1 The effectiveness of embedded metacognitive instruction on EFL students’ English writing and regulation of cognition Mark Feng Teng
2 metacognition Metacognition generally involves language learners’ knowledge and awareness of their own cognitive processes and outcomes (Flavell, 1979). It is considered to have four dimensions: (a) metacognitive knowledge, (b) metacognitive experiences, (c) goals, and (d) actions. Metacognitive knowledge refers to a learner’s knowledge about his own self. Metacognitive experiences can be defined as thoughts and feelings that correspond to cognitive tasks. Metacognitive goals are the global and specific objectives of cognitive tasks. And, metacognitive actions refer to as the strategies utilized to achieve those specified goals. A number of researchers have subsumed metacognitive experiences, goals, and actions under the component of regulation of cognition (Baker & Brown, 1984; Schraw, 2009).
3 Brown (1987) made a distinction between the two basic components of metacognition—the knowledge of cognition and the regulation of cognition. The knowledge of cognition refers to the knowledge about a learner’s own cognition or cognition in general. It has three facets: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and conditional knowledge. Declarative knowledge concerns with the factual knowledge of a person’s own capabilities and the factors that influence his performance. In contrast, procedural knowledge refers to the knowledge of executing procedural skills. The conditional knowledge is about discerning the logic to apply various cognitive actions. The regulation of cognition refers to a set of activities that enable learners to attain control on their thinking and learning. Although a number of regulatory skills have been described in the literature, planning, monitoring, and evaluation are the essential elements included in all accounts. Planning deals with thinking and organizing appropriate strategies and allocating resources that affect the performance. Monitoring means to be aware of and observe the task and performance targets. Evaluating refers to appraising the regulatory process and efficiency of a learner’s learning ability.
4 Research shows that metacognition plays an important role in English learning (e.g., Larkin, 2009; Zhang, Aryadoust, & Zhang, 2014). The consensus in these studies is that metacognition plays the role of a fixer or a problem solver, and learners use a toolbox of strategies to repair the failure in listening or reading comprehension, or to maximize writing performance. These few examples present only a brief snapshot of the vast amount of research in the field of applying metacognition in the teaching of English.
5 Metacognition and writingMany studies on metacognition have been conducted in the area of reading (e.g., Baker & Brown, 1984; Carrell, 1989; Carretti, Caldarola, Tencati, & Cornoldi, 2014). However, studies on metacognition in the area of writing are relatively limited (Griffith & Ruan, 2005). Early models of writing highlight the metacognitive elements of writing and acknowledge the positive role of a cognitive monitor to oversee the writing process (Conner, 2007). Following these precedents, more attention has been given to the fundamental nature of writing and the role of metacognition in the acquisition of writing skills.
6 Why metacognition and writingWriting is regarded as a socially, historically, and culturally integrated activity (Larkin, 2009). In classrooms, this activity has been moved to collaborative and group work for writing tasks (Yarrow & Topping, 2001) and self-regulatory features of writers (Perry, 1998). A parallel movement was also witnessed in the area of metacognition research. Metacognition was developed from cognitive psychological traditions with a previous focus mainly on either identifying elements of metacognition or on theways in which learners self-regulate and monitor cognition (Flavell, 1979). Recent studies have highlighted the role of social interactions in facilitating the development of higher order thinking, which sheds light on how learners develop metacognitive skills through interactions inherent in collaborative learning situations (Post, Boyer, & Brett, 2006).
7 Based on a social constructivist view of learning, this study seeks to explore the relationship between the cooperative-metacognitive setting and writing. While available research on cooperative learning in a classroom provides ample evidence of its positive influence on learning per se, little empirical research has been undertaken to explore how cooperative learning influences writing (Kirschner, Paas, & Kirschner, 2009). Students involved in writing tasks need to engage in various sub- processes, such as information search, argumentation, reasoning, problem solving, evaluation, and verification. This involves the ability to collate various perspectives and to integrate these into the advancement of unified solution strategies. Hence, the implementation of appropriate strategies for learning that facilitate students to peer interact, to argue, to reason, and to negotiate to synthesize the arguments and ideas of others is crucial.
