii
Chapter 20
New methods of teaching: Interdisciplinarity approach and mathematical
modeling
Olga Nikolaevna Kapelko & Georgiy Gennadievich Malinetskiy
204
Chapter 21
What do we need for quality education: The introduction of collective
reasoning into the educational process and pedagogy of the future
Alla Vasilievna Guseva, Ekaterina Kozina, & Olga Nikolaevna Kapelko
214
Section 3: Teaching and Learning
Chapter 22
Strategy inventory for language learning: Findings of a validation study in
Greece
Konstantinos Petrogiannis & Zoe Gavriilidou
223
Chapter 23
Emotion socialization practices of early childhood educators
Christelle Robert, Sylvain Coutu, Diane Dubeau, & Annie Bérubé
237
Chapter 24
Emotional literacy education in a Hong Kong university: Reflection and
proposal
Amy Lee Wai Sum
248
Section 4: Organizational Issues
Chapter 25
Reproduction of inequality through private out-of-school education
Derya Keskin Demirer
259
Chapter 26
Four-dimensional modeling: A tool for implementing the arts education act
in music education at a school in Taiwan
Hua Hui Tseng
270
Chapter 27
The Cosmodernity: A transcultural approach for the global citizenship
education proposed by UNESCO
Javier Collado Ruano, Dante Augusto Galeffi,
& Roberto Leon Inacio Ponczek
280
Chapter 28
Using the Spelit analysis technique for organizational transitions
June Schmieder-Ramirez & Leo Mallette
291
Author Index
301
Strategy inventory for language learning: Findings of a validation study in Greece
223
Chapter 22
STRATEGY INVENTORY FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING:
FINDINGS OF A VALIDATION STUDY IN GREECE
Konstantinos Petrogiannis
1
& Zoe Gavriilidou
2
1
School of Humanities, Hellenic Open University, Greece
2
Department of Greek Studies, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
ABSTRACT
Foreign language learning strategies are specific actions or techniques employed by the learner for the
purpose of learning language, making learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed,
more effective, and more transferable to new situations, according to Rebecca Oxford. The paper
presents a large scale project’s (THALES: 379335) first phase findings regarding the validation of
Rebecca Oxford’s “Strategy Inventory for Language Learning” (S.I.L.L.) with a Greek sample of
1308 school-aged students from 16 schools representing 5 prefectures and 4 regions of the country.
46% of the students attended the last three grades of elementary school and 54% junior secondary
school. Following a series of exploratory factor analyses we decided on a 29-item version retaining
Oxford’s factor structure. The confirmatory factor analyses revealed a marginal level of fit for the
whole sample as well as the elementary school and secondary school sub-samples. The analyses
indicated moderate to high internal consistency coefficients for the two- and six-category model of
the SILL instrument. Based on these findings a number of analyses were performed regarding
differences across all the six SILL first-order categories (memory, cognitive compensation,
metacognitive, affective, and social strategies) and the two second-order categories (direct and
indirect strategies) in relation to gender and school level revealing significant differences. The results
are discussed in relation to other similar studies and the next phases of the study.
Keywords: learning strategies, S.I.L.L., validation, school-aged students, Greece.
1. INTRODUCTION
There has been an extensive body of research into language learning strategies, both
in second/foreign language (SL/FL) studies and educational psychology, in the last four
decades. The literature on learning strategies in SL/FL acquisition emerged from a concern
for highlighting the characteristics of effective learners and promoting learner-centered
models of language teaching. The focus was on the processes used by learners for
managing their SL/FL learning and, more specifically, on identifying those strategies that
make learners successful and those that lead to less successful learning. Based on these
elements the present paper provide the findings of an empirical study that attempted to
confirm a shortened version of Oxford’s (1990) six-factor learning strategies classification
system in a sample of Greek school-aged (elementary and secondary education) students
learning English as second language.
1.1. Defining language learning strategies
Definitions regarding learning strategies are basically found in literature on
psychology, where learning is commonly referred to as the process of storing and retrieving
information (Dörnyei, 2005; Rubin, 1981). In general, strategies, have been described as
K. Petrogiannis & Z. Gavriilidou
224
techniques or devices learners use to gain knowledge (Rubin, 1975) or as actions toward
achieving a given objective (Cohen, Weaver, & Li, 1996). Their conscious character was
emphasized in the work of Chamot (2005) and Griffiths (2007). Thus language learning
strategies have been defined as “conscious thoughts and actions that learners take in order
to achieve a learning goal. Strategic learners have metacognitive knowledge about their
own thinking and learning approaches, a good understanding of what a task entails, and the
ability to orchestrate the strategies that best meet both the task demands and their own
learning strengths” (Chamot, 2005, p. 14) or as “specific actions consciously employed by
the learner for the purpose of learning language” (Griffiths, 2007, p. 91). O’Malley and
Chamot (1990, p. 1) define them as “the special thoughts or behaviours that individuals use
to help them comprehend, learn or retain new information”. Oxford (1990) describes them
as “steps taken by learners to enhance their own learning” (p. 1) and claims that they refer
to “specific actions, behaviors, steps or techniques that students use to improve their own
progress in developing skills in a second or foreign language. These strategies can facilitate
the internalization, storage, retrieval or use of the new language” (Oxford, 1999, p. 518).
