Meta-cognitive strategies in developing EFL writing (2).pdf

Contemporary Online Language Education Journal, 2011, 1(2), 82-100.

Meta-cognitive strategies in developing EFL writing skills Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce yazmanın geliştirilmesinde biliş ötesi stratejiler Osman Dülger1

A number of individual differences are found to affect the language learning process and the outcome of learning. Developing writing is an important but complex part of language learning. Recent research on writing has revealed in general terms that meta-cognitive strategies are effective on developing writing skills to produce longer and more quality texts. However, there is still a need for exploring the effect of meta-cognitive strategies on second/foreign language writing in more detail. This study examines the effect of meta-cognitive strategies on achievement and retention in developing writing. The study was conducted on 77 freshman students enrolled in English Language Teaching Department at Selçuk University. A pretestposttest design has been adopted to find out the differences between the experimental and the control group. In data collection, the students were given writing assessment tests as pretest, posttest and retention test. The results of the research statistically proved the contribution of metacognitive strategies to achievement and retention in writing. Keywords: Writing, meta-cognitive strategies, achievement, retention, foreign language

Özet Dil öğrenme sürecini ve öğrenme sonucunu etkileyen bir dizi bireysel farklılık bulunmaktadır. Yazmanın geliştirilmesi dil öğreniminin önemli fakat karmaşık bir bölümünü oluşturmaktadır. Yazma üzerine yapılan son araştırmalar, genel anlamda, biliş ötesi stratejilerin yazma becerilerinin geliştirilmesinde daha uzun ve daha kaliteli metinler üretilmesine etkide bulunduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Ancak, biliş ötesi stratejilerin ikinci/yabancı dilde yazmaya etkisinin daha ayrıntılı olarak araştırılmasına ihtiyaç bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışma, yazmanın geliştirilmesinde biliş ötesi stratejilerin erişi ve kalıcılığa etkisini araştırmaktadır. Çalışma Selçuk Üniversitesi İngiliz Dili Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı 1. sınıfta kayıtlı 77 öğrenci üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Deney ve kontrol grubu arasındaki farkları tespit edebilmek amacıyla çalışma da öntest-sontest deseni benimsenmiştir. Veri toplama sürecinde, öğrencilere öntest, sontest ve kalıcılık testi olarak yazma değerlendirme sınavı uygulanmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçları, biliş ötesi stratejilerin yazmada erişi ve kalıcılığa katkısını istatistikî olarak doğrulamıştır. Anahtar Kelimeler: yazma, biliş ötesi stratejiler, erişi, kalıcılık, yabancı dil

1

Konya Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi.

82


Introduction The relatively recent recognition of the importance of human memory for additional language learning paved the way for the application of varied interventions and solutions to help solve the problems experienced by language learners. Therefore, knowledge of the mental processes a learner goes through when acquiring knowledge or skills, coupled with learner variables such as age and culture assumed crucial importance in the contemporary language learning and teaching. This stance takes us to the issue of what and which methods and techniques are used by the learner during learning. Focusing on the methods and techniques utilized by the learner in the learning process brought the term ‘learning strategies’ onto the agenda. Being a vital component of research on learner related variables that influence language learning, learning strategies have come under scrutiny mainly as a consequence of ‘good language learner’ studies. The significance of working on the language learning strategies is based on the rationale that if the strategies that contribute to language learning can clearly be identified, then the learners can be informed of and taught these strategies, with the objective that the learners are to benefit from these strategies.

This study, first, points out the significance of language learning strategies by looking into the nature and characteristics of the strategies. Secondly, the notion of metacognition is described to enable readers to have a grasp of the concept of meta-cognitive learning strategies. This is followed by a description of what writing is as part of skills development in second language attainment. The type of instructional factors that can have a key influence in the development of writing skills is discussed. The relationship between meta-cognition and writing process is explored with a view to facilitate the acquisition of writing skills.

