English Teaching and Learning Strategies and Tactics for Tertiary

Education

Alona Litvinchuk

1 a

and Larysa Kupchyk

1 b

National University of Water and Environmental Engineering, 11 Soborna Str., Rivne, 33028, Ukraine

{a.t.litvinchuk, l.y.kupchyk}@nuwm.edu.ua

Keywords:

English Language Acquisition, Tertiary Education, Motivational Construct, Learning Experience, Differenti-

ated Instruction, Language Learning Strategy.

Abstract:

This paper provides an in-depth examination of the interplay between motivational constructs, differentiated

instruction, and language learning strategies development in a systemic view on the efﬁciency of English lan-

guage acquisition by non-language students at tertiary level. These three components are viewed as guidelines

for developing teaching strategies and tactics when delivering the EFL university course and generating sus-

tained motivation for autonomous learning. The paper explores the L2 motivational theories and determines

the constructs contributing to achieving success in language learning, i.e integrative and achievement motives,

positive attitudes, learning context and learning experiences. Differentiated instruction is regarded as a power-

ful pedagogical approach that can offer homogeneous learning environment based on expanding motivational

constructs, tailoring instruction to meet diverse learning needs and abilities, and creating supportive atmo-

sphere that fosters integrative motivation. Language learning strategies are explored as integral to the course

content, the process of acquiring English language skills, enhancing motivation and enabling self-regulated or

self-directed learning. The theoretical exploration of each component concludes with practical recommenda-

tions.

1 INTRODUCTION

The English language has long been considered a

global lingua franca connecting people from diverse

linguistic, academic, and professional backgrounds

across the world. In modern Ukraine’s context with

its even more growing integration into the global

community and development of new national lan-

guage policies, the demand for effective teaching and

learning strategies in English language acquisition

(ELA) has signiﬁcantly increased, particularly in non-

language higher education settings. On June 28, the

draft law “On the Use of English in Ukraine” was reg-

istered in Ukraine’s Parliament (No. 9432 of June 28,

2023) that envisages the ofﬁcial consolidation of the

status of English as the language of international com-

munication and deﬁnes the categories of positions

which can be held by the candidates with the oblig-

atory knowledge of English. This fact even makes a

stronger contribution to the necessity of developing a

comprehensive system of English language education

for tertiary non-language students. It has the Univer-

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0794-5379

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3522-7673

sity course of “English as a Foreign Language” (EFL)

at its core and is expected to grow into a continuous

process of improving English language skills. It can

be done through using either electives, training differ-

ent aspects of the English language, or taking courses

and participating in programmes based on using En-

glish as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) catering to the

speciﬁc needs of students in disciplines outside the

language studies. Such strategic approaches aligned

with their consolidated vision of being competency-

based and student-centred are now increasingly re-

garded as such requiring motivating learning environ-

ment, ﬂexible learning paths, personalised learning,

diversity of instruction delivery modes, technology

enhancement, and increasing role of self-regulated,

self-directed or autonomous learning that is the key to

realising the concept of Life Long Learning (LLL) as

a skill or mission of the 21st century. As it is claimed

by UNESCO, “universities of applied sciences, poly-

technics and technical institutes, play a crucial role

in providing LLL opportunities” within the context of

knowledge society that demands continuing profes-

sional development (UNESCO Institute for Lifelong

Learning, 2022, p. 78).

Litvinchuk, A. and Kupchyk, L.

English Teaching and Learning Strategies and Tactics for Tertiary Education.

DOI: 10.5220/0012646800003737

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on History, Theory and Methodology of Learning (ICHTML 2023), pages 85-97

ISBN: 978-989-758-579-1; ISSN: 2976-0836

Common challenges faced by the second language

learners in non-language institutions of higher edu-

cation arise due to usually insufﬁcient quantity of

practical hours or “not much space to learn foreign

languages as part of the subject curriculum” (Lai

et al., 2022); lack of persistence and continuity in for-

eign language learning (Davis, 2020); psychological

challenges, low self-esteem and demotivation (Zayt-

seva et al., 2021); uneven English proﬁciency entry

level (from sometimes elementary to more frequently

pre-intermediate and, in rare cases, advanced level)

that leads to distinct academic group’s heterogene-

ity (Kupchyk and Litvinchuk, 2020; Jørgensen and

Brogaard, 2021); often low self-regulation abilities

in foreign language acquisition (Przybył and Chu-

dak, 2019), which have become especially evident

during distance learning. In addition, the situation

in Ukraine is exacerbated by the ongoing full-scale

Russian invasion that in many cases demands mixed-

mode learning, unexpected interruptions in deliver-

ing in-class training, more pedagogical and psycho-

logical support. Such challenges require exploring

effective approaches to address these obstacles and

discussing teaching strategies and tactics to support

learners with varying language backgrounds, proﬁ-

ciency levels, and academic goals.

Among the most powerful instruments that really

matter in studying a foreign language are claimed to

be motivation, differentiation and strategic language

learning behaviour (Sapan and Mede, 2022). Moti-

vation and its constructs are regarded as key factors

determining students’ success or failure and their rate

of progress in any learning situation (Al-Hoorie and

MacIntyre, 2019). D

ornyei and Ushioda (2011), even

arguing the complexity and inability of motivation to

become a “super-theory” in foreign language acqui-

sition, provide some practical implications of moti-

vation theory for the language classroom with spe-

cial emphasis on motivational teaching strategies, the

value of cooperative learning and contextual inﬂu-

ences (D

ornyei and Ushioda, 2011), which are still

under consideration and constant adjustment or fur-

ther development. To sustain language learning moti-

vation “through the vicissitudes of the learning pro-

cess”, there is a need to develop certain skills and

strategies to “keep the learners on track” (Grifﬁths,

2008). Development and employment of appropri-

ate language learning strategies, as such implying

and embracing the conscious actions and behaviours

used by language learners to foster and continuously

support the acquisition of the English language, are

in the focus of current methodological research with

particular reference to self-directed language learning

(Lai et al., 2022) or self-regulated learning (Oxford,

2016), distance education (Neroni et al., 2019), and

technology-enhanced language learning (Lai et al.,

2022; Be

cirovi

c et al., 2021). This scope can be com-

pleted with differentiation as a pedagogical approach

that enables adjusting instruction to address varying

students’ needs and abilities. It was pioneered by

Tomlinson (2001) and Gregory and Chapman (2013),

and is still on the agenda regarding the theory and

practice of personalising student language learning

paths (Kupchyk and Litvinchuk, 2020; Jørgensen and

Brogaard, 2021).

Thus, this paper aims to contribute to methodolog-

ical considerations and highlight the key provisions to

effective English language education through creating

opportunity for developing sustained motivation in

ELA; designing the EFL university course on the ba-

sis of differentiated instruction to tailor training con-

tent for different learners; developing in students the

relevant language learning strategies as powerful tools

to help learners be more independent and autonomous

that contribute either directly or indirectly to gain-

ing positive learning experiences, boosting their self-

conﬁdence and progress.

2 BACKGROUND

The research into the theory of language learning mo-

tivation, launched by Gardner and Lambert in 1959,

gave rise to numerous studies recognising that atti-

tude and motivation matter in second language acqui-

sition alongside aptitude and intelligence “as factors

contributing to language learning success” (MacIn-

tyre, 2010), and it continues to inspire further studies

into this issue. D

ornyei and Ushioda (2011), when

contemplating on the complexity of motivation, agree

that it is responsible for “why people decide to do

something, how long they are willing to sustain the

activity and how hard they are going to pursue it”

ornyei and Ushioda, 2011, p. 4). They also con-

sider the importance of social context and study the

way in which changing contextual perspectives re-

shape motivation theory in L2 learning (D

ornyei and

Ushioda, 2011).