Weinstein, Husman, and Dierking (2000, p. 727) who studied learning strategies from the
perspective of educational psychology, argued that “learning strategies include any
thoughts, behaviors, beliefs or emotions that facilitate the acquisition, understanding or
later transfer of new knowledge and skills”. Recently there has been a shift in the focus of
LLS research from the product (strategies) to the process (self-regulation). In that respect,
Rubin (2001, 2005) introduced the term learner self-management defined as the ability to
deploy metacognitive strategic procedures (such as monitoring, planning, evaluating,
problem solving and implementing) and to make use of relevant knowledge and beliefs
(such as task knowledge, self-knowledge, strategy knowledge) and Oxford (2011)
maintained that self-regulated L2 learning strategies are defined as deliberate, goal-directed
attempts to manage and control efforts to learn L2. In educational psychology, on the other
hand, research has opted for the term of self-regulation (Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner,
2000).
1.2. The study background
Self-report procedures such as interviews, questionnaires, diaries and journals or
think-aloud protocols, while sometimes subject to errors, are mainly used for identifying
learner strategies. One of the most efficient and comprehensive ways to assess frequency of
language learning strategy use is a questionnaire, also referred to as an inventory or a
summative rating scale. Currently, the most frequently employed language learning strategy
use screening instrument around the world is the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
(SILL) developed by Oxford in the early 1990s. Originally, it was designed as a tool for
assessing the frequency of use of language learning strategies by students at the Defense
Language Institute Foreign Language Center in Monterey, California. It was followed by
two revised versions (Oxford, 1990): Version 5.1 for foreign language learners with
English native language (80 items) and Version 7.0 (ESL/EFL) for learners of English as a
second/foreign language (50 items). The self-report items of the instrument’s latter form
regarding the frequency of a number of language learning strategies use as indicated by the
language learners are organized under two broader factors, i.e. direct and indirect learning
strategies, depending on the extent to which each strategy item is involved in language
learning. In addition, the items are further distributed under six factors:
Strategy inventory for language learning: Findings of a validation study in Greece
225
i. “Direct strategies” include
(a) memory strategies (remembering and retrieving vocabulary), i.e. how learners
remember and retain language;
(b) cognitive strategies (comprehending and producing text), which indicate how
learners think of their learning; and
(c) compensation strategies (compensating for the lack of knowledge), reflecting how
learners make up the limited language to achieve successful language use.
ii. “Indirect strategies” include
(d) metacognitive strategies (manipulating learning processes), i.e., how they manage
their own learning;
(e) affective strategies (regulating affective state), or how learners adjust their
affective status in the learning process;
(f) social strategies (learning with others) which refer to how learners learn language
through social interaction).
The SILL uses a five-point Likert-type scale responses for each strategy described
(1= never or almost never true of me, 2= generally not true of me, 3= somewhat true of me,
4= generally true of me, 5= always or almost always true of me).
This originally adult-oriented instrument has been translated into more than
17 languages and appears in plenty major publications involving the study of LLS among
SL/FL learners. The psychometric properties of the instrument have been examined mainly
with the focus on the reliability and validity of the translated versions (Oxford
& Burry-Stock, 1995). In general, the ESL/EFL SILL reliabilities reported in the literature
have been high. The internal consistency reliability of the SILL determined by Cronbach’s
alpha has been well above an acceptable alpha value of >.70 in most studies (Hair,
Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998; Landau & Everitt, 2004). For instance, the alpha
coefficients have been .94 for the Chinese translation version (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002;
Yang, 1999), .93 for the Turkish, Korean and Japanese translation version (Park, 1997;
Robson & Midorikawa, 2001, Demirel, 2009), .91 for the Greek translation (Gavriilidou &
Mitits, 2014), .89 for the Turkish translation (Gavriilidou et al., in press), 86 for the Arabic
translation version (Khalil, 2005), and from .67 to .96 for the English version (Hong-Nam
& Leavell, 2006; Nyikos & Oxford, 1993; Wharton, 2000).
With regard to the construct validity of the SILL, findings were more controversial
and less conclusive. Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995) and Oxford (1996) reported the results
of exploratory factor analyses (EFA) that examined the underlying structure of the SILL
using data sets from six studies, and noted that construct validity of the instrument has been
studied in relation to the ESL/EFL setting, learning styles, gender, motivation etc. It has
been found that there is a strong relationship between the SILL score and the
aforementioned independent variables. A more recent CFA analysis carried out by Hsiao
and Oxford (2002) revealed that among fourteen competing LLS taxonomies examined,
Oxford’s six-factor taxonomy provided the most consistent account of college student data,
although the fit indices indicated that the model did not offer an adequate fit for the data.