8 The studies on metacognition in the context of writing are focused on young children (Larkin, 2010; Perry, 1998; Whitebread, Bingham, Grau, Pasternak, & Sangster, 2007). To date, only few studies have focused on the role of metacognition in the acquisition of writing skills of tertiary-level EFL students, with one or two notable exceptions (Kasper, 1997; Ong & Zhang, 2013). This study aimed to improve the English writing of university EFL learners in a cooperative-metacognitive setting. The reciprocal teaching method is one among the most prominent approaches that use cooperative-metacognitive settings and aim to improve reading literacy (Palinscar & Brown, 1984), other cooperative-metacognitive settings include the reflective judgment model (King & Kitchener, 1994) and guided peer questioning (King, 1999). To enhance the role of metacognition in terms of learning and solving problems, Mevarech and Kramarski (1997) designed a multi-dimensional method termed as IMPROVE.
9 Rationale This study is underpinned by two constructs: IMPROVE and cooperative learning. 1. IMPROVE is an acronym for Introducing new concepts, Metacognitive questioning, Practicing, Reviewing and Reducing difficulties, Obtaining mastery, Verification, and Enrichment. The application of this method in science classes enables students to attain a higher level of creative thinking and problem-solving skills (Mevarech, & Fridkin, 2006). However, there is a lack of studies investigating the effects of such method on the writing skills of students. The present study is an attempt to explore this with a focus on the embedded cooperative-metacognitive trainings using the IMPROVE method to examine the writing performance of university students
10 2. cooperative learning It is also assumed that cooperative learning is an effective method of improvement in English writing performance. Vygotsky (1978) theorized that learners develop the capacity for self-regulation through social interaction with others who are more knowledgeable. These learners initially assume responsibility for setting goals, planning activities, monitoring progress, allocating attention, and so on. Handling over the responsibility of these executive processes to the learners makes them increasingly capable of regulating their cognitive activities. This transition from other-regulation to self-regulation is regarded as a hallmark of metacognitive development. This was also articulated by Baker (2008), who proposed that peers challenge each other’s thoughts and thus advance their cognitive development. Palincsar and Brown (1984) also argued that peer discussion and collaboration help students to monitor their own understanding and build new strategic capabilities. These studies provide the foundation for classroom interventions that involve cooperative learning, which is assumed to affect writing of a high task complexity and cognitive load.
11 Research questions The present study aimed at measuring the extent to which metacognitive-cooperative learning settings impact learners’ writing achievement and metacognitive awareness. To this end, three groups were involved: a cooperative learning condition with embedded metacognitive instructions (COOP + META), a cooperative learning condition (COOP), and a non-treatment control group. This study attempted to address three Research Questions (RQ): RQ 1: Which group does perform the best in English writing? RQ 2: Which group does maintain the best results in a delayed writing test? RQ3: Which group does demonstrate the biggest enhancements on the metacognition scale?
12 participants Data were collected from approximately 120 first-year interior design- major students (age 18–20 years), who were enrolled an English writing course at a university in mainland China. The participants were first- year undergraduate students from four classes. They were pursuing to become an interior decoration designer and were learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL). The original number of the participants was 140. The other students were not involved in this research partly due to teacher allocation and partly due to the fear of introducing an intervening variable. The final number of male and female participants was 42 and 78. The CG had a mean score of 6 out of 15 points, whereas both the experimental groups had a mean score of 6.1 on the same test. The results depict that the differences in writing proficiency among the three groups were not significant (p = 0.68, n.s.).