As it is claimed by D

ornyei (2005), since “mo-

tivation is a dynamic, ever-changing process, its re-

search should also evolve over time” (D

ornyei, 2005,

p. 66). When exploring the central motivational

constructs, researchers distinguish achievement mo-

tives, achievement goals and achievement values,

self-efﬁcacy, positive competence beliefs, develop-

ing feeling of autonomy and relatedness (Elliot et al.,

2017). Viewing contextual and dynamic aspects of

learner motivation, D

ornyei and Ushioda (2011) also

ICHTML 2023 - International Conference on History, Theory and Methodology of Learning

developed the L2 Motivational Self System, which

among other constructs, embraces L2 learning ex-

perience described as long-term, when affected by

social and cultural inﬂuences, and short-term, when

inﬂuenced “by speciﬁc features of the instructional

context” (e.g. course content, task and material de-

sign, grouping structures and evaluation practices)

ornyei and Ushioda, 2011). It is supported by

other research in which motivating instructional con-

text along with L2 teacher, the curriculum, the peer

group, and experiencing success in language learn-

ing are described as executive motives in creating

motivating learning environment (D

ornyei and Ryan,

2015). Deci and Ryan (2015) come up with self-

determination theory (SDT) focusing on human three

basic psychological needs: the needs for competence,

autonomy, and relatedness either driven or prevented

by social and contextual conditions (Deci and Ryan,

2015). Other researchers focus on general implica-

tions of SDT for formalised learning education and

identify how self-determined motivation develops in

different contexts (Brenner, 2022; McEown and Oga-

Baldwin, 2019).

University language education settings and op-

tions can create the basis for generating and sustain-

ing motivation in students throughout their studies. It

demands considering the conditions and integrating

the motivational constructs to create positive learning

environment taking into account student’s expectancy,

values and attitudes, creating the sense of achieve-

ment on the one hand, and adjusting the instructional

context on the other. These conditions are aligned

with differentiation or differentiated instruction (DI)

as an approach appealing to each student’s language

learning ability and described as “a philosophy that

enables teachers to plan strategically in order to reach

the needs of the diverse learners in classrooms” (Gre-

gory and Chapman, 2013). The need for differen-

tiated instructional planning is emphasised by Tom-

linson (2017), who explores the role of the teacher

in the differentiated classroom, creation of appropri-

ate learning environment when differentiating con-

tent, process, and products, and application of the rel-

evant strategies and tactics (Tomlinson, 2017). The

proponents of this philosophy place emphasis on DI

as a possibility to “develop learning routes for each

student based on insights into their abilities and lean-

ing needs” (de Graaf et al., 2019), and a necessity

to make ongoing choices based on a range of well-

considered students’ goals and needs (van Geel et al.,

2019, p. 62).

Creating the necessary motivating learning envi-

ronment based on differentiation will not be com-

plete without discussing language learning strategies

(LLSs) as powerful tools for training competent and

effective language learners. The studies of LLSs

dated back to the 1970s being pioneered by Rubin

(1987) in order to identify good learner behaviour.

Since then, they have been under the researchers’

focus to classify them (Rubin, 1987; Oxford, 1990;

O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Stern, 1992) and to de-

velop questionnaires in order to assess students’ use

of strategies (Oxford, 1990). LLSs are viewed as

a useful mechanism to succeed in both self-directed

(Lai et al., 2022) and self-regulated learning (An

et al., 2021; Redmer, 2022). However, it is neces-

sary to give LLSs due consideration since they should

not be perceived as a comprehensive solution in han-

dling all language learning problems and are likely to

be heavily affected by learner’s changing behaviour,

techniques and technology used. Thus, current in-

sights into this domain are mostly related to devel-

oping tech-enhanced LLSs for learning effectiveness

(An et al., 2021; Zhou and Wei, 2018), to the ef-

fectiveness of mobile learning in developing LLSs

(Garz

on et al., 2023; Lai et al., 2022), as well as to

applying learning technologies in fostering language

learning skills in order to become strategic and au-

tonomous language learners (Sanchez and Lidawan,

2020).

3 THE IMPACT OF

MOTIVATIONAL

CONSTRUCTS ON TEACHING

AND LEARNING STRATEGIES

AND TACTICS

Motivation has been widely recognised “as a signiﬁ-

cant factor inﬂuencing the success or failure in second

or foreign language learning” and it encourages sig-

niﬁcant attention from researchers in delving into this

issue (Yue et al., 2022). It is considered to provide

“the primary impetus to initiate L2 learning and later

the driving force to sustain the long, often tedious

learning process”, and is claimed to make up possible

deﬁciencies in language learning ability and learning

context (D

ornyei and Ryan, 2015). The fundamen-

tal research into language learning motivation the-

ory started with Gardner’s theory distinguishing be-

tween integrative and instrumental motivation (Gard-

ner, 1985). Integrative motivation or orientation in

Gardner’s theory, which stems from personal interest

and enjoyment, is regarded as a potential factor in sus-

taining students’ engagement and commitment to lan-

guage learning. When students have a genuine desire

to learn a language, they are more likely to persevere

English Teaching and Learning Strategies and Tactics for Tertiary Education

through difﬁculties and stay motivated over time. In-

strumental motivation in students arises from external

factors such as academic achievement, i.e receiving

grades or certiﬁcates, gaining career opportunities, or

simply satisfying social expectations that can provide

additional incentives and reinforce students’ commit-

ment (Lamb et al., 2020).

One of the most inﬂuential embodiment of

Gardner’s theory is socio-educational model, which

schematically outlines how motivation is related to

other individual variables like intelligence, language

learning ability, and language achievement (D

ornyei,

2005). It has the integrative motive at its centrepiece

which describes a person’s eagerness and inclination

for engaging in social interactions with individuals

from different groups. The integrative motive per-

tains speciﬁcally to language learning, highlights the

social and cultural dimensions of language learning.

By recognising and supporting students’ desire to in-

tegrate with a new culture or community, teachers can

tap into this powerful motivational construct and cre-

ate meaningful language learning experiences that go

beyond linguistic proﬁciency (D

ornyei and Ushioda,

2011). However, integrative motive by itself does not

account for the learner’s degree of success, but rather

is embodied in a “continuous interplay between the

characteristics of the integrative motive and the lan-

guage learning process itself” (Lamb et al., 2020).

Among other components of this model are such mo-

tivational constructs as effort, desire, and attitude to-

ward learning on the one hand, and attitude toward

the learning situation or context comprising evalua-

tion of the L2 teacher and the L2 course on the other

(Eraldemir Tuyan and Serinda

g, 2019). In the context

of our research, these constructs become guidelines in

developing the strategies and tactics of ELA. In edu-

cational settings, fostering the integrative motive in-

volves creating opportunities for students to connect

with the target language community, promoting in-

tercultural competence, and encouraging positive at-

titude towards cultural diversity. Teachers can incor-

porate authentic materials, cultural discussions, and

collaborative activities that foster cross-cultural un-

derstanding and interaction. It is also recommended

to encourage students to participate in academic ex-

change programmes or to assign students various per-

sonal and group projects to investigate different issues

of English-speaking countries and societies aimed at

developing their positive attitudes (Eraldemir Tuyan

and Serinda

g, 2019), along with sense of belonging

to the global society.