This evidence, according to the authors, indicated that there was still substantial room for
instrument improvement. This conclusion was further supported by data reported in the
studies of El-Dib (2004), Green and Oxford (1995), Nyikos and Oxford (1993), Robson and
Midorikawa (2001), Yang (1999), Park (2011) who indicated that the construct validity of
the SILL determined by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) has been inconsistent with
different factor structures across different learning contexts. For instance, in the Robson
and Midorikawa (2001) study of university students in Japan 15 factor structures were
found in the SILL. Green and Oxford (1995) studied students in Puerto Rico and found nine
K. Petrogiannis & Z. Gavriilidou
226
factors. El-Dib (2004) found eight factor structures in the SILL among university students
in Kuwait. In Yang's (1999) study six factor structures emerged from the CFA analysis of
data among university students in Taiwan. Finally Nyikos and Oxford (1993) found only
five factors among university students in Korea and the USA. Differences found in the
number of factor structures yielded in the above mentioned studies could be possibly
accounted for by the following parameters: (a) in the SILL, items that are appropriate for
second language contexts are not well-distinguished from items appropriate for foreign
language learning (i.e., while watching shows in FL context represents a conscious learning
strategy on the part of a foreign language learner, the same behavior may simply represent
an everyday reality for a second language learner); (b) there is no clear distinction among
strategy categories, consequently some strategies may belong to more than one category);
and (c) items do not bear the same level of item specificity (i.e., they are worded in a way
that does not clarify the context of strategy application for all respondents).
The SILL has been used mainly to investigate university students studying various
foreign languages (e.g. Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Nyikos & Oxford, 1993; Bedell
& Oxford, 1986; Dreyer & Oxford, 1996; Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; Ehrman & Leaver,
2003) and it is also very acceptable when used with multilingual groups of ESL/EFL
learners. In Greece, the most significant evidence of using the SILL to assess language
learning strategies when learning English was the work of Kazamia (2003), Psaltou-Joycey
(2003), Psaltou-Joycey and Kantaridou (2009), Vrettou (2011), Mitits (2014). Kazamia
(2003) focuses on measuring the frequency of language learning strategy use in adult Greek
learners of English while (Vrettou, 2011) records the frequency of use in primary school
children who are learning English at school. Mitits (2014) focused on adolescent learners
aged 12 to 15 learning English as foreign language and Greek as second language. Finally,
Psaltou-Joycey (2008) used the SILL in order to study cross-cultural differences in the use
of language learning strategies by students of Greek as a second language.
Even though the greatest amount of LLS research focuses on adult LLS use, several
studies (e.g., Chen, 2009; Gavriilidou & Papanis, 2009; Gunning, 1997, 2011; Kaylani,
1996; Lan & Oxford, 2003; Magogwe & Oliver, 2007; Agathopoulou, in press;
Kambakis-Vougiouklis, in press; Kazamia, in press; Platsidou & Sipitanou, 2015) used the
SILL to profile strategy use among school-aged English as SL/FL learners. It was found
that more successful students used more or more elaborated strategies (Kaylani, 1996; Lan
& Oxford, 2003; Magogwe & Oliver, 2007) while less successful students may “sometimes
use strategies even as frequently as more successful peers, but their strategies are used
differently” (Chamot, 2003, p. 116). Good language learners have the ability to select the
appropriate strategy or a set of strategies for each task, while less successful learners do not
have the so-called metacognitive task knowledge to opt for the appropriate strategies
(Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999; Chamot & Keatley, 2003; Oxford, Cho, Leung, & Kim,
2004). In addition, there was a difference in preference of the types of strategies between
children, adolescent and adults. More specifically, elementary school students preferred
affective, compensation (Gunning, 1997, 2011), and social (Magogwe & Oliver, 2007)
strategies. Junior secondary school students reported greater use of social, metacognitive,
affective, memory, and cognitive strategies; high-school students indicated a strong
preference for compensation (Chen, 2009) and metacognitive (Magogwe & Oliver, 2007)
strategies. These studies highlighted the need for simplifying, translating, or shortening the
SILL for use with school-aged L2 learners together with investigating its psychometric
properties either partly, placing emphasis on reliability coefficients for the modified SILL
(e.g. Chen, 2009; Gunning, 1997, 2011; Magogwe & Oliver, 2007) and/or content validity
Strategy inventory for language learning: Findings of a validation study in Greece
227
(e.g. Gunning, 1997, 2011; Magogwe & Oliver, 2007), or more thoroughly (Ardasheva
& Tretter, 2013).
Given that: a) empirical evidence, particularly with regard to the relationship between
L2 learning and LLS, remains inconsistent (Nisbet, Tindall, & Arroyo, 2005) due to the
lack of a proper instrumentation that would accurately diagnose LLS and would provide
reliable data about SL/FL learning and teaching practices, b) findings concerning the
construct validity of the SILL are controversial, and c) the SILL is mainly adult-oriented
and thus not appropriate for studying LLS of elementary or secondary school students, the
aim of the present study is to illustrate the findings of a validation study that followed an
adaptation process of Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)
from English into Greek with the aim of further administering it to school-aged students
(upper elementary and junior secondary schools) as a part of a large-scale project
(THALES #379335). More specifically, the purpose of this study was to examine whether
a shortened version of the SILL reflects the six- and the broader, “second order”,
two-construct classification system proposed by Oxford (1990) by performing confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) among school-aged (elementary and secondary education) students
learning English in Greece.
