A Study of Metacognitive Strategy Trainingfor College Language Low Achievers.docx

1、A Study of Metacognitive Strategy Trainingfor College Language Low AchieversA Study of Metacognitive Strategy Trainingfor College Language Low AchieversaSchool of foreign languages of China West Normal University，Nanchong， China. *Corresponding author. Received 2 March 2015； accepted 9 May 2015 Publ

2、ished online26 June 2015 Abstract Language high achievers and language low achievers vary considerably in metacognitive strategy use. This study carried out a metacognitive strategy training session and it was conducted with the 105 low achievers （47 of them belonging to the experimental group and 5

3、8 of them belonging to the control group） by applying a newly constructed training model from the integration of Oxfords （1990） eight-step model with Cohens 1997 Strategies-based Instruction （SBI）.The results indicate that the training can greatly enhance both metacognitive strategy use and language

4、 proficiency and that the metacognitive strategy has great impact on the language low achievers and the training is effective. Key words：Language low achievers； Metacognitive strategies； Questionnaire； Training INTRODUCTION For most ESL/EFL learners who fail to become high-achieving and self-directe

5、d learners， the great difficulty lies in the fact that they dont know how to plan、monitor and evaluate their learning process. That is to say they are lacking knowledge of metacognitive strategies. Different studies found that what distinguished language low achievers was not the lack of appropriate

6、 strategies but the inability to choose the right strategy for the task. The low achievers in their study appear to be active strategy users， but they often failed to apply strategies appropriately to the task at hand. Apparently， they lacked certain necessary higher-order processes， what are often

7、called metacognitive strategies or self-regulatory skills， which would enable them to access the task and bring to bear the necessary strategies for its completion. Metacognitive strategies are executive in nature. They are the strategies a student uses when planning， monitoring， and evaluating lear

8、ning or strategy performance （Ellis， 1994）. Hence， they are often referred to as self-regulatory strategies. The present research is designed in order to resolve the problems mentioned earlier and help language low achievers to develop learning autonomy and improve their proficiency. The research in

9、tends to examine the frequencies of low achievers metacognitive strategy use and propose an effective metacognitive strategy training model targeted at low achievers. 1. LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 A Review of Metacognitive Strategy OMalley et al. （1985） posit that metacognitive strategies involve thinkin

10、g about learning process， planning for learning， monitoring of comprehension or production while it is taking place， and self-evaluation of learning after the language activity is completed. Oxford （1990） maintains metacognitive strategies are actions which go beyond purely cognitive devices， and wh

11、ich provides a way for learners to coordinate their own learning process. Metacognitive strategies allow learners to control their own cognition， that is， to coordinate the learning process by using functions such as centering， arranging， planning， and evaluating. Cohen （1998） views metacognitive st

12、rategies as dealing with pre-assessment and pre-planning， on-line planning and evaluation， and post-evaluation of language learning activities and language use events. Wenden（2002） firmly suggested learners should grasp some use metacognitive strategies to manage， direct， regulate， and guide their l

13、earning. According to the definition of metacognitive strategies listed above， it is clear that there are similarities and agreements in these definitions. To put it simply， metacognitive strategies are skills， approaches， and thinking and actions of learners use to control their cognition and learn

14、ing process. 1.2 Language Low Achievers The term achiever in this study is used to refer to university students who learn English as a foreign language. Rubin （1975） pointed out “it is common knowledge that some people are more successful than others at learning a second language”. In Vann and Abrah

15、ams research （1990）， two Saudi Arabian women were defined as unsuccessful learners as measured by the relative speed with which they moved through an intensive English program. In Wens study （1995）， she compared two university students， defining one of them as language high achiever and the other as

16、 language low achiever， as the latter spent much more time learning English but got much lower score in the CET-4 Test， though their university admission scores were almost the same. In some other studies， high or low achievers were defined according to their scores of exams or specific tasks （see L

17、iu， 2002； Yang， 2002）. In the current study， the score of English in College Entrance Examination and CET-4 are used as the criterion of achievement. The students are defined as language low achievers as the score of each of the sample students is apparently lower than the total average score. 2. ME

18、THODOLOGY 2.1 Subjects The subjects in this study consist of 166 second-year students （61 language high achievers and 105 low achievers） of non-English majors in China West Normal University for the questionnaire. Then the researcher conducted a one semester metacognitive strategy training session w

19、ith the 105 low achievers （47 of them belonging to the experimental group and 58 of them belonging to the control group） by applying a newly constructed training model. 2.2 Instruments There are three instruments involved in the research： Modified Strategy Inventory for Language Learning （SILL） of O

20、xford （1990）， CEE （College Entrance Examination） and CET-4 scores （used to represent language proficiency level）. 2.3 Design of the New Metacognitive Strategy Training To make the training program effective， the first step involves identifying and diagnosing the students strategies they are already

21、using. In this research， the modified version of Oxfords （1990） SILL is employed as the assessment tool because it is “a valuable diagnostic tool”（Ellis 1994）. After the assessment， the teacher goes on with awareness training. Awareness training program will focus on improving language low achievers

22、 metacognitive ability to plan， monitor and evaluate their studies. And after That， with Oxfords （1990） eight-step model and Cohens SBI model， the training program implemented into teaching content lasts the whole term， totaling 43 hours. In the process of the course， the teacher has complete autono

23、my in the class arrangement and syllabus design， thus overcoming the limitation of being unsystematic which is characteristic of long-term training. Besides， almost all the remedial students bear very similar featureslow strategy use frequency， poor performance， yet comparatively high instrumental m

24、otivation to pass CET-4 and final English exam. Therefore， the collective instruction will suffice for an ideal result as far as the form of training organization is concerned. To sum up， the complete sequence of the model adopted in the research is presented as follows （see Figure 1）Strategy Assess

25、ment 1. Determine learners needs Awareness Training Teachers Overall Program Design Figure 1 A Metacognitive Training Model for Language Low Achievers 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 A Comparison of Metacognitive Strategy Use Frequency between Language High Achievers and Language Low Achievers Regardi

26、ng the differences in metacognitive strategy use between language high and low achievers， we first look at the results of the questionnaire. As is shown in Table 1， in respect of the overall strategy use， there is a statistically significant difference between LHAs and LLAs （p=0.0000）， with the mean

27、 value of the former much higher than that of the latter. This finding shows that LHAs use the overall strategies more frequently than LLAs. 3.2 An Outline of the 43-Hour Training Curriculum Adopted in the Research Through the analysis of LLAs questionnaire a conclusion can be reached that LLAs lack

28、 strategies of Identifying， Self-monitoring， Planning， Setting goals， Paying attention， Seeking practice and Overviewing. Furthermore， considering the significant difference between LHAs and LLAs in the overall strategies， the three strategy groups and eleven strategy categories， another focus can b

29、e Identifying， Self-monitoring， Planning， Setting goals， Paying attention， Seeking practice and Overviewing. Based on these conclusions， a strategy training program for one semester should be designed to focus on the Identifying， self-monitoring， planning， setting goals， paying attention， seeking pr

30、actice and overviewing. Therefore， the 43-hour training curriculum containing specific materials has been designed for this purpose. 3.3 Metacognitive Strategy Use Frequency between the Experimental Group and Control Group before Training The author designed one-semester metacognitive strategy train

31、ing to find whether there are significant differences in the performance on metacognitive strategy use and language proficiency between the students who received the training and those without. Table 3 shows the use differences in respect of the overall metacognitive strategies， the 3 strategy group

32、s and the 11 strategy categories between the experimental group and the control group before training. Before training， experimental group and the control group do not have statistically significant differences as far as the overall strategies and three strategy groups are concerned. The two groups also show no statistically significant differences in all the strategy categories except Delaying speech. All this shows that the strategy use frequencies between the two groups are very identical. 3.4 Metacogniti