Another decisive construct in the motivational

system is claimed to be the achievement situation that

comprises achievement motive, achievement goal,

and achievement values “promoting more positive

regulatory processes” (Elliot et al., 2017, p. 47).

Achievement motive refers to the learner’s internal

drive or desire to attain and excel in their language

learning endeavours with such indicators “as mea-

sures of proﬁciency, classroom behaviour, participa-

tion in bicultural excursions” (Lamb et al., 2020).

Achievement goals can determine speciﬁc objectives

that students set for themselves in their language

learning journey. Achievement values may refer to

the personal beliefs, attitudes, and priorities associ-

ated with language learning. They are interconnected

factors that inﬂuence students’ motivation and en-

gagement in ELA. They are also claimed to indicate

“a concern with success in competition with some

standard of excellence”, as well as they inﬂuence and

positively correlate with language learning strategies

(Han and Lu, 2018). Understanding and addressing

these aspects can contribute to a supportive and pur-

poseful learning environment, enhance students’ mo-

tivation and nurture their sense of accomplishment

and fulﬁlment.

Further considerations of the issue of motivation

lead to developing the L2 Motivational Self System

ornyei and Ushioda, 2011), one of the components

of which is the L2 learning experience that “focuses

on the learner’s present experience, covering a range

of situated, ‘executive’ motives related to the imme-

diate learning environment (e.g., the impact of the L2

teacher, the curriculum, the peer group, and the ex-

perience of success)” (D

ornyei and Al-Hoorie, 2017).

It suggests that this experience encompasses various

situated motives related to the immediate learning en-

vironment that can impact students’ motivation, en-

gagement, and overall language acquisition. For ex-

ample, L2 teaching methods, approachability, and

supportiveness can signiﬁcantly inﬂuence students’

attitude towards learning and their motivation to suc-

ceed. It is implemented through the curriculum de-

sign, materials, employed instructional strategies and

tactics that can shape students’ experience and deter-

mine their level of engagement. The phrase “situ-

ated ‘executive’ motive” suggests that the students’

motives are context-dependent and inﬂuenced by spe-

ciﬁc factors in the learning environment, e.g. interac-

tions with the teacher or peers, the feeling of progress-

ing and achieving success (D

ornyei and Al-Hoorie,

2017). In addition, positive experiences of success,

recognition, or positive feedback are believed to en-

hance motivation and reinforce the students’ desire to

continue learning and improving in L2 (Han and Lu,

2018).

When discussing strategies and approaches of lan-

guage learning motivation in practice, D

ornyei and

ICHTML 2023 - International Conference on History, Theory and Methodology of Learning

Ushioda (2011) focus on creating positive attitudes

and learning context through increasing students’

self-conﬁdence by ﬁve approaches:

• fostering students’ belief in changeability and

controllability of competence as an aspect of de-

velopment;

• promoting favourable self-conceptions of L2

competence through success experiences and fo-

cusing on abilities;

• engaging hard-to-reach students by making them

feel important, allowing them to contribute, and

demonstrating positive qualities;

• praising and encouraging every student’s effort,

reducing classroom anxiety by creating a less

stressful learning environment, and equipping stu-

dents with coping strategies.

The research into conﬁdence-competence devel-

opment and reducing anxiety laid the foundation

for elaborating Self-Determination Theory (SDT) by

Deci and Ryan (2015), which is called a theory of hu-

man motivation and well-being aimed at explaining

how and why sustainable motivation occurs (McEown

and Oga-Baldwin, 2019). As it is claimed, its goal in

language learning “is to build more high-quality au-

tonomous motivation so that students are willing to

use the new language to interact and learn without

requiring constant effort from the teacher” (McEown

and Oga-Baldwin, 2019). This theory posits that in-

trinsic motivation ﬂourishes when individuals have a

sense of autonomy, competence and relatedness (Deci

and Ryan, 2015). Autonomy refers to the ability to

make choices and have control over one’s learning.

Competence applies to feeling capable and skilled in

the language. Relatedness involves connecting with

others, such as teachers and fellow students. When

these three psychological needs are fulﬁlled, students

are more likely to be intrinsically motivated and en-

gage actively in language learning, make decisions

and monitor progress. It allows applying language

learning to multiple contexts both in formal classroom

or outside it that often helps integrate real life experi-

ences, in which learning may occur even unintention-

ally (McEown and Oga-Baldwin, 2019). According

to Davis (2020), in terms of autonomy support, SDT

research identiﬁes “a number of general and subject

area-speciﬁc need-supportive teaching strategies” that

include “incorporating students’ input”, acknowledg-

ing their emotions and needs, experiences and per-

spectives, arousing curiosity, providing choices and

options, as well as being ﬂexible and open-minded.

Such ability to autonomously and intrinsically

motivate oneself is related to self-regulation that im-

plies student’s ability to manage and control their cog-

nitive, affective and behavioural processes during the

learning experience. It is of special importance under

the conditions of distance or online learning environ-

ments enforced by ﬁrst COVID-19 (Przybył and Chu-

dak, 2019), and then combat operations on the terri-

tory of Ukraine that undoubtedly challenge students’

motivation and cognitive abilities. It calls for higher

capacity of autonomy including goal-setting, prepar-

ing for the actual learning, choosing optimal learning

strategies, self-monitoring and self-assessment, and

ﬁnally, self-reﬂection on the effectiveness of one’s

actions (Przybył and Chudak, 2019). When describ-

ing self-regulated learning theory attending to the de-

velopment of such learning processes as metacogni-

tion, motivation, and strategic action, Brenner claims

that “metacognitive learners are aware of their per-

sonal learning strengths and challenges”, “motivated

learners are willing to attempt challenging tasks”, and

“strategic learners have large repertoires of learning

strategies” (Brenner, 2022). This means in practice

that such self-regulated learning behaviours can be

exhibited by self-determined students who are able

to take control of their learning and achieve their

language learning goals. Davis (2020) also consid-

ers persistence and continuity in language learning,

which are substantial positive outcomes “of basic psy-

chological need fulﬁlment and autonomous motiva-

tion”.

These insights into motivational constructs help us

generalize the strategies and tactics of ELA for mo-

tivating and supportive learning environments in the

key aspects:

• developing competence: designing a well-

structured and progressive curriculum, incorpo-

rating meaningful topics, including a variety of

engaging language activities that target different

skills;

• creating achievement situation: acknowledging

and reinforcing students’ efforts and progress,

personalising the learning process;

• arousing integrative motives or relatedness: en-

couraging peer interaction and collaborative

learning, integrating cultural aspects when creat-

ing a deeper connection to the language and its

speakers, fostering a sense of community among

learners, e.g., through discussion forums or social

media groups dedicated to language learning;

• developing autonomy or self-regulation: offering

a variety of resources and learning materials al-

lowing students to choose what works best for

them with the needed guidance and support.