Meta-cognitive strategies Learning strategies can typically be conceptualized as survival strategies that are often associated with skills, tactics, plans, and movement to achieve a learning goal (Harris & Grenfell, 2004; Oxford, 1990). Just as the term ‘strategy’ is associated with special plans and tactics to beat an enemy in a war, a learner can be viewed to be struggling to overcome problems or cope with a challenge in language learning. The literature in 83


language learning research provides a number of definitions of learning strategies, comprising many similar points in general, with slight differences. To begin with, Cohen & Scott (1996: 90) remark that learning strategies may either be observable or unobservable. What can be observable makes the researcher’s job easier while the unobservable ones make his/her job more difficult. The purpose of employing strategies by learners is to make learning more effective and long-lasting (Mitchell & Myles, 2002: 89). Strategies are found to contribute to learning either consciously or unconsciously (Cohen & Scott, 1996: 90; Williams & Burden, 1997: 144). The learner may not even be aware of the strategies s/he is using, but the strategies do support the learning process. Generally, strategies are not peculiar to any proficiency level. They can be used at all levels of proficiency. Besides, they are closely related with problem solving efforts (Oxford, 1990: 11; Williams & Burden, 1997: 149). Thus, a learner equipped with the right problem solving skills is in a more advantageous position to tackle challenges in learning. Parenthetically, the use of strategies may be affected by various factors, including age, experience in learning, and cultural background. What is of most concern to language teaching practitioners is that learning strategies are not inherent abilities that belong to only gifted learners. Learning strategies can actually be learned (Williams & Burden, 1997: 148). As meta-cognitive strategies constitute the executive abilities of the learner, a learner needs to employ meta-cognitive strategies for making use of other necessary learning strategies for a successful outcome.

A number of strategy classifications can be seen in the literature (Beckman, 2002; Cohen, 2003; Hajer et al. 1996; Oxford, 1990). Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) has been the most commonly used questionnaire in experimental researches. SILL is divided into two main categories: direct strategies, and indirect strategies. Oxford’s classification assumes that some strategies are concerned with the language directly, whereas others provide support indirectly. On this basis, she divides each category into three groups. Direct strategies are grouped into memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies, while indirect strategies include metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies (see the Appendix for a list of Language Learning Strategies).

84


Cognitive strategies are mainly used for analyzing and classifying new information to accomplish a given task, while memory strategies are used for recording information in the memory and recalling it when required. Compensation strategies help learners overcome learning problems, through guessing and/or using gestures. While metacognitive strategies help a learner organize, focus on and evaluate his/her learning, social strategies help cooperate with others. Finally, affective strategies manage feelings, emotions and attitudes. As far as this study is concerned, the following list of metacognitive strategies is of central importance (Oxford, 1990): a) Centering your learning 1- Over-viewing and linking with already known material 2- Paying attention (directed attention vs. selective attention) 3- Delaying speech production to focus on listening b) Arranging and planning your learning 1- Finding out about language learning 2- Organizing 3- Setting goals and objectives 4- Identifying the purpose of a language task (purposeful listening/reading/ speaking/ writing) 5- Planning for a language task 6- Seeking practice opportunities c) Evaluating your learning 1- Self-monitoring 2- Self- evaluating.

Although, the meta-cognitive strategy ‘delaying speech production to focus on listening’ is only concerned with listening and speaking, other strategies included in this group are suggested in the same study to be highly beneficial in all language skills. Closely related with meta-cognitive strategies, another concept that needs to be explained is metacognition. Basically known to manage learning, meta-cognition is undoubtedly a crucial term for all kinds of learning. An analysis of the definitions and descriptions provided by the literature implies that meta-cognition provides the learners with some kind of 85


conscious control over their learning (Beckman, 2002; Marshall, 2003; Orlich et al., 1998: 317; Williams & Burden, 1997: 154).

Meta-cognition is recognized as consisting of two interrelated dimensions – metacognitive knowledge (information learners acquire about their learning) and metacognitive strategies (general skills such as planning, monitoring and evaluating) (Wenden, 1999). Meta-cognitive knowledge is divided into strategic knowledge, knowledge about cognitive tasks, and self-knowledge (Pintrich, 2002). On the whole, meta-cognition combines various thinking and reflective processes (Anderson, 2002). As meta-cognition is used to refer to governing the whole learning, meta-cognitive strategies come out as the instruments for meta-cognition, and function as a means of facilitating learning. Thus, depending on the significant role they play in autonomy and their close relation to decision-making, meta-cognitive strategies are means of independent learning as well (Williams & Burden, 1997: 150). Not surprisingly, an independent learner brings the image of an individual with some strengths, and such strengths are of precious help for the students, including coping with difficulties of real life situations. Meta-cognitive strategies equip the learner with the ability to identify the most appropriate actions whenever and wherever required.