2. METHOD
2.1. Participants
The participants were 1308 students from 16 schools representing 5 prefectures
(Athens, Peiraias, Thessaloniki, Rodopi, and Ioannina) and 4 regions (Attica, Central
Macedonia, Eastern Macedonia-Thrace, and Epirus) of Greece. They attended the last
3 grades of elementary school and junior secondary school, and more specifically 46.2%
(604) of them attended the 4
th
to 6
th
grade of elementary school (4
th
grade: 180 [13,8%],
5
th
grade: 224 [17,1%], 6
th
grade: 200 [15,3%]) and 53.8% (703) attended the 1
st
to 3
rd
grade of junior secondary school (1
st
grade: 231 [17,7%], 2
nd
grade: 241 [18,4%], 3
rd
grade:
231 [17,7%]). The mean age of the whole sample was 12.4 yrs (sd= 1.77) and the age range
was 9-17 years. Out of the 1295 valid responses 617 (47,2%) were boys (M
age
= 12.4,
sd= 1.76) and 678 (51,8%) were girls (M
age
= 12.5, sd= 1.79).
All research procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board
(Pedagogical Institute) for investigations involving human participants. Written informed
consent was obtained from the legal guardians of the participants before they were allowed
to participate in the study. The SILL questionnaire was administered during regular
teaching hours in May (school year 2013-14) by EFL teachers who were instructed to read
and explain the directions to the students.
2.2. Instrument
The instrument that was used herewith and subjected to validation control was the
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) version 7.0. The study used a recently
adapted version of an independent study by Gavriilidou and Mitits (2014) which exhibited
sound reliability and validity indices. The process of adaptation was broken down into two
steps following Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin, & Bosi Ferraz’s (2000) suggestions in
order to maximize instrument’s reliability and validity with the particular learner population
(see Gavriilidou & Mitits, 2014):
(a) The translation process: The translation process consisted of the initial
translations, synthesis of the translations and back translation. The process of translating the
SILL from English into Greek took place at three levels and equivalence between the
K. Petrogiannis & Z. Gavriilidou
228
original and translated versions was considered at each level: linguistic/semantic, technical
and conceptual. To these three, the ‘comprehension level’ was added to ensure that the
target population – elementary and secondary school students aged 9-15 with Greek L1
understood the translated material as easily as the source population for whom the original
questionnaire was designed.
(b) Verification and adaptation: This second step included the expert committee
review in the light of the focus group suggestions and other verification methods.
According to the written reports submitted by the panel of experts, it can be assumed that
the Greek version of the questionnaire is as valid as the original one concerning the
item-level equivalence since the careful adaptation procedure has ensured semantic,
idiomatic, experiential and conceptual equivalence. Its validity is further improved by
resolving technical issues of questionnaire translation (Gavriilidou & Mitits, 2014).
With regard to the validation procedure presented herewith, the adapted SILL was
tested for its content validity through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, where a
six-factor model based on the six subscales suggested by Oxford was retained and tested
(see Demirel, 2009). In the final stage, the instrument was verified for its psychometric
properties providing internal consistency coefficients.
3. RESULTS
Considering (a) the limited nature of empirical evidence for either supporting or
refuting the adequacy of the 50-item SILL for school-aged English language learners
(Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995), (b) the common practice of simplifying and shortening the
SILL for younger student populations (e.g., Gunning, 2011), and (c) the existing criticisms
and recommendations for enhancing the instrument’s validity (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002), the
data processes for the present study were developed in two steps: instrument’s item
refinement and calibration and instrument validation.
Initially the items were subjected to quality checks for missing values or incorrectly
coded responses. A check for missing values was executed to examine the percentage of
items that was reported as missing and whether they we were represented uniformly. For
1020 (78%) cases the SILL was fully answered. The control for systematic pattern of
missing values in any of the items (in relation to gender and educational level) did not
reveal any critical result concluding that any potental differences could be attributed to
random factors. In addition, because in none of the items the missing values exceeded 5%
of the whole SILL responses dataset, no further checks were performed (Lynch, 2003, cited
in Howell, 2008).
In the first step, using SPSS v. 20, a number of exploratory factor analyses were
performed in order to proceed with further instrument modifications by identifying
potentially problematic items. The analyses involved Principal Axis Factoring with either
the two sub-samples (elementary school students, secondary school students) or the whole
sample. The trials included a number of factorial solutions. Based on these analyses, the
theoretical standpoint and the criteria mentioned above, we finalized a common factorial
pattern for all the students consisting of 29 items while adopting Oxford’s factorial
structure (Table 1).