In addition, these considerations help identify the

two key pedagogical approaches for effective imple-

English Teaching and Learning Strategies and Tactics for Tertiary Education

mentation of these practical suggestions: differenti-

ated instruction aimed at constructing highly person-

alised learning environment and motivating student’s

learning experience, as well as developing English

language learning strategies enabling high-quality au-

tonomous motivation. By combining DI and LLSs

based on motivational constructs, educators can cre-

ate inclusive, engaging, and student-centred ELA en-

vironments. DI contributes to addressing students’

diverse needs by applying varied instructional tech-

niques and customising material, while LLSs devel-

opment can offer explicit strategy instruction, scaf-

folded practice, and self-regulation that are discussed

further.

4 DIFFERENTIATED

INSTRUCTION IN

DELIVERING THE EFL

UNIVERSITY COURSE

Differentiated instruction (DI), according to its pro-

ponents, is a philosophy and not just a set of tools

(Gregory and Chapman, 2013). In modern peda-

gogy, it is seen as an approach that implies modi-

ﬁcation of teaching and learning routines to address

a broad range of students’ readiness levels, interests,

and modes of learning (Tomlinson, 2001), since “one

size doesn’t ﬁt all” (Gregory and Chapman, 2013).

It involves tailoring instruction and learning experi-

ences to meet the individual needs of students, tak-

ing into account their varied learning styles, strengths,

and challenges.

DI can be applied in two different ways consid-

ering its format: convergent (within one classroom)

or divergent (division of students into homogeneous

groups) (de Graaf et al., 2019; Jørgensen and Bro-

gaard, 2021). Tomlinson (2017) positing convergent

DI deﬁnes it as an instruction that “encourages the

lifting of ceilings and testing of personal limits and

advocates “teaching up,” otherwise known as work-

ing from a complex curriculum that will challenge

advanced learners and providing scaffolding for other

students to enable the greatest number possible to ac-

cess and succeed with the key elements of the com-

plex curriculum and meaning-rich learning experi-

ences” (Tomlinson, 2017, p. 13). Convergent DI

takes students from different starting levels towards

the same goal, offering “motivating and challenging

complex or whole tasks and different levels of support

to complete the whole task” (de Graaf et al., 2019),

and is implemented through the use of various means

like different tasks, tips and assistance, learning aids,

support from the teacher, etc. In case of divergent

differentiation, the starting level is assumed to be the

same, but ultimately the teachers “set goals and de-

velop learning routes for each student based on in-

sights into their abilities and leaning needs” (de Graaf

et al., 2019).

The key to successful DI is “the actual adaptation

of teaching to the thoroughly identiﬁed needs of all

students”, and the core of DI lies in “deliberate and

accurate choices” that are based “on a variety of well-

considered goals and the analysis of students’ instruc-

tional needs, in combination with continuous moni-

toring of student progress and adapting on the ﬂy”

(van Geel et al., 2019, p. 62). Thus, while apply-

ing DI, teachers do not “seek or follow a recipe for

differentiation, instead, they combine what they can

learn about differentiation from a range of sources

with their own professional instincts and knowledge

base in order to do whatever it takes to reach each

learner” (Tomlinson, 2017, p. 10).

Chamberlin and Powers (2010) outline seven core

principles guiding DI:

1. Clearly communicated link between curriculum,

instruction and (ongoing) assessment that informs

about student understanding of material, personal

interests and learning proﬁles.

2. Teachers respond to student differences.

3. Students are challenged at a level that is attain-

able through lessons that emphasise critical think-

ing intended to promote individual growth, while

expected to participate in respectful work.

4. Teachers and students collaborate in the learning

process.

5. Group work is intermixed with whole class dis-

cussions and activities. Student groupings are

based on readiness, interests, or learning proﬁles.

6. The approach to differentiated teaching is proac-

tive rather than reactive.

7. Space, time, and materials are utilised to suit the

needs of various learners.

Despite obvious advantages of applying these

principles in practice, convergent DI is claimed to

be complicated due to some aspects (Waiter, 2005,

p. 38):

• didactic: it’s not easy for the teacher to integrate

learning content in a differentiated way, i.e. to dis-

tinguish ‘fundamentum’ for all learners and ‘addi-

tum’ for high performers;

• organisational: DI requires considerable re-

sources at the preparation and implementation

stages, e.g., necessary instructional materials,

ICHTML 2023 - International Conference on History, Theory and Methodology of Learning

premises, but when it comes to learning time re-

quirements, they often reach the limits of institu-

tion organisation;

• diagnostic: the teacher needs accurate under-

standing of the students’ prior knowledge, both in

terms of learning development and the extracur-

ricular learning environment, in order to be able

to provide individually tailored learning oppor-

tunities that highly demands teacher’s diagnostic

competence;

• motivational: the incentive for the weaker to ori-

entate themselves towards higher-performing stu-

dents can fail. This tends to be more positive

and motivating for learners with higher perfor-

mance and those with an average level of perfor-

mance, while those with lower performance often

fall even further behind that may create or validate

a negative self-image;

• performance assessment: the comparability of

student performance and their fair assessment

are made more difﬁcult by working under

performance-differentiated working conditions.

Considering the above aspects, the limited time

that higher education teachers have at their disposal

as “a topic will be covered only once in class” (Turner

et al., 2017, p. 492), and the fact that “effective dif-

ferentiation requires a signiﬁcant amount of time, ef-

fort, and dedication on the part from the instructor”

(Santangelo and Tomlinson, 2008, p. 320) as “teach-

ing is one among several other tasks” (Jørgensen and

Brogaard, 2021, p. 106), a reasonable and appropriate

model of divergent DI can be chosen in order to de-

liver students as much learning content as it is possi-

ble in a limited time period during the EFL University

course.

The EFL University course is often related to sec-

ondary in signiﬁcance courses rather than core ones in

non-language universities in Ukraine. Nevertheless, it

is integrated in all study programmes, and proﬁciency

in the English language is essential for each higher ed-

ucation student to fully engage in the educational pro-

cess and research activities. It must be considered that

the prior language learning experience and aptitude of

ﬁrst-year technical student population is often char-

acterised by apparent discrepancy and unevenness of

the entry level of language proﬁciency ranging from

A2 to even C1 according to the Common European

Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) that

complicates the design and implementation of lan-

guage instruction programmes for this diverse group

of students. By “juxtaposing knowledge of increased

student diversity with insights related to teaching and

learning” (Santangelo and Tomlinson, 2008), higher

education language teachers in non-language univer-

sities don’t have to use uniform and didactic instruc-

tional practices in order to “address the experiences

and learning needs of the students newly enrolled”

(Pliner and Johnson, 2004, p. 106). From this per-

spective, DI can be regarded as the foundation for

applying a student-centred approach when creating

favourable conditions of English language learning

for a group of students after determining some unifor-

mity or similarity of individual and cognitive factors.

Having sufﬁcient experience of teaching in het-

erogeneous groups where lower-level students are not

given enough opportunities to review or practice to

catch up and thus lack self-conﬁdence, while higher-

level students are deprived of challenging and com-

petitive learning environment to improve, a reason-

able decision is to modify the university EFL course

on the basis of divergent DI and provide some or-

ganisational arrangements in the form of homoge-

neous language-level grouping. Tomlinson (2004;

2017), Gregory and Chapman (2013), Santangelo and

Tomlinson (2008), etc. have made a comprehensive

analysis of teaching practices within the DI frame-

work. Chamberlin and Powers (2010), Kupchyk and

Litvinchuk (2020) have contributed to the idea of ap-

plying such differentiation not just within one class-

room but by placing ﬁrst-year students into different

groups according to the results of the English lan-

guage entry placement test. They justify the efﬁ-

ciency of implementing DI in non-language univer-

sities by claiming that “DI made it possible to de-

sign and deliver instruction, starting from where the

students were and moving them forward on a learn-

ing continuum” (Kupchyk and Litvinchuk, 2020).