Another major goal of strategy research has been to present the strategies and methods of teaching the students to use these strategies effectively. Mainly, beginning from the 1980s a number of strategy instruction models have been developed (Beckman, 2002; Cohen, 2003; Hajer et al. 1996; Oxford, 1990). Among the various types of strategy instruction Oxford’s (1990) and Hajer et al.’s (1996) suggestions are especially worth noting. In accordance with the goals of language instruction and the conditions permitting, any type of strategy instruction can be of interest to teachers.

As meta-cognition is mainly concerned with awareness, and self regulation (Sünbül, 1998), developing meta-cognitive awareness is reported to be highly crucial for achievement, and effective learning (Williams and Burden, 1997: 154). Although detailed strategy instruction requires much time and thus has to focus on specific strategies to be applied (Flaitz & Feyten, 1996: 212), raising meta-cognitive awareness can even be in the

86


form of asking students to talk about the process they go through in their heads when accomplishing a task (i.e. think aloud protocols) (Marshall, 2003). The teachers can help learners by means of some kind of meta-cognitive awareness raising activities even if they do not have enough opportunities for a detailed meta-cognitive strategy instruction. Furthermore, the teacher can be a highly promoting factor, even through modeling his own meta-cognition, in this process.

Writing Writing has never been associated with a single attribute in the literature. It may be associated with orthography, written discourse, the act of writing, or literature (Silva & Matsuda, 2002: 251). However, whichever meaning and understanding we adopt, we need to know about writing, as well as writing itself. Both in the mother tongue and in a foreign language, writing has always been a complex skill to master. Its development involves much more than accurate use of grammar and a good range of vocabulary, or joining together the written down words (Richards, 2002: 303). Instead, writing is found to consist of many components, and the most important ones are suggested to be evaluated for a course (Raimes, 2002: 309). Writing can even be resembled to a kind of sports, the development of which requires proficiency in both theoretical knowledge and practice. On the other hand, the writer is put in a place to anticipate the reader’s reactions (Olshtain, 1991), while the speaker and hearer can provide immediate feedback in oral communication. Besides, aspects such as linguistic accuracy, clarity of expression, organization of ideas, naturalness and spontaneity emerge as some of the basic additional factors to be taken into consideration in writing, apart from spoken interaction (Silva & Matsuda, 2002).

Writing research has produced the two fundamental views - the product view and the process view. (They are also known as approaches.) In the past, teaching students punctuation, spelling, and correct usage was emphasized and the teachers commented on the finished products and graded them. The students read the written materials, and then tried to imitate them. Teaching writing had merely consisted of practicing grammatical exercises (Raimes, 2002: 309). Not surprisingly, success in getting high grades, as opposed to achievement, assumes great importance for the students in such a learning environment (Cohen, 1990: 105). 87


Finally, viewing writing traditionally was associated with seeing writing as ‘transcribed speech’ (Silva & Matsuda, 2002: 252). Such a view is based on the idea that speaking precedes writing, and those who can speak in the target language can write equally well (which is clearly a false assumption). Therefore, students were not exposed to writing before they acquire the oral skills and conventions, since an individual was assumed to be able to express himself in the way he speaks.

Questioning the inadequacies of the product view resulted in viewing writing basically as a process of four main stages (i.e. planning, drafting, revising, and editing), where each stage has its own rules, activities, and behaviors to be displayed (Cohen, 1990: 105; Seow, 2002). Naturally, the teachers are expected to focus on the process rather than the finished product. Certainly, accuracy is not neglected when developing writing, but it is not the only emphasized issue either. That is, various operations and strategies applied during the completion of a writing task become key processes and elements.

Although second language writing classes in the past primarily emphasized linguistic competence from 1980s on, focusing on the composing processes in writing syllabus design became more and more significant (Leki, 1992: 76). Moreover, current literature on writing includes statements that emphasize a number of academic, even socio-political issues, to be considered as legitimate concerns in second language writing, and a number of syllabus organization types are reported in the literature to offer instructional contributions for the development of writing (Raimes, 2002: 310; Silva & Matsuda, 2002: 263). According to the students’ needs and the curriculum goals, either of the syllabus types can be adopted and applied.

Last but not least, another extremely crucial dimension of writing instruction has been the assessment of writing. Although the term ‘assessment’ conjures up the notion of exam in most instructional practices, it is not always the case with writing. Assessing writing does not necessarily mean implementing exams, as it is at the same time used as a means of developing writing skills. Furthermore, in a sense, developing writing can be identified as being a continuous process of assessment for every step learners take under the guidance 88


of the writing teacher (see Weigle, 2002 for more). However, either employed as part of the methodology of developing writing or used as a technique for distinguishing successful learners from less successful ones, a real piece of written text is one of the basic requirements for assessing writing (Biedenbach, 2004: 129).

