A Study of Metacognitive Strategy Trainingfor College Language Low Achievers.docx
《A Study of Metacognitive Strategy Trainingfor College Language Low Achievers.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《A Study of Metacognitive Strategy Trainingfor College Language Low Achievers.docx(10页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
AStudyofMetacognitiveStrategyTrainingforCollegeLanguageLowAchievers
AStudyofMetacognitiveStrategyTrainingforCollegeLanguageLowAchievers
[a]SchoolofforeignlanguagesofChinaWestNormalUniversity,Nanchong,China.
*Correspondingauthor.
Received2March2015;accepted9May2015
Publishedonline26June2015
Abstract
Languagehighachieversandlanguagelowachieversvaryconsiderablyinmetacognitivestrategyuse.Thisstudycarriedoutametacognitivestrategytrainingsessionanditwasconductedwiththe105lowachievers(47ofthembelongingtotheexperimentalgroupand58ofthembelongingtothecontrolgroup)byapplyinganewlyconstructedtrainingmodelfromtheintegrationofOxford’s(1990)eight-stepmodelwithCohen’s1997Strategies-basedInstruction(SBI).Theresultsindicatethatthetrainingcangreatlyenhancebothmetacognitivestrategyuseandlanguageproficiencyandthatthemetacognitivestrategyhasgreatimpactonthelanguagelowachieversandthetrainingiseffective..
Keywords:
Languagelowachievers;Metacognitivestrategies;Questionnaire;Training
INTRODUCTION
FormostESL/EFLlearnerswhofailtobecomehigh-achievingandself-directedlearners,thegreatdifficultyliesinthefactthattheydon’tknowhowtoplan、monitorandevaluatetheirlearningprocess.Thatistosaytheyarelackingknowledgeofmetacognitivestrategies.Differentstudiesfoundthatwhatdistinguishedlanguagelowachieverswasnotthelackofappropriatestrategiesbuttheinabilitytochoosetherightstrategyforthetask.Thelowachieversintheirstudyappeartobeactivestrategyusers,buttheyoftenfailedtoapplystrategiesappropriatelytothetaskathand.Apparently,theylackedcertainnecessaryhigher-orderprocesses,whatareoftencalledmetacognitivestrategiesorself-regulatoryskills,whichwouldenablethemtoaccessthetaskandbringtobearthenecessarystrategiesforitscompletion.
Metacognitivestrategiesareexecutiveinnature.Theyarethestrategiesastudentuseswhenplanning,monitoring,andevaluatinglearningorstrategyperformance(Ellis,1994).Hence,theyareoftenreferredtoasself-regulatorystrategies.Thepresentresearchisdesignedinordertoresolvetheproblemsmentionedearlierandhelplanguagelowachieverstodeveloplearningautonomyandimprovetheirproficiency.Theresearchintendstoexaminethefrequenciesoflowachievers’metacognitivestrategyuseandproposeaneffectivemetacognitivestrategytrainingmodeltargetedatlowachievers. 1.LITERATUREREVIEW
1.1AReviewofMetacognitiveStrategy
O’Malleyetal.(1985)positthatmetacognitivestrategiesinvolvethinkingaboutlearningprocess,planningforlearning,monitoringofcomprehensionorproductionwhileitistakingplace,andself-evaluationoflearningafterthelanguageactivityiscompleted.Oxford(1990)maintainsmetacognitivestrategiesareactionswhichgobeyondpurelycognitivedevices,andwhichprovidesawayforlearnerstocoordinatetheirownlearningprocess.Metacognitivestrategiesallowlearnerstocontroltheirowncognition,thatis,tocoordinatethelearningprocessbyusingfunctionssuchascentering,arranging,planning,andevaluating.Cohen(1998)viewsmetacognitivestrategiesasdealingwithpre-assessmentandpre-planning,on-lineplanningandevaluation,andpost-evaluationoflanguagelearningactivitiesandlanguageuseevents.Wenden(2002)firmlysuggestedlearnersshouldgraspsomeusemetacognitivestrategiestomanage,direct,regulate,andguidetheirlearning.
Accordingtothedefinitionofmetacognitivestrategieslistedabove,itisclearthattherearesimilaritiesandagreementsinthesedefinitions.Toputitsimply,metacognitivestrategiesareskills,approaches,andthinkingandactionsoflearnersusetocontroltheircognitionandlearningprocess.
1.2LanguageLowAchievers
ThetermachieverinthisstudyisusedtorefertouniversitystudentswholearnEnglishasaforeignlanguage.Rubin(1975)pointedout“itiscommonknowledgethatsomepeoplearemoresuccessfulthanothersatlearningasecondlanguage”.InVannandAbraham’sresearch(1990),twoSaudiArabianwomenweredefinedasunsuccessfullearnersasmeasuredbytherelativespeedwithwhichtheymovedthroughanintensiveEnglishprogram.InWen’sstudy(1995),shecomparedtwouniversitystudents,definingoneofthemaslanguagehighachieverandtheotheraslanguagelowachiever,asthelatterspentmuchmoretimelearningEnglishbutgotmuchlowerscoreintheCET-4Test,thoughtheiruniversityadmissionscoreswerealmostthesame.Insomeotherstudies,highorlowachieversweredefinedaccordingtotheirscoresofexamsorspecifictasks(seeLiu,2002;Yang,2002).Inthecurrentstudy,thescoreofEnglishinCollegeEntranceExaminationandCET-4areusedasthecriterionofachievement.Thestudentsaredefinedaslanguagelowachieversasthescoreofeachofthesamplestudentsisapparentlylowerthanthetotalaveragescore. 2.METHODOLOGY
2.1Subjects
Thesubjectsinthisstudyconsistof166second-yearstudents(61languagehighachieversand105lowachievers)ofnon-EnglishmajorsinChinaWestNormalUniversityforthequestionnaire.Thentheresearcherconductedaonesemestermetacognitivestrategytrainingsessionwiththe105lowachievers(47ofthembelongingtotheexperimentalgroupand58ofthembelongingtothecontrolgroup)byapplyinganewlyconstructedtrainingmodel.
