Transcript Slide 1

Metacognitive strategy
teaching
for junior EFL learners
Dr. Wendy Y.K. LAM
Department of English
The Hong Kong Institute of Education
25 October 2009
1
Overview
•
•
•
•
Theoretical framework
Empirical studies
Findings
Implications/ applications
2
What are metacognitive
strategies (MCS)?
Definition of MCS
MCS are ‘higher order executive skills that
may entail:
1. planning
2. monitoring
3. evaluating the success of a learning activity
(O’Malley & Chamot, 1990)
3
Role of MCS is to enable the
learner to:
1. think ahead
2. plan for some action
3. assess how well he/she has done
Learners well-versed in MCS
use are:


learners with direction
expert language learners
(Rubin, 2005)
4
MCS strategies were proposed for
teaching:
1. Problem identification
• to facilitate the global planning of a task
•
to assess the purpose and expected
outcome of the task
2. Planning content (Ellis, 2005)
3. Planning language (Ellis, 2005)
4. Evaluation
5
MCS subsume social strategies &
affective strategies (Macaro, 2006)
Three social-affective strategies were
included:
5. Asking for help (social)
6. Giving help (social)
7. Positive self-talk (affective)
6
Seven MCS selected for
teaching (Lam, 2009)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Problem identification
Planning content
Planning language
Evaluation
Asking for help
Giving help
Positive self-talk
}
}
}
} testable/ interim
} solutions
}
}
To improve task performance
7
Metacognitive strategy
teaching (MCST) research
(Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Griffiths,2008)
 Effective
in raising students’ awareness of
strategies to help them deliver meaningful messages
 Students reported using significantly more
strategies
 Significant differences in oral proficiency favouring the
treatment group were found for the transactional
speaking task
 Video-taped performance of oral reports showed
significant improvement
8
MCST: Summary
As Hassan et al (2005:3) summarise, for
speaking ability, ‘instructing learners to
use certain strategies appears successful
but the evidence is not compelling (small
number of studies, varied relevance,
varied reliability)’.
9
The Research
Research Questions:
1. Does teaching the use of the seven target MCS
lead to improved performance in L2 oral
tasks?
2. Does the teaching lead to greater use of these
strategies in L2 oral tasks?
Intervention studies in Hong Kong
Two Secondary Two intact classes; pre-post
comparisons
10
The teaching
Group work discussion tasks:
Intervention:
• 8 oral lessons were spread over 6 months (i.e.
Week 1 to Week 20) for C and E classes.
• Each lesson lasted one hour and 20 minutes.
• Teaching materials
• C & E classes did very similar activities except
that
E class – MCST
C class – MCST

X
11
MCS Teaching
Lesson
MCS in focus
Activity
1
Problem
identification

Planning
content

2


3
Planning
language


4
Evaluation


5&6
7
Asking for
help & giving
help
Positive self
talk
Revision &
consolidation
purpose
and
Ss prioritized a list of items to be taken on a camping
trip on an island.
Ss were taught to do strategic “Planning content’ by
using mind mapping.
Ss were given a list of outdoor activities and had to
describe each activity for a minute.
Ss were taught how to plan for the vocabulary,
pronunciation, and structures that might be needed for
the description.
Ss had to offer advice on how to keep fit.
Ss were taught how to strategically think back to do
‘Evaluation’
in
identifying
their
strengths
and
weaknesses in their performances.

Ss were taught how to ‘Ask for help’ and ‘Give help’
as appropriate.

Ss took turns to give information about food items so
that the group could fill out a table.
Ss were asked to try ‘Positive self-talk’ by thinking
positively about their performance.

8
Ss mapped a list of things on an island.
Ss were taught how to analyse the
demands of the task.


Ss were asked to rank important attributes of
friendship.
12
Ss were free to use whatever strategies they had learnt
Data Collection –
A Synthesis of Approaches
1.
Rating task performance (RQ1)
Aim: To assess students’ performances on group
work discussions