The relationship between writing and meta-cognition On the relationship between writing and meta-cognition, the process view suggests that the process of writing is not linear, and that managing such processes of writing requires a higher level ability than mere recognition of certain stages and processes. A second language writer has to go through certain stages when performing a task, and has to develop special skills for planning the writing process, organizing, drafting, revising, and considering the audience, purpose and genre. In addition, the writing research suggests a positive correlation between EFL students’ meta-cognitive growth and their performance on the final writing assessment (Kasper, 1997), and therefore composition teachers are strongly advised to use meta-cognition to help students learn to analyze and adapt their thinking, learning, and writing processes.

On the other hand, meta-cognitive process is not linear either, and more than one metacognitive process may be occurring at a time when fulfilling a second language task (Anderson, 2002). That is, the strategies may not be occurring at distinct times and in the same order. From this point of view, the orchestration of various strategies empowers second language learners. For instance, when students are taught that an effective writing strategy involves thinking about their audience and their purpose (e.g. to explain, to persuade) in writing, they can monitor their strategy use via giving brakes and thinking on whether they are able to keep track of their aim.

Furthermore, meta-cognitive knowledge about L2 writing with the writer’s attitude toward writing and his/her confidence in writing have been found to significantly contribute to the quality of the written product by giving the students a plan (Angelova, 1999). To be precise, the plan is used by the students to perform the task, and when the students see that the plan is successfully executed and accomplished, they are expected to become more motivated and active for the task in hand. Accordingly, a system of goal 89


setting included in writing curriculum is found to help students monitor their development (Biedenbach, 2004). Given the afore-mentioned studies, not surprisingly, such positive contributions to the learning environment will lead to better degrees in terms of achievement. Method Pretest-Posttest Group Design is used to find out the difference between the achievement of students that are taught the meta-cognitive strategies and the students who have received instruction through traditional methods. The experimental research has been conducted on 1st year students of Selçuk University, Department of English Language Teaching. 26 of 35 students in the experimental group and 24 of 32 students in the control group were females. The age range is between 18 and 20. The two groups were randomly selected, one as the experimental group and the other as the control group. As far as the procedures are concerned, one-paragraph essay was chosen for English Writing Skills course. The writing assessment test was given to both groups as a pretest. The research was continued for 14 weeks.

While both groups received the same writing instruction including the materials, experimental group received meta-cognitive strategies use. Type 4 strategy instruction introduced by Hajer et al. (1996) was adopted to guide the researcher for the teaching of meta-cognitive strategies, as it was reported as one of the most efficient ways of implementing strategy instruction in class. The teacher modeled the above-mentioned In addition to the teacher’s

strategy use whenever appropriate during the course.

modeling, the students were asked to apply the meta-cognitive strategies by means of self questioning. Both groups were applied a writing assessment test. 16 weeks after the application of the posttests, both groups had a writing assessment test as a retention test.

The writing assessment test was applied to obtain data for the dependent variable ‘achievement’. Consistent with the course requirements, the students were asked to write a one-paragraph essay on one of the given topics. The topics included education/school, family/children,

social/political

issues,

work/jobs,

or

media/television.

Writing

assessment tests were applied three times, to both groups, as the pretest, posttest, and retention test. Each time the students were given 45 minutes to write on one of the topics. 90


Exam papers were assessed by three independent raters, all ELT professionals, using a scale with dimensions of content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. Then, the data obtained from the tests were analyzed through Excel 7.0 page.

Results As regards the achievement pre-test results of the experimental and the control group, Pre-test Group design was used to find out the difference between the experimental group and the control group in terms of writing ability. Below is presented a table that shows the results of the pre-test applied to both groups. Table 1 Writing Skills Pre-test Comparison of the Students in the Experimental Group and the Control Group Group Statistics WRITING SKILL