Jørgensen and Brogaard (2021) also demonstrate in

their empirical study that the results of DI applica-

tion in higher education “include better fulﬁllment

of intended learning outcomes, teaching that is per-

ceived to be meaningful by students at varying aca-

demic levels, and a more inclusive learning environ-

ment” (Jørgensen and Brogaard, 2021, p. 105).

Considering the deﬁnition of DI described as an

instructional process of “ensuring that what a stu-

dent learns, how he or she learns it, and how the

student demonstrates what he or she has learned is a

match for student’s readiness level, interests, and pre-

ferred mode of learning” (Tomlinson, 2004, p. 188),

divergent DI allows matching content (what the stu-

dent learns), process of learning (how she or he

learns), and product (demonstration of what one has

learned), depending on the varying student needs and

responding to “student’s learning proﬁle characteris-

tics” (Santangelo and Tomlinson, 2008, p. 309). In

practice, it is of necessity to investigate, ﬁnd, and

English Teaching and Learning Strategies and Tactics for Tertiary Education

design solutions about the procedure from assess-

ing the student needs to identifying, analysing, and

arranging a hierarchy of objectives of learning and

teaching, and then designing and implementing DI,

evaluating and possibly redesigning the EFL teach-

ing approaches depending on the students’ learning

aptitudes, style and conditions. The EFL university

course can be presented as a developmental process,

in which “language learning must be provided with

successive stages each of which represents growth

and expansion of the learners’ ability to learn, know,

use and critically think in a new language” (Kupchyk

and Litvinchuk, 2020).

Thus, it allows identifying the key aspects or prin-

ciples to integrate divergent DI in a non-language uni-

versity setting:

• didactic: it is much easier for the teacher to deliver

learning content in a homogeneous group, where

the ‘fundamentum’ and ‘additum’ are equal for all

students;

• organisational: although considerable time re-

sources and premises (computer classes with the

Internet access) are required at the preparation

stage (e.g., to diagnose the students’ English entry

level and divide them into homogeneous groups),

it saves time at the implementation stage and re-

quires much less effort in terms of selecting or de-

vising necessary instructional materials thanks to

the group homogeneity;

• diagnostic: a reliable English language entry

placement test has to be used (devised) in order

to precisely identify students’ English entry level

that reveals the students’ prior knowledge, which

highly demands teacher’s diagnostic competence;

• motivational: a homogeneous language learning

environment is considered to be less stressful,

most enlivening and stimulating for all students,

since being in a group with peers at the same lan-

guage level adds to more positive learning experi-

ence based on creating achievement motives and

experiences of success for each student;

• performance assessment: it is much easier to

monitor students’ progress, compare and fairly as-

sess them on a continuous basis (ongoing forma-

tive assessment), and provide timely feedback to

guide their learning as working conditions con-

cerning performance are the same.

This will also facilitate the development of LLSs

in such a classroom since it helps considering the

proﬁciency levels, abilities and learning styles, scaf-

folding instruction, explicit teaching and modelling of

LLSs, providing resources and support, fostering col-

laboration and encouraging effective reﬂection.

5 TEACHING AND LEARNING

STRATEGIES IN ENGLISH

LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

The term content of learning is a basic category in

the methodology of foreign language teaching that ac-

cumulates everything what a student has to acquire

in the process of learning and answers the question

“What to learn?”, thus embracing such components

as (Nikolaieva, 2013):

1) spheres and types of communication, functions,

psychological and communicative situations and

roles, nonverbal means of communication, com-

municative goals and aims; themes, problems and

texts; communicative skills and exercises for their

development;

2) linguo-sociocultural material, social situations;

skills to operate these materials and relevant ex-

ercises; skills to start an interaction, orient in so-

cial situations and lead them, exercises for their

development;

3) language material; skills to operate it and exer-

cises for their development;

4) learning and communication strategies; skills to

operate them and exercises for their development.

According to the deﬁnition above, learning strate-

gies are a constituent part of foreign language learn-

ing content in any learning environment and can for-

ward the process of ELA in both formal and non-

formal settings.

The term learning strategy is characterised by a

confusing variety of attempts to deﬁne the concept

of a strategy. Oxford describes learning strategies as

“speciﬁc actions taken by the learner to make learn-

ing easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed,

more effective and more transferable to new situa-

tions” (Oxford, 1990, p. 8). O’Malley and Chamot

(1990) provide a more extended deﬁnition of learn-

ing strategies and deﬁne them as “techniques and de-

vices used by second language learners for remem-

bering and organising samples of the second lan-

guage. ... Strategies are the thoughts and behaviours

that learners use to make them comprehend, learn,

or retain information” (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990,

p. 43). A more recent deﬁnition of LLSs is provided

by Schipor and Hammershaug (2022), who consider

them to be “systematic and conscious steps, includ-

ing both thoughts and actions, that are selected and

used by learners to enhance their language learning

and use, both in a short- and long-term perspective”

(Schipor and Hammershaug, 2022, p. 272). Grifﬁths

and Cansiz (2015) do not limit the deﬁnition of LLSs

ICHTML 2023 - International Conference on History, Theory and Methodology of Learning

by their intentional use by students, but deﬁne them in

a broader sense as “actions chosen (either deliberately

or automatically) for the purpose of learning or regu-

lating the learning of language” (Grifﬁths and Can-

siz, 2015, p. 476). Neroni et al. (2019) specify them

as “processes that involve generating, organising, or

converting data for academic achievement” (Neroni

et al., 2019), also embracing both intentional and de-

liberate use of LLSs that may self-regulate the learn-

ing process.

To fully understand and operate the existing clas-

siﬁcations of LLSs, it is useful to analyse available

taxonomies (theories) developed by the researchers

(Rubin, 1987; Oxford, 1990; O’Malley and Chamot,

1990; Stern, 1992). Rubin (1987) divides LLSs,

incl. communication and social strategies, into cogni-

tive (clariﬁcation/veriﬁcation, guessing/inductive in-

ferencing, deductive reasoning, practice, memori-

sation, monitoring), and metacognitive (prioritising,

setting goals, self-management). A more compre-

hensive division is conducted by Oxford (1990), who

distinguishes between direct and indirect LLSs, fur-

ther subdivided into a total of six groups (Oxford,

1990). Direct strategies include memory (creating

mental linkages, applying images and sounds, review-

ing well, employing action, practising), cognitive (re-

ceiving and sending messages, analysing and reason-

ing, creating structure for input and output, guessing

intelligently, overcoming limitations in speaking and

writing), and compensation. Indirect strategies in-

corporate metacognitive (centring your learning, ar-

ranging and planning your learning, evaluating your

learning, lowering your anxiety), affective (encour-

aging yourself, taking your emotional temperature,

asking questions, cooperating with others), and so-

cial (empathising with others). O’Malley and Chamot

(1990) classify LLSs into metacognitive (thinking

about the learning process, monitoring one’s produc-

tion or comprehension, planning for learning and its

evaluating after the completion of an activity), cog-

nitive (direct manipulation of the learning material:

repeating/revising, resourcing, translating, grouping,

note taking, deduction, recombining, creating im-

ages, auditory representation, using keywords, con-

textualising, elaborating, content transfer), and socio-

affective (social-mediating activity, transacting with

others, cooperating and guessing for clariﬁcation)

(O’Malley and Chamot, 1990). Stern (1992) deﬁned

ﬁve subcategories of LLSs: management and plan-

ning (deciding on the commitment to language learn-

ing, setting reasonable goals, deciding on an appro-

priate methodology, selecting appropriate resources,

monitoring progress, evaluating achievement in the

light of previously set goals), cognitive (targeted at

learning or problem solving and embracing analy-

sis, transformation, synthesis of learning material),

communicative-experiential (circumlocution, gestur-

ing, paraphrase, asking for repetition and explana-

tion), interpersonal (monitoring development, evalu-

ating performance, contacting with native speakers

and cooperating with them), and affective (creating

associations of positive attitude towards the foreign

language and its speakers as well as towards the learn-

ing activities involved) (Stern, 1992).