Strategy inventory for language learning: Findings of a validation study in Greece
229
Table 1. The SILL items retained for the shortened school-student version:
Descriptive statistics for individual items.
Item #
Strategies
M
sd
A. Memory strategies
1
I think of relationships between what I already know and new
things I learn in the SL/FL.
3.28
1.17
2
I use new SL/FL words in a sentence so I can remember them.
3.05
1.25
3
I use rhymes to remember new SL/FL words.
1.51
0.99
4
I physically act out new SL/FL words.
3.70
1.22
B. Cognitive strategies
5
I say or write new SL/FL words several times.
3.50
1.31
6
I try to talk like native SL/FL speakers.
3.54
1.26
7
I use the SL/FL words I know in different ways.
3.02
1.31
8
I watch SL/FL language TV shows spoken in SL/FL or go to
movies spoken in SL/FL.
2.45
1.31
9
I read for pleasure in the SL/FL.
3.16
1.29
10
I try not to translate word for word.
2.53
1.31
C. Compensation strategies
11
I use reference materials such as glossaries or dictionaries to help
me use the new language
3.02
1.44
12
To understand unfamiliar SL/FL words, I make guesses.
2.88
1.43
13
I try to guess what the other person will say next in the SL/FL.
2.47
1.32
14
If I can't think of an SL/FL word, I use a word or phrase that means
the same thing.
3.68
1.30
D. Metacognitive strategies
15
I try to find as many ways as I can to use my SL/FL.
3.29
1.24
16
I notice my SL/FL mistakes and use that information to help me do
better.
3.86
1.20
17
I pay attention when someone is speaking SL/FL.
3.98
1.12
18
I try to find out how to be a better learner of SL/FL.
3.72
1.20
19
I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study SL/FL
2.86
1.26
20
I look for people I can talk to in SL/FL
2.76
1.33
21
I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in SL/FL.
2.82
1.29
E. Affective strategies
22
I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using SL/FL.
3.40
1.43
23
I encourage myself to speak SL/FL even when I am afraid of
making a mistake.
3.67
1.29
24
I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning SL/FL.
2.34
1.31
F. Social strategies
25
I ask SL/FL speakers to correct me when I talk.
3.04
1.40
26
I practice SL/FL with other students.
2.39
1.30
27
I ask for help from SL/FL speakers.
3.14
1.36
28
I ask questions in SL/FL.
3.45
1.24
29
I try to learn about the culture of SL/FL speakers.
2.55
1.34
K. Petrogiannis & Z. Gavriilidou
230
In the second phase, the skewness and kurtosis of the data were examined.
The skewness indices of all 29 items but one were ranged between -0.9 and 0.63, which are
acceptable with regard to the distribution symmetry (the exception refer to item 3 (“I use
rhymes to remember new SL/FL words”) which was 2.13 indicating a positive assymetry.
All but one of the kurtosis values were negative ranging within an acceptable range
(-1.32 to 0.09); exception was again item 3 (3.88). According to the skewness and kurtosis
values the form of the distribution for the whole sample was slightly platykutic and there
was an indication that the data do not follow the multivariate normal distribution criterion
since one item did not seem to follow the normal distribution pattern. Hence asymptotic
Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed involving the use of AMOS software.
The CFA revealed a relatively satisfactory level of fit to the whole sample (CFI 0.84,
NFI 0.8, RMSEA 0.06) as well as the elementary school (CFI 0.85, NFI 0.8, RMSEA 0.05)
and junior secondary school (CFI 0.82, NFI 0.8, RMSEA 0.06) sub-samples (see Table 2).
Table 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis model fit of the 29 items.
Criterion
Total sample
Primary school children
Junior secondary school children
x
2
1936.388
972.961
1270.442
CMIN/DF<2
5.349
2.688
3.51
RMSEA<=0,06
0.058
0.053
0.06
TLI>=0,95
0.808
0.831
0.793
NFI>=0,95
0.812
0.796
0.798
CFI>=0,95
0.84
0.859
0.828
CMIN: [minimum discrepancy] maximum likelihood estimation chi-square test; RMSEA: Root mean
square error of approximation; TLI: Tucker-Lewis Index; NFI: normed fit index; CFI: comparative fit
index
The overall patern of results indicated a “borderline” goodness-of-fit with more
powerful index the RMSEA values. Considering that RMSEA is appropriate in more
confirmatory contexts (Rigdon, 1996) we may accept for this pilot study phase the
structure’s goodness-of-fit even at a marginal level.
In order to examine the internal consistency of the SILL’s two- and six-construct
classification system, the reliability of the constructs were investigated by calculating
Cronbach’s α, again for the whole sample and the two sub-samples (see Table 3).
Table 2. Items per learning strategies factor and internal consistency coefficients.