GROUP

N

Mean

SD

t

Content

C

32

16.34

1.79

1.91

0.087

E

35

15.96

1.65

C

32

13.47

2.53

0.072

0.943

E

35

13.43

2.05

C

32

13.06

2.03

0.395

0.694

E

35

12.89

1.62

C

32

13.72

2.20

0.178

0.859

E

35

13.63

1.94

C

32

2.88

0.55

0.984

0.329

E

35

3.03

0.71

C

32

59.47

7.48

0.591

0.556

E

35

59.03

6.92

Organization Vocabulary Language Use Mechanics Total

p

Independent t-test has been used to test the difference between the pretest points, applied in the initial phase of the research to the experimental group and the control group. Among the dimensions of writing, t-values between the two groups have been calculated respectively as; 1.91 in the content dimension, 0.072 in the organization dimension, 0.395 in the vocabulary dimension, 0.178 in the language use dimension, 0.98 in mechanics dimension, and 0.59 in total writing skills points. None of these t-values revealed a significant difference at the 0.05 level. Thus, before the applications of the research, a meaningful difference could not be found between the writing skills of the students in the experimental group and the control group. 91


Application of the Post-test aimed at finding out differences in writing achievement between the students that received the treatment of meta-cognitive strategies use and the students who received traditional instruction. The table below displays a comparison of achievement levels of students in the experimental group and the control group: Table 2 Writing Skills Achievement Comparison of the Students in the Experimental Group and the Control Group PRE-TEST

POST-TEST

Mean

Mean

WRITING SKILL GROUP

N

Content

C

32 16.34

E Organization Vocabulary Language Use Mechanics Total

SD

ACHIEVEMENT

SD

Mean

SD

t

p

1.79 17.81

2.10

1.47

1.97

9.099 0.000

35 15.96

1.65 22.51

2.89

7.06

2.92

C

32 13.47

2.53 15.34

2.51

1.88

3.12

E

35 13.43

2.05 17.09

1.58

3.66

2.52

C

32 13.06

2.03 15.34

2.34

2.28

2.74

E

35 12.89

1.62 16.97

1.38

4.09

1.67

C

32 13.72

2.20 16.09

2.51

3.47

3.23

E

35 13.63

1.94 20.91

2.19

4.86

2.99

C

32 2.88

0.55 3.63

0.61

0.75

0.72

E

35 3.03

0.71 4.51

0.61

1.49

0.85

C

32 59.47

7.48 68.22

9.03

8.75

9.57

E

35 59.03

6.92 82.00

7.70

23.57

8.69

2.583

0.012

3.288

0.002

1.826

0.072

3.799

0.000

6.646

0.000

The difference between pretest and posttest points of every student has been identified, so as to indicate the achievement level of the students included in the research. Differences between the significance points of the control group and the experimental group points have been analyzed through the independent t-test. Results of the analysis revealed 1.47+- 1.97 control group achievement mean with 7.06+-2.92 experimental group mean, in the content dimension; 1.88+-3.12 control group mean with 3.66+-2.52 experimental group mean, in the organization dimension; 2.28+-2.74 control group mean with 4.09+1.67 experimental group mean, in the vocabulary dimension; 3.47+-3.23 control group mean with 4.86+-2.99 experimental group mean, in the language use dimension; 0.75+0.72 control group mean with 1.49+-0.85 experimental group mean, in the mechanics dimension; and 8.75+-9.57 control group mean with 23.57+-8.69 experimental group mean, in total writing skills achievement.

92


Every dimension, except for the language use, displayed significance in the t-values obtained from the writing skills achievement means of students in the control group and the experimental group. Thus, evaluation of the student achievement means indicated that the students in the experimental group had higher levels of achievement than the students in the control group in content, organization, vocabulary, mechanics and total writing skills achievement.

Retention results of the experimental and the control group In addition to the pre-test and post-test on writing achievement, learners were also investigated in terms of the effects of meta-cognitive strategies on retention in writing. Table 3 illustrates a comparison of the experimental and the control group retention levels: Table 3 Retention Level Comparison of the Students in the Experimental Group and the Control Group Group Statistics WRITING SKILL

GROUP

N

Mean

SD

t

p

Content

C

32

17.91

2.79

6.617

0.000

E

35

22.31

2.67

C

32

15.47

2.12

3.098

0.003

E

35

16.86

1.52

C

32

15.34

1.66

3.533

0.001

E

35

16.69

1.45

C

32

17.19

2.55

1.992

0.051

E

35

18.49

2.77

C

32

3.63

0.79

1.945

0.056

E

35

3.97

0.66

C

32

69.53

8.97

4.197

0.000

E

35

78.31

8.16

Organization Vocabulary Language Use Mechanics Total

A writing assessment test has been administered, as a retention test, to the students in the control group and the experimental group, 4 months (16 weeks) after the application of the posttest. According to the retention test results, significance could be observed, in favor of the students in the experimental group, in the dimensions of content, organization, vocabulary and total retention. However, significance could not be observed in the dimensions of language use and mechanics. That is, in the dimensions that revealed