Identifying the learning strategies, which “deliver

the most optimal beneﬁt for academic performance”

(Donker et al., 2014), is vital both for students to suc-

ceed in their studies and teachers to provide valuable

support. The practical suggestions that can be derived

from the available taxonomies to be used by teachers

are the following:

• encouraging students to explore and identify the

learning strategies that best work for them. This

can be done through self-reﬂection, trial and error,

and feedback from teachers or peers;

• emphasising the importance of direct strategies,

incl. memory and cognitive such as memorising

and analysing, practising and reviewing, etc. Pro-

viding students with explicit instruction and guid-

ance on how to effectively employ these strategies

to enhance their understanding, retention, and ap-

plication of English language skills;

• fostering indirect or metacognitive skills by teach-

ing them to prioritise their learning, set goals,

manage their learning process, and evaluating

their progress;

• integrating affective and social strategies, high-

lighting the signiﬁcance of communication and

target language interaction.

There has been extensive research on the use

of different strategies by primarily good (success-

ful) language learners (Grifﬁths, 2008). It is be-

lieved that the awareness and reﬁnement of the strate-

gies applied are proved to directly depend on the

learner’s language proﬁciency since high-level stu-

dents are observed to use strategies relating to in-

teraction with others, vocabulary enrichment, exten-

sive reading, dealing with language systems rather

than separate patterns, as well as utilising available

resources more willingly (Grifﬁths, 2008). They

are often highly motivated, ready to use extensively

metacognitive strategies to manage their own learn-

ing. The students who are able to self-regulate their

learning are deﬁned as “active, responsible learners

who act purposefully (i.e. use learning strategies) to

achieve their academic goals” (Donker et al., 2014). It

supports Gardner’s views that “attitudes and motiva-

English Teaching and Learning Strategies and Tactics for Tertiary Education

tion are important because they determine the extent

to which the individuals will actively involve them-

selves in learning the language. The prime determin-

ing factor is motivation” (Gardner, 1985). Han and

Lu (2018) empirically justiﬁed that the high need for

achievement stipulated much wider students’ use of

all the six categories of strategies identiﬁed by Oxford

(1990) than by those whose achievement motivation

is lower (Han and Lu, 2018).

Since cognitive learning strategies may be formed

through the “teacher-learner” cooperation, the teacher

has to understand how to deliver the required learning

content to the student and apply appropriate teaching

strategies and tactics in practice, depending on stu-

dents’ learning proﬁle, their needs and interests.

Current education is undergoing rapid changes

aimed at improvement through the use of tools such

as robotics and augmented reality, which contribute

to improving learning scenarios, allowing students to

develop their metacognitive skills using technological

environments designed to educate and be a medium in

the educational process (Mu

noz and Morales, 2021,

p. 73). Within the landscape of language learning,

technology has become “ecological and normalised

rather than a supporting tool” (Zhou and Wei, 2018,

p. 471). It provides personalised language instruc-

tion and materials, advanced access to information,

offers more communication possibilities, shapes pos-

itive learner identity, and maintains motivation for

learning (Be

cirovi

c et al., 2021). Computer tech-

nology is claimed to be abundant in three language

learning skill areas (listening, reading and writing),

but scant in speaking (Zhou and Wei, 2018, p. 472).

Hence, students have to explore strategies for effec-

tive language learning in digital realms (Oxford and

Lin, 2011) in order to become self-regulated and fur-

ther self-directed in English language acquisition.

Zhou and Wei (2018) carried out a meta-analysis

of 60 research studies in the ﬁeld of technology-

enhanced language learning to substantiate how it en-

hances students’ self-regulated learning. The meta-

analysis by Garz

on et al. (2023) proves positive ef-

fects of using mobile devices in learning English since

each student has their own learning style and prefer-

ences. M-learning is seen as a “versatile and ﬂexi-

ble approach” (Garz

on et al., 2023, p. 9) to learn-

ing as it “yields better results when compared ei-

ther with traditional lectures, traditional pedagogical

tools, or other multimedia resources” (Garz

on et al.,

2023, p. 12), and mobile devices are regarded as peda-

gogical tools that encourage students to actively con-

struct their learning. The studies of Zhou and Wei

(2018), Bin-Hady and Al-Tamimi (2021) outline that

students in the Digital Age who beneﬁt from proper

LLS instruction outperform their counterparts having

not received such training both in language learning

efﬁciency and language skills. Strategies-based in-

struction, which is enhanced by technology, produces

impressive outcomes in terms of developing strate-

gic, self-regulated language learners. Thus, curricu-

lum designers need to augment textbook materials by

integrating technology-based learning strategies, and

teachers have to be ready to encounter and make use

of generative AI like ChatGPT, launched by Ope-

nAI in November 2022, as an educational tool both

“standalone or integrated into other systems and plat-

forms” (Sanzalieva and Valentini, 2023, p. 8). Dai

et al. (2023) stipulate that “the technological architec-

ture of ChatGPT and other GPT models can be lever-

aged to enhance learning analytic techniques, gen-

erate customised scaffoldings, facilitate idea forma-

tion, and eventually expand educational access and

resources for social justice” (Dai et al., 2023, p. 2).

In English language learning, students can beneﬁt

as “the personalised learning experiences enabled by

ChatGPT highlight the signiﬁcance of learning how

to learn, and AI tools are meant to facilitate student

learning, not replace human efforts”, as well “by self-

regulating the learning process, students can avoid

over-reliance on AI-generated answers and maintain

a balance between independent problem solving and

seeking AI assistance” (Dai et al., 2023, p. 5). Such

assistance can be provided in getting grammar expla-

nations, having grammar and spelling corrected, writ-

ing and editing stories, inventing personalised study

plans, etc.

Digitally enhanced English language learning

connects a student with the recent authentic foreign

language content via different online platforms. This

format fosters students to develop their own learn-

ing strategies (both cognitive and metacognitive, as

well as affective), construct their learning environ-

ment, add to their learning experience, and increase

their progress. Working in a digitally-enhanced en-

vironment, a teacher has to differentiate instruction

and apply appropriate teaching forms and methods,

develop their teaching strategies that are aimed at fa-

miliarising students with the existing LLSs that they

can use and adjust to themselves.

Thus, language learning strategies are a part of

content that has to be learnt; an essential constituent

of the process of acquiring English language skills

that forwards and facilitates learning, makes it more

motivational, and allows students to manage and self-

regulate their learning; and ﬁnally, LLSs are a product

of English language acquisition becoming crucial for

lifelong self-directed learning.