Learning Strategies (LS)
Direct LS
memory (4)
cognitive (6)
compensation (4)
Whole sample
.77
.56
.71
.43
Elementary
.79
.58
.70
.50
Secondary
.75
.53
.72
.45
Indirect LS
metacognitive (7)
affective (3)
social (5)
Whole sample
.87
.83
.52
.70
Elementary
.87
.82
.55
.70
Secondary
.87
.83
.48
.69
The internal consistency coefficients suggest a satisfactory degree of internal
consistency using the shortened student version of the SILL in all the trials. It seems that
lower, medium size, reliability coefficients were revealed for “compensation”, “memory”,
Strategy inventory for language learning: Findings of a validation study in Greece
231
and “affective” strategies. On the other hand, metacognitive strategies presented the highest
coefficients among the six subscales (α=0.83 for the whole sample). Moreover, the “higher
order” two general factors (direct and indirect learning strategies) revealed the higher
coefficients (α=.87 for both sub-samples and the whole sample) indicating that the items
measure similar characteristics about language learning strategies. The finding is in
accordance with the evidence from several other studies’ (e.g. Park, 1997; Hsiao & Oxford,
2002; Yang, 1999).
Finally, using the mean scores of the two- and six-factor structure and with regard to
the potential differences in terms of the students’ gender (Table 4) and educational level
(Table 5), the relevant analyses (t-tests for independent samples) indicated statistical
differences both between boys and girls as well as between elementary and secondary
school students.
Table 3. Independent samples t-test between boys and girls on language learning strategies.
Gender
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
t
p
A. Memory
strategies
Boys
614
2.85
0.79
-1.82
0.07
Girls
678
2.93
0.74
B. Cognitive
strategies
Boys
615
2.89
0.81
-6.53
<0.001
Girls
674
3.18
0.81
C. Compensation
strategies
Boys
613
2.93
0.83
-3.52
<0.001
Girls
673
3.09
0.84
D. Metacognitive
strategies
Boys
610
3.13
0.85
-8.36
<0.001
Girls
672
3.52
0.82
E. Affective
strategies
Boys
616
2.95
0.99
-6.84
<0.001
Girls
678
3.31
0.90
F. Social strategies
Boys
613
2.74
0.87
-6.77
<0.001
Girls
675
3.07
0.89
Direct strategies
Boys
616
2.89
0.63
-5.17
<0.001
Girls
677
3.07
0.62
Indirect strategies
Boys
616
2.94
0.76
-8.67
<0.001
Girls
677
3.30
0.73
With regard to students’ gender the analyses revealed statistically significant
differences in all the measures except for “memory strategies” (p = 0,068). In addition, in
all the subscales as well as the two broader factors girls scored higher than boys. The
pattern was similar for both elementary and secondary school with very few exceptions.
In a similar vein, in order to examine statistically significant differences between
elementary and secondary school students, a number of t-tests for independent samples
were performed (Table 5).
K. Petrogiannis & Z. Gavriilidou
232
Table 4. Independent samples t-test between elementary
and secondary school students on language learning strategies.
Educ. level
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
t
p
A. Memory
strategies
Elementary
602
3.05
0.80
7.01
<0.001
Secondary
702
2.76
0.71
B. Cognitive
strategies
Elementary
602
3.16
0.83
4.96
<0.001
Secondary
699
2.93
0.81
C. Compensation
strategies
Elementary
599
2.91
0.90
-4.17
<0.001
Secondary
696
3.10
0.78
D. Metacognitive
strategies
Elementary
602
3.52
0.84
7.54
<0.001
Secondary
688
3.16
0.84
E. Affective
strategies
Elementary
604
3.27
1.01
4.64
<0.001
Secondary
698
3.03
0.91
F. Social
strategies
Elementary
600
3.05
0.92
5.27
<0.001
Secondary
696
2.79
0.86
Direct strategies
Elementary
603
3.04
0.67
3.19
0.02
Secondary
702
2.93
0.58
Indirect strategies
Elementary
604
3.28
0.77
6.97
<0.001
Secondary
697
2.99
0.73
All the comparisons of the mean scores showed statistically significant differences
with elementary school students scoring higher in all the factors but one, namely the
“compensation strategies” (i.e. guessing, asking for help, and using gestures).
4. DISCUSSION
The aim of the study was to record how the SILL can be validated in the Greek
context for school-aged student population using a translated and adapted version of the
SILL (Gavriilidou & Mitits, 2014). Researchers performed EFA to explore latent factor
structures and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test a priori factor structures in the
relationships between observed and latent variables.
Since EFA has shown limitations defining exact factor structures of the SILL because
of different findings across studies, CFA was performed to get a better understanding of the
latent constructs of the SILL by examining whether it represents either the two- or
six-construct classification system, as originally proposed by Oxford (1990). With regard to
this latter procedure it is surprising to note that only a limited number of published studies
have performed CFA in an attempt to confirm a priori underlying constructs of the SILL
either among adult participants, mostly university students (e.g. Hsiao & Oxford, 2002;
Park, 2011) or elementary/secondary education students (Ardasheva & Tretter, 2013).