93


difference, experimental group displayed higher levels of achievement than the students in the control group. Discussion To begin with, comparison of the pretest and posttest points of the groups has indicated that the results of the study statistically verified the positive effect of meta-cognitive strategies on total writing achievement (see Table 2). Consistent with the overall writing performance level, the experimental group displayed higher achievement in content, organization, vocabulary and mechanics. As with language use, the results didn’t demonstrate statistically significant values between the experimental group and the control group.

Results pertaining to the interpretation of the achievement results seem to be consistent with the previous findings on the effectiveness of strategy instruction. Conscious teaching of cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies increases the students’ capacity to learn (Beckman, 2002). However, being able to write well requires many basic prerequisites on the part of the learner. Knowing a language of an adequate level for expression is probably the most urgent component for written expression. In other words, a writer may be restricted by the level of language he possesses, before he knows about where, when, why, how and what to write. Equally important for writing are knowing about writing conventions and having adequate knowledge of the topic (Albertson & Billingsley, 2001). These requirements for a written text are sufficient to signal the difficulty of developing writing skills and the amount of time needed for it.

Not surprisingly, these requirements, at the same time, suggest the meeting point between writing and meta-cognitive strategies. On the indicators of the degree the strategies have been employed, the stages and aspects of writing, and the meta-cognitive strategies need to be considered together to enlarge the picture and clarify the scene (Tsai, 2004: 53). To be precise, planning primarily helps the writer concentrate on the steps to be taken when accomplishing a writing task. When doing this, the writer’s center of attention, goals, content, voice, the audience and the expectations of the audience, and even the knowledge to be transferred to the new task are all taken into consideration. Monitoring helps the writer test if he is writing in a way consistent with the goals and requirements of 94


the task. S/he makes use of her/his grammatical knowledge and discourse knowledge to see if s/he is following the conventions or rules by concentrating on logical order, coherence, cohesion, transitions, etc. When the writer finishes writing, s/he carries out some kind of self-assessment and tries to make judgments on the text s/he has written. The language used, expression of the intended meaning, appropriate tone and register, accurate usage of the structures become the main points for evaluation. If the writer decides on a need to revise the text, or at least make changes on some parts of the text, s/he might need to employ some more planning and rewrite the text. However, the writer doesn’t always have to evaluate his/her writing when it is finished. The writer may decide to evaluate his/her writing at various points within the process of writing.

As regards the retention results, a comparison of retention levels of the experimental and the control group suggested a positive effect on behalf of the experimental group (see table 3). Retention level of learning has not only been investigated in terms of total points, but also five sub-dimensions of writing content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics have been subject to assessment. In total retention level of learning, the experimental group displayed significant statistical values over the control group. Therefore, the results appear to validate the contribution of meta-cognitive strategies in terms of total retention level. The same has been the case with content, organization, and vocabulary, while the experimental group didn’t reveal significant difference in language use and mechanics over the control group.

Clearly, enhancing learning is a crucial constituent of retention. Achieving a learning goal successfully is likely to result in retention in the future. As meta-cognitive strategies support learning, they are likely to play a contributive role in retention as well. On the whole, it seems reasonable to propose that the results of the study, backed by the researcher’s observations, confirms Cohen’s (2003) assertion that the students should be given the opportunity to receive explicit strategy instruction as part of the foreign language curriculum. Consequently, it might offer the researchers and educators new gateways in their attempts to overcome the complexities and difficulties involved in writing.

95


These new gateways will naturally result in self-regulated learning. To help learners become autonomous, the teacher can adopt some teaching strategies and facilitate strategy usage. However, the teacher does not have to neglect course content, test structures, essay topics, or assignments (Biedenbach, 2004). Instead, by adopting suitable teaching methods the teacher can provide the students with strategy instruction, without ignoring the content. The guidelines available in the literature present a range of options for implementing strategy instruction plan for meeting the needs of learners. Recall that writing has been defined as a complex skill, and associated with more than accuracy of grammar and the extent of vocabulary (Albertson & Billingsley, 2001). Thus, a number of interconnected components are advocated to influence an effective foreign language writing curriculum. In this sense, meta-cognitive strategies become vitally important in that they can help the writer govern the writing process. They can be used for solving the potential problems that result from the complexities of writing. Conclusion This study aimed at finding out the effects of meta-cognitive strategies on writing. One of the findings that the results suggest is that meta-cognitive strategies are found effective on total writing achievement in general, and on content, organization, vocabulary, and mechanics of writing in particular. However, meta-cognitive strategies are not found to create a meaningful difference in the language use dimension. Correspondingly, metacognitive strategies are found to be effective on retention in dimensions of content, organization, vocabulary, which in turn constitute a positive effect in total retention. However, meta-cognitive strategies are not found to have a significant influence on language use, and mechanics in writing.