13 Training 1. All the students were allowed to study the English writing course for the same duration, using the same textbook, and completing the same tasks. 2. COOP + META accounts for 12 periods and COOP accounts for six periods and were incorporated into the 36-period writing course. Also, the CG was a 36-period writing course. 3. The two training criteria of COOP + META and COOP were identical in applying cooperative learning. Lesson activities for cooperative learning were developed focusing on three essential components, namely, presentation, process, and reflection. Presentation was about practicing text construction in talk before writing (Teng & Wong, 2015). Process was focused on generating content for writing, which can be described as getting ideas. Reflection was targeted at developing reflection on writing, which can be depicted as thinking about writing. 4.The only difference between the two experimental groups is the presence or absence of metacognitive instructions. In a simple term, the learners in the COOP + META condition spent six periods on the metacognitive instructions, whereas those in the COOP condition did not receive any metacognitive instructions.
14
15
16 Measures 1. The pre- and post-writing tests2. The delayed writing test 3. Metacognition scale 4. Interview
17 procedures All students were administered the writing pre-test and the metacognitive awareness questionnaire prior to the study. Then, students were equally assigned into one of three groups. One group studied the course by using IMPROVE and COOP. The second group studied the course by using COOP. The third group was exposed to the traditional teaching. At the end of the 18-week study, all students were administered the post-test and the meta-cognitive awareness questionnaire. On the completion of the questionnaire, a total of 30 students, with 10 students randomly selected from each group, were interviewed. Finally, one month after the experiment, all students took the delayed test.
18 Results 1. Enhanced writing performance Group Mean S.D. N FGroup Mean S.D. N F Significance Pre-test EG1 6.231 1.435 40 2.121 .205 EG2 6.132 1.345 CG 6.172 1.306 Total 6.178 1.362 120 Post-test 10.784 1.321 8.652 .000 8.692 1.331 6.645 1.335 8.707 1.329 Delayed test 9.191 1.387 7.952 7.135 1.332 5.892 1.291 7.406 1.336
19 2. Metacognitive awarenessCOOP+META COOP Control Pretest M 3.641 3.612 3.614 SD .71 .81 .67 Posttest 3.692 3.684 3.679 .69 .65 .61
20 Analysis of interview COOP+META COOP ControlCOOP+META COOP Control Reflective thinking before writing event 80 40 10 Content planning 70 50 20 Better content organization Monitoring written progress Implementing appropriate strategies 90 Evaluating written matter 60 Constructing connections
21 discussions Results revealed that both training groups outperformed the control group in terms of writing performance. Combined with previous research findings (Kirschner, Paas, & Kirschner, 2009; Slavin, 1996), the structured cooperative learning setting is beneficial for students’ writing performance. Additionally, the EG1 outperformed the EG2. One possible explanation might be that metacognition training facilitated natural cooperation among the students. This might equip students to employ higher-order thinking skills and harness creativity to enhance writing. Writing accomplishments for EG1 are in line with previous studies on metacognition training (Conner, 2007; Larkin, 2009; Nelsi & Susana, 2008). The only difference found in the present study was that students extended their metacognition skills to other forms of writing. This may be explained as learners grow while writing for different purposes and in different contexts. They build a repertoire of strategies which can be drawn upon for a new writing task. Combined with previous findings (Nguyen & Gu, 2013), it is suggested that metacognition training contributes toward enhancing the writing performance of learners in different age groups and in a variety of contexts.
22 Based on the post-intervention measure for metacognition, results indicate that all groups, including the control one, improved on the regulation of metacognition. It was also observed that students in the COOP+META condition developed better self-regulation than their counterparts in the COOP condition and CG. As in previous studies (Mevarech & Amrany; 2008; Veenman et al. 2006), students in COOP and CG group could not perform at par with COOP+META condition. Additionally, the differences among groups were statistically significant. Given this, one might argue that students, who attended the COOP+META condition, benefited from the metacognitive instructions. This suggests that self-regulating behaviors can be taught in class time and students seem to be able to quickly learn to apply these behaviors without prompting. Once the behaviors are internalized, students continue to use them but focus their attention on the content they are learning, which may improve their writing performance.