ICHTML 2023 - International Conference on History, Theory and Methodology of Learning

6 CONCLUSION

The discussed issues may be regarded today as the

cornerstones in ELA taking place in both formal and

informal settings, since these ﬁndings contribute to

providing continuous language learning experience.

Interruptions in education due to current social chal-

lenges, different prior language learning experience

and aptitudes of students at tertiary level in non-

language educational institutions, as well as their in-

dividual learning behaviour, can be compensated by

considering and affecting individual factors such as

positive attitudes and motivation, broadening moti-

vational constructs, providing structured support and

guidance with DI, and addressing cognitive factors

like strategic awareness. Considering motivational

constructs helps drive and sustain students’ engage-

ment and success in ELA, create conducive and sup-

portive learning environment. Divergent DI in ELA

in a non-language university setting is proven to be

less time-consuming for teachers, and more stimulat-

ing and less stressful for students. It fosters students’

growth in learning English through following succes-

sive routes in a homogeneous peer group. Meanwhile,

it entails developing LLSs that are taught as a part of

content, help shape the process of ELA and become

ﬁnally an asset for students enabling them to con-

struct, self-regulate, and further self-direct the pro-

cess of learning languages in different settings follow-

ing different goals. In this framework, students are

engaged in constructing their learning environments,

they can manage the learning process, when using the

necessary strategies, and self-monitor their progress.

Foreign language teachers, in turn, can effectively re-

ﬂect on emerging opportunities and create a ﬂexible

but ordered system with a higher rate of practicality

and personalisation. Thus, DI and LLSs are crucial

for developing sustained motivation which is viewed

as the greatest incentive to learn languages life-long.

REFERENCES

Al-Hoorie, A. H. and MacIntyre, P. D. (2019). Contempo-

rary Motivation Theory: 60 Years since Gardner and

Lambert (1959). Multilingual Matters, Bristol, UK.

An, Z., Wang, C., Li, S., Gan, Z., and Li, H. (2021).

Technology-Assisted Self-Regulated English Lan-

guage Learning: Associations With English Language

Self-Efﬁcacy, English Enjoyment, and Learning Out-

comes. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/

10.3389/fpsyg.2020.558466.

cirovi

c, S., Brdarevi

Celjo, A., and Deli

c, H. (2021).

The use of digital technology in foreign language

learning. SN Social Sciences, 1(10):246. https://doi.

org/10.1007%2Fs43545-021-00254-y.

Bin-Hady, W. R. A. and Al-Tamimi, N. O. M. (2021). The

use of technology in informal English language learn-

ing: evidence from Yemeni undergraduate students.

Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf

Perspectives, 17(2):107–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/

LTHE-09-2020-0037.

Brenner, C. A. (2022). Self-regulated learning, self-

determination theory and teacher candidates’ develop-

ment of competency-based teaching practices. Smart

Learning Environments, 9(1):3. https://doi.org/10.

1186/s40561-021-00184-5.

Chamberlin, M. and Powers, R. (2010). The promise of dif-

ferentiated instruction for enhancing the mathematical

understandings of college students. Teaching Mathe-

matics and its Applications: An International Journal

of the IMA, 29(3):113–139. https://doi.org/10.1093/

teamat/hrq006.

Dai, Y., Liu, A., and Lim, C. P. (2023). Reconceptualizing

ChatGPT and generative AI as a student-driven inno-

vation in higher education. Procedia CIRP, 119:84–

90. The 33rd CIRP Design Conference. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.procir.2023.05.002.

Davis, W. S. (2020). Encouraging continued university for-

eign language study: a self-determination theory per-

spective on programme growth. The Language Learn-

ing Journal, 50(1):29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/

09571736.2020.1740768.

de Graaf, A., Westbroek, H., and Janssen, F. (2019). A Prac-

tical Approach to Differentiated Instruction: How Bi-

ology Teachers Redesigned Their Genetics and Ecol-

ogy Lessons. Journal of Science Teacher Education,

30(1):6–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.

1523646.

Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (2015). Self-Determination

Theory. In Wright, J. D., editor, International Ency-

clopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, pages

486–491. Elsevier, Oxford, second edition. https:

//doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26036-4.

Donker, A. S., de Boer, H., Kostons, D., Dignath van Ewijk,

C. C., and van der Werf, M. P. C. (2014). Effectiveness

of learning strategy instruction on academic perfor-

mance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Re-

view, 11:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.

11.002.

ornyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Lan-

guage Learner: Individual Differences in Sec-

ond Language Acquisition. Second Language Ac-

quisition Research Theoretical and Methodologi-

cal Issues. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ and

London. https://cstn.ﬁles.wordpress.com/2009/11/

the-psychology-of-the-language-learner-3haxap.pdf.

ornyei, Z. and Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). The Motiva-

tional Foundation of Learning Languages Other Than

Global English: Theoretical Issues and Research Di-

rections. The Modern Language Journal, 101(3):455–

468. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12408.

ornyei, Z. and Ryan, S. (2015). The Psychology of the

Language Learner Revisited. Routledge, Taylor and

English Teaching and Learning Strategies and Tactics for Tertiary Education

Francis Group, New York and London. https://doi.

org/10.4324/9781315779553.

ornyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and Re-

searching: Motivation. Pearson, Harlow, 2nd edition.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833750.

Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., and Yeager, D. S., ed-

itors (2017). Handbook of Competence and

Motivation: Theory and Application. The Guil-

ford Press, New York and London, 2nd edi-

tion. https://chools.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/

03/Handbook-of-Competence-and-Motivation

-Theory-and-Application.pdf.

Eraldemir Tuyan, S. and Serinda

g, E. (2019). Revisiting

the socio-educational model of second language ac-

quisition in Turkish tertiary EFL context. Journal

of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2):450–469.

https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.586105.

Gardner, R. G. (1985). Social Psychology and Sec-

ond Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes

and Motivation, volume 4 of The Social Psy-

chology of Language. Edward Arnold, Balti-

more, MD. https://publish.uwo.ca/

∼

gardner/docs/

SECONDLANGUAGE1985book.pdf.

Garz

on, J., Lampropoulos, G., and Burgos, D. (2023).

Effects of Mobile Learning in English Language

Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthe-

sis. Electronics, 12(7):1595. https://doi.org/10.3390/

electronics12071595.

Gregory, G. H. and Chapman, C. (2013). Differentiated in-

structional strategies: One size does not ﬁt all. Cor-

win Press, Thousand Oaks, CA, 3rd edition.

Grifﬁths, C. (2008). Strategies and Good Language Learn-

ers. In Grifﬁths, C., editor, Lessons from Good

language learners, pages 83–98. Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/

CBO9780511497667.009.

Grifﬁths, C. and Cansiz, G. (2015). Language learn-

ing strategies: An holistic view. Language Learn-

ing and Teaching, 5(3):473–493. https://doi.org/10.

14746/ssllt.2015.5.3.7.

Han, J. and Lu, Q. (2018). A Correlation Study

among Achievement Motivation, Goal-Setting and L2

Learning Strategy in EFL Context. English Lan-

guage Teaching, 11(2):5–14. http://doi.org/10.5539/

elt.v11n2p5.

Jørgensen, M. T. and Brogaard, L. (2021). Using differenti-

ated teaching to address academic diversity in higher

education: Empirical evidence from two cases. Learn-

ing and Teaching, 14(2):87–110. https://doi.org/10.

3167/latiss.2021.140206.