Based on the relevant analyses it seems that the modified shortened version of the
SILL (Oxford, 1990) that was produced for the needs of the current study following a series
of exploratory factor analyses as well as theoretical and methodological criteria, could be
used with the Greek school-aged student population. More specifically, the current version
with the 29 items seems to be functional both for elementary and secondary school
students; the factorial structure of the second level (direct and indirect learning strategies)
presented sufficiently high internal consistency; the results of the confirmatory factor
Strategy inventory for language learning: Findings of a validation study in Greece
233
analysis marginally confirmed the factor pattern retaining Oxford’s proposal but with
almost half the items of the original version. The evidence approximates the findings of
Ardasheva and Tretter’s (2013) study, the only relevant study in terms of the age-range of
the target group using the SILL, both in terms of the items used as well as their content
(which items load to each factor).
A detailed examination is required in order to establish and generalize the current
findings with data from a larger and nationwide sample. A further study is necessary to
examine whether each of the strategy categories may have differential impact on language
learning depending on, for example, the developmental needs and English proficiency level
of the individual, the outcome of interest (i.e. linguistic, academic, or cognitive/behavioral),
the specific learning and teaching goals and tasks etc. These are some of the issues that will
be examined in the ensuing main phase of the current study.
REFERENCES
Agathopoulou. E. (in press). 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. Kavala, Greece: Saita Publications.
Ardasheva, Y., & Tretter, T. R. (2013). Strategy Inventory for Language Learning-ELL Student
Form: Testing for factorial validity. Modern Language Journal, 97(2), 474-489.
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Bosi Ferraz, M. (2000). Guidelines for the process of
cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191.
Bedell, D. A., & Oxford, R. L. (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 (Technical Report No 13, pp. 47-60).
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook on self-regulation. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Chamot, A. U. (2003). 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., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1999). Children’s learning strategies in language immersion
classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 319-341.
Chamot, A. U., & Keatley, C. W. (2003, April). Learning strategies of adolescent low-literacy
Hispanic ESL students. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
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 and
Individual Differences, 19(2), 304-308.
Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S. J., & Li, T.-Y. (1996). The impact of strategies-based instruction on
speaking a foreign language (CARLA Working Paper #4). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.
Demirel, M. (2009). The validity and reliability study of Turkish version of strategy inventory for
language learners. World Applied Science Journal, 7(6), 708-714.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dreyer, C., & Oxford, R. L. (1996). Learning strategies and other predictors of ESL proficiency
among Afrikaans speakers in South Africa. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies
around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (Technical Report No 13, pp. 61-74). Honolulu,
HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in
second language learning. System, 31(3), 313-330.
K. Petrogiannis & Z. Gavriilidou
234
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (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., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of adult language proficiency.
Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 67-89.
El-Dib, M. A. B. (2004). Language learning strategies in Kuwait: Links to gender, language level, and
culture in a hybrid context. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 85-95.
Gavriilidou, Z., Bardos, A., Petrogiannis, K., Kambakis-Vougiouklis, P., Mitis, L., & Molla, N.
(in press). Translation and cultural adaptation of the S.I.L.L. into Western Thracian Turkish for
measuring strategy use in Muslim children learning Greek as a second language.
In G. Kotzoglou (Ed.), Selected Papers of the 11
th
International Conference on Greek
Linguistics, Rhodes, Greece: University of the Aegean.
Gavriilidou, Z., & Mitits, L. (2014). Adaptation of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
(SILL) for students aged 12-15 into Greek: A pilot study. In M. Mattheoudakis,
& K. Nicolaidis (Eds.) Selected papers from the 21st International Symposium on Theoretical
and Applied linguistics (ISTAL 21), Thessaloniki, Greece: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
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
Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A close look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender.
TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297.
Griffiths, C. (2007). Language learning strategies: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions. ELT Journal,
61(2), 91-99.
Gunning, P. (1997). The learning strategies of beginning ESL learners at the primary level. (Master’s
thesis, Concordia University, Quebec, Canada). Retrieved from
http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/517/1/MQ40159.pdf
Gunning, P. (2011). ESL strategy use and instruction at the elementary school level: A mixed methods
investigation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. New York, NY:
Prentice Hall.
Hong-Nam, K., & Leavell, A. G. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an
intensive English learning context. System, 34(3), 399-415.
Howell, D.C. (2008). The analysis of missing data. In W. Outhwaite, & S. Turner (Eds.), Handbook
of Social Science Methodology (pp. 208-224). London, UK: Sage. Retrieved from
http://www.uvm.edu/~dhowell/StatPages/More_Stuff/Missing_Data/missing_data_final.pdf
Hsiao, T.-Y., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies:
A confirmatory factor analysis. Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 368-383.
Kambakis-Vougiouklis, P. (in press). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by
Greek learners of English attending elementary school. In Z. Gavriilidou and K. Petrogiannis
(eds.), Language Learning Strategies in the Greek context. Kavala, Greece: Saita Publications.
Kaylani, C. (1996). The influence of gender and motivation on EFL learning strategy use. In R. L.
Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives,
(Technical Report No 13, pp. 75-88). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Kazamia, V. (2003). Language learning strategies of Greek adult learners of English (Vols. I-II).