Complementary to the topic, the researcher’s observations make it possible to draw the conclusion that teaching meta-cognitive strategies seem to greatly contribute to the consciousness level of the students, in terms of their strengths and weaknesses, when accomplishing a writing task. Therefore, not only writing skills courses but also the whole foreign language curriculum can benefit from meta-cognitive strategies instruction. Foreign language teacher training programs as well as other teacher education programs should include meta-cognitive strategies as part of instructional practice. Thus, including

96


meta-cognitive strategies in a curriculum can help students become more autonomous learners since meta-cognitive strategies are used to govern the overall process in learning,

Further studies should be conducted on the particular effects of meta-cognitive strategies in order to have a better understanding of the uses and benefits of the meta-cognitive strategies to instruction. Curriculum specialists need to study on making decisions on the exact level, stage, and methods of including meta-cognitive strategies in curricula, depending on the results of further research. Moreover, the teachers should be informed about the uses and benefits of meta-cognitive strategies through either pre-service or inservice training programs. Meta-cognitive strategies can be used by the teacher individually as part of his/her own teaching style, even if the meta-cognitive strategies are not included in the institutional curriculum. Hence, teachers are suggested to adopt the meta-cognitive strategies and model them when and where needed in class activities to promote learning.

97


Appendix Language Learning Strategies DIRECT STRATEGIES Memory Cognitive Strategies Strategies

Compensation Strategies

INDIRECT STRATEGIES Meta-cognitive Affective Strategies Strategies

Social Strategies

a) Creating mental linkages

a) Practicing

a) Guessing intelligently

a) Centering your learning

a) Lowering your anxiety

a) Asking questions

1- Grouping

2- Formally practicing with sounds and writing systems

1- Using linguistic clues

1- Over-viewing and linking with already known material

1- Using progressive relaxation, deep breathing, or meditation

1- Asking for clarification or verification

2-Associating/ elaborating 3- Placing new words into a context b) Applying images and sounds 1- Using imagery 2- Semantic mapping 3- Using keywords

1- Repeating

2- Using other clues

3- Recognizing and using formulas and patterns

b) Overcoming limitations in speaking and writing

4- Recombining

1- Switching to the mother tongue

5- Practicing naturalistically

2- Getting help

c) Reviewing well

b) Receiving and sending messages

1- Structured reviewing

1- Getting the idea quickly

d) Employing action

2- Using resources for receiving and sending messages

4- Avoiding communicatio n partially or totally

4- Representing sounds in memory

1- Using physical response or sensation 2- Using mechanical techniques

3- Using mime or gesture

2- Paying attention (directed attention vs. selective attention) 3- Delaying speech production to focus on listening b) Arranging and planning your learning

2- Using music 3- Using laughter b)Encouragi ng yourself 1- Making positive statements 2- Taking risks wisely

1- Finding out about language learning

3Rewarding yourself

2- Organizing

c) Analyzing and reasoning

6- Adjusting or approximating the message

1- Reasoning deductively

7- Coining words

c) Taking your emotional temperature

2- Analyzing expressions

8- Using a circumlocution or synonym

4- Identifying the purpose of a language task (purposeful listening/reading / speaking/ writing)

3- Analyzing contrastively (across languages)

5- Selecting the topic

3- Setting goals and objectives

5- Planning for a language task

4- Translating

6- Seeking practice opportunities

5- Transferring d) Creating structure for input and output

c) Evaluating your learning

1- Taking notes

2- Asking for correction b)Cooperating with others 1-Cooperating with peers 2-Cooperating with proficient users of the new language c)Empathizing with others 1-Developing cultural understanding 2- Becoming aware of others’ thoughts and feelings

1- Listening to your body 2- Using a checklist 3- Writing a language learning diary 4Discussing your feelings with someone else

