A Study of Metacognitive Strategy Trainingfor College Language Low AchieversWord格式.docx

A Study of Metacognitive Strategy Trainingfor College Language Low AchieversWord格式.docx

《A Study of Metacognitive Strategy Trainingfor College Language Low AchieversWord格式.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《A Study of Metacognitive Strategy Trainingfor College Language Low AchieversWord格式.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

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