The Effects of Metacognitive Prompting and Structured Peer Interaction on Intermediate EFL learners' Collaborative Writing

Subject Areas : Journal of Teaching English Language Studies

Seyedeh Zohreh Pirooz ¹ , Bahador Sadeghi ²

1 - Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch
2 - Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch

Received: 2016-03-08 Accepted : 2016-04-16 Published : 2016-05-01

Keywords: Writing, Collaborative Writing, Structured Peer Interaction, Metacognitive Prompting,

Abstract :

This research was designed to investigate the effects of two different types of learningmodalities, namely Meta-cognitive Prompting and structured peer interaction on intermediateEFL learners’ collaborative writing. For this purpose, 90 learners of total number of 120intermediate learners studying at Kish English language school were chosen first forhomogenization prior to the study. In order to homogenize the subjects Preliminary English Test(PET) was administered and 90 students were selected. A pre-test writing was administeredamong all of them. They were divided in two groups, one in which Students were contributing intheir writing samples with each other and the other groups based on their individual efforts andoutcomes. each group was exposed to the treatment for 24 sessions in seven weeks. At the end ofthe instruction, post-test with Analytic rating scale was applied and one-way ANOVA was run totest and the two hypotheses raised in the study. The resultsshowed that while learners benefited from structured peer interaction setting compared tometacognitive prompting one, they were better off receiving writing instruction and moreimproved in their writing skill.

References:

Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. NY: Oxford University
Press.Retrieved on May 1, 2010 from: www.etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/ available/etd-
01072009-31295011741757/unrestricted/31295011741757.pdf.
 Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy, 2nd ed., New York: San Francisco State University.
 Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching, 2nd ed., Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
 Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills, 3rd ed., US: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich Publishers.
 Norman, D. G. (2005). Using STAD in an EFL elementary school classroom in south
Korea.: Effects on student achievement, motivation, and attitudes toward cooperative
learning. Asian EFL Journal, 35(3), 419-454.
 Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency,
and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297.
 Griffiths, C. (2007). Language learning strategies: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions.
ELT Journal, 61, 91-99.
 Griffiths, C., & J. Parr. (2001). Language-learning strategies: Theory and perception.
ELTJournal, 55(3), 247–254.
JOURNAL OF TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES, Vol. 4, NO. 4, Spring 2016
90
 Gu, P., Hu, G., & Zhang, L. (2005). Investigating language learner strategies among.
 Hsiao, T-Y., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies:
Aconfirmatory factor analysis. Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 368-383.
 Peacock, M., & Ho, B. (2003). Student language learning strategies across eight
disciplines. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 179-200.
 BRATCHER, S. (1994). Evaluating children’ s writing: a handbook of communication
choices for classroom teachers. New York: St Martin’ s Press.
 BURNS, S.M. & CASBERGUE, R. (1992). Parent-child interaction in a letter writing
context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24,CAMPBELL, R. (Ed.) (1998).
 SCHULTZ, K. (1997). `Do you want to be in my story?’ : collaborative writing in an
urban elementary classroom. Journal of Literacy Research, 29(2), 253± 288.
 TOPPING, K.J. (1995). Paired reading, spelling and writing: the handbook for teachers
and parents. London:Cassell.
 TOPPING, K.J. (2000). Peer assisted learning: a practical guide for teachers. Cambridge
MA: Bookline Books.
 Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston,
MA: Heinle & Heinle.
 Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R. T., & Nelson, D. (1981). Effects of
cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A Meta-
Analysis. Education Resources Information Center, 89(1), 47-62.
 Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, Executive Control, Self-Regulation, and Other
More Mysterious Mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert and R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition,
Motivation, and Understanding (pp.65-109). Hilldale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.