Metacognitive strategy teaching for junior EFL learners

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

2. Overview • Theoretical framework • Empirical studies • Findings • Implications/ applications

3. What are metacognitive strategies (MCS)? Definition of MCS MCS are ‘higher order executive skills that may entail: • planning • monitoring • evaluating the success of a learning activity (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990)

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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)

7. Seven MCS selected for teaching (Lam, 2009) • Problem identification } • Planning content } • Planning language } • Evaluation } testable/ interim • Asking for help } solutions • Giving help } • Positive self-talk} To improve task performance

8. 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

9. 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)’.

10. The Research Research Questions: • Does teaching the use of the seven target MCS lead to improved performance in L2 oral tasks? • 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

11. 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

12. MCS Teaching

13. Data Collection –A Synthesis of Approaches 1. Rating task performance(RQ1) Aim: To assess students’ performances on group work discussions a research tradition Xthere might be changes not amenable to observable changes in performance 3 other methods were used to probe strategy use

14. 2. Questionnaire(RQ2) Aim: To assess students’ perceptionsof 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

15. Findings RQ1: Does instruction in the use of the seven target MCS lead to improved performance in L2 oral tasks?Task rating

16. RQ2: Does instruction in the use of the target MCS lead to greater use of these strategies in L2 oral tasks? Questionnaire

17. Observation

18. Stimulated recall

19. 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)

20. Value of MCSTon 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)

21. 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

22. 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).

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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 University Press.

26. 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.

27. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990).Learning strategies in second languageacquisition. 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.

28. Thank YOU very much for participating!