2.2Instruments
Therearethreeinstrumentsinvolvedintheresearch:
ModifiedStrategyInventoryforLanguageLearning(SILL)ofOxford(1990),CEE(CollegeEntranceExamination)andCET-4scores(usedtorepresentlanguageproficiencylevel).
2.3DesignoftheNewMetacognitiveStrategyTraining
Tomakethetrainingprogrameffective,thefirststepinvolvesidentifyinganddiagnosingthestudents’strategiestheyarealreadyusing.Inthisresearch,themodifiedversionofOxford’s(1990)SILLisemployedastheassessmenttoolbecauseitis“avaluablediagnostictool”(Ellis1994).
Aftertheassessment,theteachergoesonwithawarenesstraining.Awarenesstrainingprogramwillfocusonimprovinglanguagelowachievers’metacognitiveabilitytoplan,monitorandevaluatetheirstudies.
AndafterThat,withOxford’s(1990)eight-stepmodelandCohen’sSBImodel,thetrainingprogramimplementedintoteachingcontentlaststhewholeterm,totaling43hours.Intheprocessofthecourse,theteacherhascompleteautonomyintheclassarrangementandsyllabusdesign,thusovercomingthelimitationofbeingunsystematicwhichischaracteristicoflong-termtraining.Besides,almostalltheremedialstudentsbearverysimilarfeatures―lowstrategyusefrequency,poorperformance,yetcomparativelyhighinstrumentalmotivationtopassCET-4andfinalEnglishexam.Therefore,thecollectiveinstructionwillsufficeforanidealresultasfarastheformoftrainingorganizationisconcerned.
Tosumup,thecompletesequenceofthemodeladoptedintheresearchispresentedasfollows(seeFigure1)
StrategyAssessment
1.Determinelearners’needs
AwarenessTraining
Teachers’Overall
ProgramDesign
Figure1
AMetacognitiveTrainingModelforLanguageLowAchievers
3.RESULTSANDDISCUSSION
3.1AComparisonofMetacognitiveStrategyUseFrequencybetweenLanguageHighAchieversandLanguageLowAchievers Regardingthedifferencesinmetacognitivestrategyusebetweenlanguagehighandlowachievers,wefirstlookattheresultsofthequestionnaire.
AsisshowninTable1,inrespectoftheoverallstrategyuse,thereisastatisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenLHAsandLLAs(p=0.0000),withthemeanvalueoftheformermuchhigherthanthatofthelatter.ThisfindingshowsthatLHAsusetheoverallstrategiesmorefrequentlythanLLAs.
3.2AnOutlineofthe43-HourTrainingCurriculumAdoptedintheResearch
ThroughtheanalysisofLLAs’questionnaireaconclusioncanbereachedthatLLAslackstrategiesofIdentifying,Self-monitoring,Planning,Settinggoals,Payingattention,SeekingpracticeandOverviewing.Furthermore,consideringthesignificantdifferencebetweenLHAsandLLAsintheoverallstrategies,thethreestrategygroupsandelevenstrategycategories,anotherfocuscanbeIdentifying,Self-monitoring,Planning,Settinggoals,Payingattention,SeekingpracticeandOverviewing.Basedontheseconclusions,astrategytrainingprogramforonesemestershouldbedesignedtofocusontheIdentifying,self-monitoring,planning,settinggoals,payingattention,seekingpracticeandoverviewing.Therefore,the43-hourtrainingcurriculumcontainingspecificmaterialshasbeendesignedforthispurpose.
3.3MetacognitiveStrategyUseFrequencybetweentheExperimentalGroupandControlGroupbeforeTraining
Theauthordesignedone-semestermetacognitivestrategytrainingtofindwhethertherearesignificantdifferencesintheperformanceonmetacognitivestrategyuseandlanguageproficiencybetweenthestudentswhoreceivedthetrainingandthosewithout.Table3showstheusedifferencesinrespectoftheoverallmetacognitivestrategies,the3strategygroupsandthe11strategycategoriesbetweentheexperimentalgroupandthecontrolgroupbeforetraining.
Beforetraining,experimentalgroupandthecontrolgroupdonothavestatisticallysignificantdifferencesasfarastheoverallstrategiesandthreestrategygroupsareconcerned.ThetwogroupsalsoshownostatisticallysignificantdifferencesinallthestrategycategoriesexceptDelayingspeech.Allthisshowsthatthestrategyusefrequenciesbetweenthetwogroupsareveryidentical.
3.4Metacogniti