X
a research tradition
there might be changes not amenable to
observable changes in performance
3 other methods were used to probe
strategy use
13
2. Questionnaire (RQ2)
Aim: To assess students’ perceptions of
their own strategy use over time
3. Observation (RQ2)
Aim: To study observed strategy use when
students are engaged in a task
4.Stimulated recall (RQ2)
Aim: To gauge students’ covert strategy
use
14
Findings
RQ1: Does instruction in the use of the seven target
MCS lead to improved performance in L2 oral
tasks? Task rating
Ratings on group discussion tasks
Week 1
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Pre-post
Difference
Mean
3.20
0.89
3.15
0.75
- 0.05
E class
2.85
0.67
3.45
0.69
+0.60 *
C class
2.63
0.92
2.63
1.06
E class
3.00
0.76
3.75
0.89
+0.75 *
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
Mean
2.95
1.23
3.40
0.68
+0.45
E class
2.83
0.72
3.98
0.97
+1.15 *
C class
2.75
0.71
2.38
0.74
- 0.37
E class
2.68
1.16
4.06
0.74
+1.38 *
‘English proficiency’ ratings
(1 = lowest; 6 = highest)
‘Whole class’ task
C class
‘Pull-out group’ task
‘Task effectiveness’ ratings
(1 = lowest; 6 = highest)
‘Whole class’ task
C class
‘Pull-out group’ task
Week 20
<* > denotes a higher pre-post gain than that of the C class
0.00
15
RQ2: Does instruction in the use of the target MCS lead to
greater use of these strategies in L2 oral tasks?
Questionnaire
Relative effects of the MCSI on the E class as compared with the C class
on self-perceived strategy use
Name of strategy
Effect size (%)
1.
Asking for help (T)
+ 76*
p=
.0017
2.
Problem identification (T)
+ 50*
p=
.0041
3.
Encouraging others to use available resources for help (NT)
+ 26
4.
Giving help (T)
+ 21
5.
Letting others speak more to reduce pressure (NT)
+ 21
6.
Planning content (T)
+ 20
7.
Accepting performance outcome (NT)
+ 20
8.
Relying on oneself for help (NT)
+ 14
9.
Thinking about the conduct of the task
(NT)
+ 13
10. Evaluation (T)
+ 10
11. Planning language (T)
+5
12. Taking risks with language (NT)
+4
0
13. Taking risks with content (NT)
14. Positive self-talk (T)
<*> denotes that the effect size is significant at .05 level
-
2
16
Observation
Standardized frequencies (per 10 turns) of the observed use of individual and the
whole sample of target strategies
C Class
Strategy
E Class
Wk 1
Wk 10
Wk 20
Wk 1
Wk 10
Wk 20
T=148
T=214
T=197
T=201
T=164
T=158
N=84
1.3
N=54
2.3
N=100
N=73
0.8
N=92
0.2
0.1
N=70
0.5
2. Planning content
3.0
3.4
4.6
1.9
0.9
0.2
3. Planning language
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.2
4. Evaluation
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
5. Asking for help
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.1
6. Giving help
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.5
7. Positive self-talk
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
4.9
4.3
5.1
3.5
5.1
3.4
5
7
6
1.
Problem identification
Aggregated
frequency of use
Aggregated
type of use
5
4
4
17
Stimulated recall
Proportional frequencies of the reported use of individual and the whole sample of
target strategies in SRIs
Strategy
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Proportional frequencies (%)
C class
E class
Wk 1
Wk 10 Wk 20 Wk 1
Wk10
Wk 20
4
0
0
3
8
23
7
7
21
1
3
2
4
0
12
7
8
2
0
4
0
0
10
4
4
0
0
4
7
0
3
3
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
22
14
33
16
39
35
Problem identification
Planning content
Planning language
Evaluation
Asking for help
Giving help
Positive self-talk
Aggregated proportional
frequency of use
18
Summary of findings
RQ1 (Task performance)
The E class made greater improvements in
Task Effectiveness than English Proficiency.
RQ2 (Metacognitive strategy use)
Whole sample (7 MCS taken together)
- increases in reported use (SR) over time
Individual strategies
– Problem Identification (winner)
19
Value of MCST on task performance
RQ1 Effects of MCST on task performance
The E class made greater improvements
in ‘Task effectiveness’ than ‘English
proficiency’.

There was evidence to support a
case for guided, group-based
planning and for enhancing the
benefits of planning for task
performance (Foster & Skehan,1999)
20
Value of MCST on strategy use
RQ2 Effects of MCST on the use of the whole sample
of strategies
There was increasing reporting of strategy use
in stimulated recall (SR) interviews over time.
Awareness-raising / ‘noticing’
 Explicit focusing of strategies in the MCST may have a
pervasive impact on students’ strategic awareness or
noticing’ (Schmidt, 2001) of strategies
21
RQ2 Effects of MCST on the use of
individual strategies
There was corroborating evidence to
support increases in the uptake and
reporting of Problem Identification.
What is Problem Identification?
Global planning
The learner needs to develop an executive
control over the task by acquiring some kind of
task knowledge i.e. purpose/ demand (Wenden,
2001).
22
Match between task type and strategy use
• Not all strategies are equal (Oxford et al., 2004)
• Some are more beneficial to others depending on
task type
• The type of oral task chosen (i.e. prioritization)
Problem identification
23
Implications for Teaching Oral Tasks
Value of strategy instruction
An impact on the desirable ‘noticing’ (Schmidt, 1990) of
strategy use in terms of awareness-raising
Pre-task (global) planning for speaking
Extend and expand processing time and space
Develop a strategic approach to completing tasks
Post-task reflection
Conduct process-based discussion
Matching task type with strategy use
E.g. individual presentations, information-gap
activities, group discussions
24
Selected References
Cohen, A. D. and Macaro, E. (Eds.) (2007). Language
learner strategies: thirty years of research and
practice). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and task performance
in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source
of planning and focus of planning on task-based
performance.
Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215-247.
Griffiths, C. (Ed.) (2008). Lessons from good language
learners, (pp.83-98). Cambridge: Cambridge
25
University Press.
Hassan, X., Macaro, E., Mason, D., Nye, G., Smith, P. &
Vanderplank, R. (2005). Strategy instruction in language
learning: a systematic review of available research. In
Research evidence in education library. London: EPPI-Centre,
Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education,
University of London. Retrieved January 14, 2008, from
<http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=297&language=
en-US/>S/
Lam, W. Y. K. (2009) Examining the effects of metacognitive
strategy instruction on ESL group discussions: A synthesis of
approaches. Language Teaching Research, 13.
Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for
language use: revising the theoretical framework. The Modern
Language Journal, 90(3), 320-337.
26
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies
in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Oxford, R,, Cho, Y., Leung, S. & Kim, H-J. (2004) Effect of
the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An
exploratory study. International Review of Applied Linguistics,
42(1), 1-47.
Rubin, J. (2005). The expert language learner: a review of good
language learner studies and learner strategies. In Johnson, K.
(Ed.), Expertise in second language learning and teaching (pp.
37-64.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second
language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Wenden, A. (2001). Metacognitive knowledge in SLA: The
neglected variable. In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions
to language learning. New directions in research (pp. 44-64).
UK: Longman Pearson Education.
27
Thank YOU very much
for participating!
28