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Kazamia, V. (in press). Gender and age impact on language learning strategy use: a research on Greek
EFL learners. In Z. Gavriilidou, & K. Petrogiannis (Eds.), Language learning strategies in the
Greek context. Kavala, Greece: Saita Publications.
Khalil, A. (2005). Assessment of language learning strategies used by Palestinian EFL learners.
Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 108-119.
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(4), 339-379.
Landau, S., & Everitt, B. S. (2004). A handbook of statistical analyses using SPSS. Boca Raton, FL:
Chapman & Hall.
Strategy inventory for language learning: Findings of a validation study in Greece
235
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(3), 338-352.
Mitits, L. (2014). Language Learning Strategy Use by early adolescent monolingual EFL and
multilingual EFL/L2 Greek learners in the Greek educational context (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece.
Nisbet, D. L., Tindall, E. R., & Arroyo, A. A. (2005). Language learning strategies and English
proficiency of Chinese university students. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 100-107.
Nyikos, M., & Oxford, R. L. (1993). A factor analytic study of language-learning strategy use:
Interpretations from information-processing theory and social psychology. Modern Language
Journal, 77(1), 11-22.
O’Malley, J., & Chamot, A-U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA:
Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (1996). Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language learning strategies.
Applied Language Learning, 7(1-2), 25-45.
Oxford, R. L. (1999). Learning strategies. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of education
(pp. 518-522). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching: Language learning strategies. Harlow, UK: Pearson
Education.
Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies
worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning (SILL).
System, 23(1), 1-23.
Oxford, R. L., Cho, Y., Leung, S., & Kim, H.-J. (2004). Effect of the presence and difficulty of task
on strategy use: An exploratory study. International Review of Applied Linguistics 42(1), 1-47.
Park, G.-P. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean university
students. Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 211-221.
Park, G.-P. (2011). The validation process of the SILL: A confirmatory factor analysis. English
Language Teaching, 4(4), 21-27.
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(1), 83-96. Retrieved from
http://www.consortiacademia.org/files/journals/3/articles/778/public/778-2994-1-PB.pdf
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 (pp. 591-601).
Thessaloniki, Greece: Aristotle University, School of English.
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., & Kantaridou, Z. (2009). Foreign language learning strategy profiles of university
students in Greece. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 25, 107-127.
Rigdon,
E. E. (1996). CFI versus RMSEA: A comparison of two fit indexes for structural equation
modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3(4), 369-379.
Robson, G., & Midorikawa, H. (2001). How reliable and valid is the Japanese version of the Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)? JALT Journal, 23, 202-226.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51.
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, II(2),
117-131.
Rubin, J. (2001). Language learner self-management. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 11(1),
25-37.
K. Petrogiannis & Z. Gavriilidou
236
Rubin, J. (2005). The expert language learner: A review of good language learner studies and learner
strategies. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in second language learning and teaching.
(pp. 37-63). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Vrettou, A. (2011). Patterns of language learning strategy use by Greek-speaking young learners of
English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Thessaloniki, Greece: Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics.
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in
Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), 203-243.
Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a focus on
learning strategies. In M. P. Boekaerts, R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook on
self-regulation (pp. 727-747). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Yang, N.-D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use. System,
27(4), 515-535.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study is part of the Thales project MIS 379335. It was held in the frame of the National Strategic
Reference Frame (E.S.P.A.) and was co-funded by resources of the European Union (European Social
Fund) and national resources.
We would like to thank Dr. Lydija Mitic for reviewing the paper and her constructive comments.
AUTHOR(S) INFORMATION
Full name: Konstantinos Petrogiannis
Institutional affiliation: School of Humanities, Hellenic Open University
Institutional address: par. Aristotelous 18, Perivola, 26335 Patra, Greece
Biographical sketch: Konstantinos Petrogiannis is currently Associate Professor of Developmental
Psychology at the Hellenic Open University, Greece. He graduated the Department of Philosophy,
Education & Psychology of the University of Ioannina, Greece. He received his master’s degree from
the University of Strathclyde and his Ph.D. from the University of Wales-Cardiff. He has worked as a
researcher in a number of projects. His main areas of research interest are 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, language development.
Full name: Zoe Gavriilidou
Institutional affiliation: Department of Greek Studies, Democritus University of Thrace
Institutional address: Democritus University of Thrace campus, 69100 Komotini, Greece
Biographical sketch: Zoe Gavriilidou is currently Professor of Linguistics at the Democritus
University of Thrace, Greece. She graduated the Department of Philology of the Aristotle University
of Thessaloniki, Greece. She received her D.E.A and Ph.D. from the University Paris XIII, France.
She has worked as a researcher in a number of projects and is the coordinator of, among others, the
THALES 379335 Project, which was co-funded by resources of the European Union (European
Social Fund) and national (Greek) resources. She is the author of School books and member of the
expert’s committee for the revision of Greek curricula at primary and secondary education. Her main
areas of research interest are in applied linguistics, language teaching, linguistic testing and
pedagogical lexicography.