1- Selfmonitoring

2- Summarizing 3- Highlighting

2- Selfevaluating

Adapted from Oxford (1990)

98


References Albertson, L. R., & Billingsley, F. F. (2001). Using Strategy Instruction and SelfRegulation to Improve Gifted Students' Creative Writing. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12 (2), 90-99. Anderson, N. J. (April, 2002). The Role of Metacognition in Second Language Teaching and Learning. The Center for Applied Linguistics. [Online]: Retrieved on 6February-2004, at URL: http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0110anderson.html. Angelova, M. (1999). An Exploratory Study of Factors Affecting the Process and Product ofWriting in English as a Foreign Language. Doctoral Dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, USA.: UMI Company. Barrass, R. (1995). Students Must Write: A Guide to Better Writing in Coursework and Examinations. London: Routledge. Beckman, P. (2002, December). Strategy Instruction. ERIC, ED327218. Biedenbach, S. B. (2004). Surviving the academy through process and practice: The impact of using a self-regulated strategy development approach for teaching college-level basic writers. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Akron, USA.: UMI Company. Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language Learning: Insights for Learners, Teachers, and Researchers. U.S.A: Newburry House Publishers. Cohen, A. D. (2003, August). Strategy Training for Second Language Learners. [Online]: Retrieved on 14-January-2004, at URL: http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0302cohen.html. Cohen A. D., & Scott, K. (1996). A Synthesis of Approaches to Assessing Language Learning Strategies. In Rebecca L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross cultural perspectives. (Technical Report #13) (pp. 89106). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Flaitz, J., & Feyten, C. (1996). A two phase study involving consciousness raising and strategy use for foreign language learners. In Rebecca L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross cultural perspectives. (Technical Report #13) (pp. 211-225). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Hajer, M., Meestringa, T., Park, Y. Y., & Oxford, R. L. (1996). How print materials provide strategy instruction. In Rebecca L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross cultural perspectives. (Technical Report #13) (pp. 119-140). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Harris, V., & Grenfell, M. (2004). Language-learning Strategies: A Case for Crosscurricular Collaboration. Language Awareness, 13 (2), 116-130. Kasper, L. F. (1997, November). Assessing the metacognitive growth of ESL student writers. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language-Electronic Journal. 3 (1). [Online]: Retrieved on 26-February-2004, at URL: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/education/celia/tesl-ej/ej09/a1.html. Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL Writers: A Guide for Teachers. USA: Boynton/Cook Publishers. Marshall, M. (2003, June). Metacognition: Thinking about Thinking Is Essential for Learning. Teachers.Net Gazette. 4 (6). [Online]: Retrieved on 02-March-2004, at URL: http://teachers.net/gazette/JUN03/marshall.html. Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2002). Second Language Learning Theories. London: Arnold.

99


Olshtain, E. (1991). Functional Tasks for Mastering the Mechanics of Writing and Going Just Beyond. In Marianne Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp. 235-245). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., & Gibson, H. W. (1998). Teaching Strategies: A Guide to Better Instruction (Fifth Edition). USA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. U.S.A: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Pintrich, P. R. (2002, Autumn). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice. 41 (4), 219-227. Raimes, A. (2002). Ten Steps in Planning a Writing Course and Training Teachers of Writing.In Jack C. Richards & Willy A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology inLanguage Teaching: An Anthology of Current practice. (pp. 306-314). New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C. (2002). Theories of Teaching in Language Teaching. In Jack C. Richards & Willy A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current practice. (pp. 19-25). New York: Cambridge University Press. Seow, A. (2002). The Writing Process and Process Writing. In Jack C. Richards, & Willy A. Renandya, (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current practice. (pp. 315-320). New York: Cambridge University Press. Silva, T., & Matsuda, P. K. (2002). Writing. In Schmitt, N. (Ed.), An Introduction to AppliedLinguistics. (pp. 251-267). New York: Arnold. Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sünbül, A. M. (1998). Öğrenme Stratejilerinin Öğrenci Erişi Ve Tutumlarina Etkisi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. Tsai, C. H. L. (2004). Investigating the Relationships between ESL Writers’ Strategy Use and Their Second Language Writing Ability. Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University, USA: UMI Company. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenden, A. L. (1999, December). An Introduction to Metacognitive Knowledge and Beliefs in Language Learning: beyond the basics. System, 27 (4), 435-441. Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist Approach. UK: Cambridge University Press.

100

Meta-cognitive strategies in developing EFL writing (2).pdf

Recommend Documents