Kupchyk, L. and Litvinchuk, A. (2020). Differentiated

Instruction in English Learning, Teaching and As-

sessment in Non-Language Universities. Advanced

Education, 7(15):89–96. https://doi.org/10.20535/

2410-8286.168585.

Lai, Y., Saab, N., and Admiraal, W. (2022). Learning

Strategies in Self-directed Language Learning Using

Mobile Technology in Higher Education: A System-

atic Scoping Review. Education and Information

Technologies, 27:7749–7780. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s10639-022-10945-5.

Lamb, M., Csiz

er, K., Henry, A., and Ryan, S., editors

(2020). The Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for

Language Learning. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28380-3.

MacIntyre, P. (2010). Symposium – Perspectives on Mo-

tivation for Second Language Learning on the 50th

Anniversary of Gardner & Lambert (1959). Lan-

guage Teaching, 43(3):374–377. https://doi.org/10.

1017/S0261444810000108.

McEown, M. S. and Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q. (2019). Self-

determination for all language learners: New ap-

plications for formal language education. System,

86:102124. Special Issue: New directions for individ-

ual differences research in language learning. https:

//doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102124.

noz, L. E. and Morales, I. (2021). Development of

Teaching-Learning Strategies Through Technology.

In Negr

on, A. P. P. and Mu

noz, M., editors, Latin

American Women and Research Contributions to the

IT Field, page 73–94. IGI Global, Hershey, PA. https:

//doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7552-9.ch004.

Neroni, J., Meijs, C., Gijselaers, H. J. M., Kirschner, P. A.,

and de Groot, R. H. M. (2019). Learning strate-

gies and academic performance in distance educa-

tion. Learning and Individual Differences, 73:1–7.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.04.007.

Nikolaieva, S. Y. (2013). Methods of teaching foreign lan-

guages and cultures: theory and practice: a textbook

for the students of classical, pedagogical and linguis-

tic universities. Lenvit, Kyiv.

O’Malley, J. M. and Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning

strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/

CBO9781139524490.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What

Every Teacher Should Know. Newbury House Pub-

lishers, New York.

Oxford, R. L. (2016). Teaching and Researching Lan-

guage Learning Strategies: Self-Regulation in Con-

text. Routledge, New York, 2nd edition. https://doi.

org/10.4324/9781315719146.

Oxford, R. L. and Lin, C.-Y. (2011). Autonomous learn-

ers in digital realms: Exploring strategies for effec-

tive digital language learning. In Morrison, B., edi-

tor, Independent Language Learning: Building on Ex-

perience, Seeking New Perspectives, pages 157–172.

Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong. https://doi.

org/10.5790/hongkong/9789888083640.003.0012.

Pliner, S. M. and Johnson, J. R. (2004). Historical, The-

oretical, and Foundational Principles of Universal In-

structional Design in Higher Education. Equity & Ex-

cellence in Education, 37(2):105–113. https://doi.org/

10.1080/10665680490453913.

Przybył, J. and Chudak, S. (2019). University students’ self-

regulation in standard and enforced online language

learning. Moderna Spr

ak, 116(1):47–66. https://doi.

org/10.58221/mosp.v116i1.6925.

Redmer, G. (2022). Self-Regulation in an Advanced Lan-

guage Learner: A Case Study of Language Learning

Strategies. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal,

13(1):60–76. https://doi.org/10.37237/130104.

ICHTML 2023 - International Conference on History, Theory and Methodology of Learning

Rubin, J. (1987). Learner Strategies: Theoretical Assump-

tions, Research History and Typology. In Wenden,

A. L. and Rubin, J., editors, Learner Strategies in Lan-

guage Learning, pages 15–30. Prentice Hall, Engle-

wood Cliffs.

Sanchez, M. A. and Lidawan, M. W. (2020). Galvanizing

strategic and independent learning with learning tech-

nologies. European Journal of Literature, Language

and Linguistics Studies, 4(1):14–47. https://www.

oapub.org/lit/index.php/EJLLL/article/view/180.

Santangelo, T. and Tomlinson, C. A. (2008). The Applica-

tion of Differentiated Instruction in Postsecondary En-

vironments: Beneﬁts, Challenges, and Future Direc-

tions. International Journal of Teaching and Learning

in Higher Education, 20(3):307–323. https://www.

isetl.org/ijtlhe/ijtlhe-article-view.php?mid=366.

Sanzalieva, E. and Valentini, A. (2023). ChatGPT and

Artiﬁcial Intelligence in higher education: Quick

start guide. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/

pf0000385146.

Sapan, M. and Mede, E. (2022). The Effects of Dif-

ferentiated Instruction (DI) on Achievement, Motiva-

tion, and Autonomy among English Learners. Iranian

Journal of Language Teaching Research, 10(1):127–

144. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2022.121125.

Schipor, D. and Hammershaug, V. S. (2022). Language

Learning Strategies in the 2020 National Curriculum

for English. In Dypedahl, M., editor, Moving English

Language Teaching Forward: Festschrift to Ragn-

hild Elisabeth Lund, page 271–294. Cappelen Damm

Akademisk. https://press.nordicopenaccess.no/index.

php/noasp/catalog/view/166/886/7192.

Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teach-

ing. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to Differentiate Instruc-

tion in Mixed-Ability Classrooms. Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development,

Alexandria, VA, 2nd edition. https://rutamaestra.

santillana.com.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/

Classrooms-2nd-Edition-By-Carol-Ann-Tomlinson.

pdf.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Point/counterpoint: Sharing re-

sponsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper

Review, 26(4):188–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/

02783190409554268.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2017). How to Differentiate Instruc-

tion in Academically Diverse Classrooms. Associ-

ation for Supervision and Curriculum Development,

Alexandria, VA, 3rd edition.

Turner, W. D., Solis, O. J., and Kincade, D. H.

(2017). Differentiated Instruction for Large Classes

in Higher Education. International Journal of Teach-

ing and Learning in Higher Education, 29(3):490–

500. https://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ijtlhe-article-view.

php?mid=2735.

UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (2022). Mak-

ing Lifelong Learning a Reality: A Handbook. UN-

ESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, Hamburg,

Germany. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/

pf0000381857.

van Geel, M., Keuning, T., Fr

erejean, J., Dolmans, D., van

Merri

enboer, J., and Visscher, A. J. (2019). Capturing

the complexity of differentiated instruction. School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, 30(1):51–67.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1539013.

Waiter, W. (2005). Unterrichtsprinzipien. Auer Verlag,

Augsburg, 2 edition.

Yue, Z., Zhao, K., Meng, Y., Qian, X., and Wu, L. (2022).

Toward a Better Understanding of Language Learn-

ing Motivation in a Study Abroad Context: An In-

vestigation Among Chinese English as a Foreign Lan-

guage Learners. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https:

//doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.855592.

Zaytseva, I. V., Vysotchenko, S. V., Liahina, I. A., and

A., M. I. (2021). EFL University Students Chal-

lenges in the Process of Online Learning of Foreign

Languages in Ukraine. Arab World English Jour-

nal (AWEJ), (Special Issue on Call 7):70–77. https:

//doi.org/10.24093/awej/call7.5.

Zhou, Y. and Wei, M. (2018). Strategies in technology-

enhanced language learning. Studies in Second Lan-

guage Learning and Teaching, 8(2):471–495. https:

//doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.13.

English Teaching and Learning Strategies and Tactics for Tertiary Education