23 Data collected from the interviews corroborated the research findingsData collected from the interviews corroborated the research findings. However, the data of the interviews should be considered with caution. First, some students were less able to verbalize and thus sufficient data related to the knowledge of cognition were not gathered even though the statistical findings showed no differences across the three groups. Second, although teacher in the COOP+META condition explained the metacognitive questions and their function, students may not have acknowledged their usefulness, which may be the reason that they did not invest the extra effort that is needed for successful metacognitive instruction. Third, the knowledge of certain behavior or strategies is used to support other behavior or strategies so learners are less consciously aware of them. This may be due to the paucity of choices on the MAI. Finally, some of these processes have developed without any conscious reflection and therefore are difficult to report to others.
24 implications Findings concluded from the present study have theoretical and practical implications. First, learners can transfer their regulatory skills of metacognition to other types of writing, which is regarded as the transfer of knowledge. This transfer of learning is described as a process that measures the effective extent to which past experiences (the transfer source) can be applied in a new situation to improve learning and performance (Pugh & Bergin, 2006). This is an important goal in an educational setting, as it is essential for learners to develop the skill of applying acquired knowledge inside and outside the classroom, specifically in new cases. This resonates with the Gestalt theory of learning (Ikehara, 1999). With respect to teaching how to write effectively, students should be encouraged to discover the underlying nature and overall structure of a writing task.
25 Second, learners may possess a certain level of metacognitive knowledge. However, further achievements on the knowledge of cognition were found to be difficult. This suggests that systematic and explicit metacognitive training might be needed to equip students to use this knowledge in an effective manner. One reasonable conclusion is that students have to be trained to regulate their learning, as shown in the present study, and in other studies (e.g., Schraw, 2009). In this regard, teacher needs to instruct students on how to set goals, plan to meet them, and practice self-monitoring and adapting.
26 Third, the positive effects of the COOP+META condition on both writing achievement and regulation of cognition seemed to be linked with the gradual transfer of responsibility from the teacher to the students. The teacher gives theoretical background for a task and gradually guides the learners to develop creative thinking skills. Students accept responsibility for their own learning and direct this learning through the cognitive processes to the academic spectrum, and finally implement it in their workplaces without the necessary guidance of the teachers (Fisher & Frey, 2008). As shown in other studies (Jason, 2009; Nguyen & Gu, 2013), it is essential to facilitate the gradual transfer of responsibility from the teacher to learners, thereby promoting learners’ writing performance.
27 Finally, cooperative work also seemed to be a factor that has contributed toward achievement in writing and regulation of cognition. In this regard, learners were given opportunities for peer- correction. This motivated the students to practice writing through regulatory skills of metacognition. There is ample evidence for supporting peer- correction in writing (Suzuki, 2008; Yang, 2011). In this regard, students should be provided opportunities to correct and evaluate others and themselves.
28 limitations The present study had certain limitations. Firstly, different kinds of metacognitive instructional methods were not analyzed, such as the Strategy Evaluation Matrix (SEM), which might favor the development of the knowledge of cognition (Schraw, 2009). Secondly, this exploratory study was limited only to 120 tertiary level students from the same ethnic group at a university. Moreover, performance due to gender difference was not analyzed. Female learners may outperform male learners in the use and choice of strategies and skills (Conger & Long, 2010). Thirdly, the interval between the writing task and interview is also a limitation because there might be a memory loss. Finally, future studies should also focus on whether metacognition is reliant on co- operative learning. In this regard, future research can be conducted by having a fourth group of metacognition only.
29 References: Baker, L. (2008). Metacognitive development in reading: Contributors and consequences. In K. Mokhtari, & R. Sheorey (Eds.), Reading strategies of first and second language learners: See how they read (pp ). Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 353–394). White Plains, NY: Longman. Becker, A. (2006). A review of writing model research based on cognitive processes. In A. Horning, & A. Becker (Eds.), Revision: History, theory and practice (pp ). West Lafayette, Indiana: Parlor Press. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert, & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. …………………………………..
30 For research collaboration: [email protected]Thank you For research collaboration: