Examining the Effectiveness of Metacognitive Strategy Instruction on

EFL Learners’ Reading and Writing Strategy Use and Performance

Chiraz OuerfelliHigher Institute of Applied Studies in Humanities Tunis

Situating Strategy Use: The Interplay of Language Learning Strategies and Individual Learner Characteristics

Alpen-Adria University Klagenfurt October 2015

Definition of a strategy: “A strategy is a conscious mental activity, employed in the pursuit of a goal, transferable to other learning situations and tasks” (Macaro, 2006).

Difference between cognitive and metacognitive strategies

Recent reviews provided empirical evidence for the effectiveness of explicit strategy instruction in enhancing learners’ reading and writing abilities (Hassan et al., 2005; Plonsky, 2011; Taylor et al., 2006)

Language Learner Strategy (LLS): Theoretical Background

This study is part of a larger project aiming at exploring

the impact of Metacognitive Strategy Instruction (MSI) on

learners’ reading and writing strategy use and

performance.

The study

It attempts to explore teachers’ perceptions of strategy instruction, their teaching practices and the strategies implemented in the reading-writing classroom.

It aims at investigating whether MSI can bring about changes in students’ strategic behaviour.

It seeks to investigate whether MSI can help EFL learners improve their reading and writing performance.

It aims at eliciting learners’ reactions to and attitudes toward the training programme.

Objectives of the study

Does Metacognitive Strategy Instruction (MSI) have an impact on learners’ strategy use?

Does MSI have an impact on learners’ reading and writing performance?

Research Questions

The research design: A quasi-experimental mixed method research

design

The participants 143 EFL undergraduate students drawn from

six intact classes were randomly assigned to two condition groups

Research Methodology

The data collection Two-phase study: Pre-Post training programme Research InstrumentsQuestionnaires: Pre-post questionnaire administration

Retrospection protocols: Pre-post retrospective sessions with a sub-sample (N= 18)

Reading-writing Test (RWT)

Research Methodology

The MSI programme extended over a 12-week semester (36 hour lessons)

Integrated in their regular skill course

Explicit strategy instruction

Combination of cognitive and metacognitive strategies

Standard cycle of instruction:

awareness-raising/modelling, scaffolded practice,

gradual scaffolding withdrawal, practice, evaluation.

The Metacognitive Strategy Instruction (MSI) Programme

A goal-setting based approach

A process-based approach to reading and writing instruction.

Promoting awareness-oriented discussions and cultivating self-questioning and self-reflection.

Encouraging strategy orchestration and strategy transfer

Providing many practice opportunities

Promoting group discussions and collaborative activities

But also…

Quantitative Analysis: Questionnaires and RWT data analysis

Descriptive Statistics: Pre-post data comparison

Statistical Analysis: A Mann-Whitney U test and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test were run on the data.

Qualitative Analysis: Retrospective protocols

Coding Scheme

Data Analysis Procedure

Questionnaire quantitative analysis (descriptive statistics)

Comparison of Cognitive Strategy Use at Time 1 and 2 Between the Experimental Group and the Control Group

Continued Table

Comparison of Metacognitive Strategy Use at Time 1 and 2 Between the Experimental Group and the Control Group

Comparaison between the experimental – control group reported strategy use (Mann-Whitney U test)

Pre-Post course strategy use: The experimental group (Wilcoxon signed-rank test)

Pre-Post course strategy use: The control group

After Strategy instruction, the experimental group was not only using more strategies, but they were also using them effectively according to task demands.

More metacognitive strategy deployment

More instances of strategy orchestration (e.g., prediction strategies (PRP and WRP) followed by Tapping prior knowledge Strategy)

RP Qualitative data: The Experimental group

The experimental group provided justifications for their strategy use reflecting a metacognitive awareness of the usefulness and potential of strategies in improving reading and writing.

Strategy choice was more goal-oriented (with the aim of achieving a learning task)

More confidence when verbalising on their learning processes.

A more articulate description of their learning processes

More qualitative findings

At Time 2, the control group participants did not show any significant change in their strategy use.

They were more concerned with the product.

Their strategic behaviour was not motivated by a learning goal.

They did not display any metacognitive awareness of the value of using strategies.

RP Qualitative data: The Control group

Monitoring strategy use: Experimental group at time 1:

« I read paragraph two, but I could not understand it » [E2AL1]

“I could not understand paragraph three, so I kept reading it again and again. Then, I tried to understand each word but there were many difficult ones” [E2BL1].

Excerpts from retrospective protocol sessions

Monitoring strategy use : the experimental group at Time 2:

“Before answering comprehension questions, I read the text to understand the main idea. I also took notes on the margin to remember the content of each paragraph”. [E2BL2]

“I got lost when writing. So I returned back to re-read my writing” [E2BH2].

Experimental condition

Max Mean pre-course

SD Mean Post- course

SD Mean Gain

Experimental group

Reading 10 5.51 1.22 7.70 .91 2.19

Writing 10 4.35 .98 6.16 .83 1.81

Total 20 9.87 2.36 14.01 2.65 4.14

Control group Reading 10 5.47 .99 6.23 1.56 0.76

Writing 10 4.10 .77 4.16 1.15 0.06

Total 20 9.57 1.76 10.33 2.71 0.82

Descriptive statistics: Analysis of the pre-post RWT scores

A Mann-Whitney U test was run on the pre-RWT scores and showed no significant difference between the two groups at Time 1 (Z= -1.86, p >.05)

A Mann-Whitney U test was run on the post-RWT scores and showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups at Time 2 (Z=-3.09, p=.002)

Pre-post course RWT scores (Mann-Whitney U test)

A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was also run on the experimental

group to compare pre-post test scores. The findings showed a

statistically significant difference between informants’ total score

before and after treatment (Z= -4.63, p <.001).

A second test was run on the control group and indicated that there

was no significant difference between control group’s total test

scores at Time 1 and 2 (Z= -1.86, p >.05) .

Pre-post course RWT scores (Wilcoxon signed-rank test)

Explicit MSI seems to have expanded learners’ strategy repertoire and changed their strategic behaviour via a shift towards more metacognitive strategy deployment and more strategy orchestration.

The findings underline the value of the explicit MSI in instilling goal-setting routine into students’ learning processes.

The participants in the Experimental group attest to a growing awareness of the processes underlying successful reading and writing, and of the value of strategy use.

Conclusions

Findings from the RWT lend further support to

earlier interventionist studies and provides strong

evidence for the salutary effect of MSI on the

development of learners’ reading and writing

performance

This study provides a support for a pedagogy of

reading and writing strategy instruction that helps

learners become more strategic readers and

writers by explicitly exposing them to the

metacognitive processes underlying the two

complementary skills.

Conclusions and Implications

Thank you