Impact of Teaching Metacognitive Strategies on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy in Proactive vs. Reactive Classes

Subject Areas : All areas of language and translation

Fatemeh Jafari ¹ , Nasser Ghafoori ² , Shima Ahmadi-Azad ³

1 - Department of English, Sarab Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sarab, Iran
2 - Department of English, Sarab Branch, Islamic Azad Univercity, Sarab, Iran
3 - Department of English, Sarab Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sarab, Iran

Received: 2022-11-17 Accepted : 2023-03-17 Published : 2023-11-01

Keywords: Writing Accuracy, Metacognitive strategies, Proactive and Reactive Classes,

Abstract :

The present study aimed to examine the impact of instructing metacognitive strategies involving planning, monitoring, and self-evaluation, within proactive and reactive classroom contexts, on the writing accuracy of Iranian EFL learners. Employing a quantitative quasi-experimental design, the research comprised 168 participants, drawn from an initial pool of 206 undergraduate students within the science and engineering department of Azad University, Tabriz Branch, who had completed a general English course during the Spring of 2021. Employing purposive sampling, the homogeneous sample was divided into two experimental and two control groups, aligning with the study's independent variables: the teaching of metacognitive strategies and the classroom environment. The experimental groups underwent instruction in metacognitive strategies, with one group exposed to proactive instruction before commencing writing tasks, and the other receiving reactive instruction when encountering writing difficulties. Pre- and post-treatment writing samples were collected and evaluated for accuracy, and ANOVA was conducted on the pre-test scores, establishing initial comparability among the four groups. Subsequently, a Two-Way Analysis of Variance was employed to assess post-test scores. Notably, teaching metacognitive strategies exhibited a statistically significant influence on writing accuracy only within reactive classroom conditions. Conversely, the classroom environment exerted a negligible direct influence on writing accuracy, though a noteworthy interaction effect emerged between the two independent variables. This study holds substantial implications for EFL instructors, learners, and curriculum developers, highlighting the significance of incorporating metacognitive strategy instruction to enhance writing accuracy within specific instructional contexts.

References:

Alfawzan, N. S. (2020). The Effect of Applying Metacognitive Strategic Knowledge (MSK) in L2 Writing Performance in the Saudi Academic Class University of Dayton].

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(4), 543-574.

Astudillo, M. C. J. (2018). The impact of metacognitive strategies on enhancing EFL A2 level students’ writing.

Dlaska, A., & Krekeler, C. (2013). The short-term effects of individual corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation. System, 41(1), 25-37.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford university press.

Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focussed instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA review, 19(1), 18-41.

Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. John Wiley & Sons.

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford University Press Oxford.

Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in second language acquisition, 35(1), 127-165.

Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2005). Writing better. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Hapsari, A. S. (2011). The use of roundtable technique to improve students’ achievement in writing hortatory exposition text. Semarang State University: Unpublished Script.

Heaton, J. B. (1975). Beginning composition through picture. Pearson Education Limited.

Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied linguistics, 30(4), 461-473.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511667251

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied linguistics, 27(4), 590-619.

Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 2, 15-41.

Lv, F., & Chen, H. (2010). A Study of Metacognitive-Strategies-Based Writing Instruction for Vocational College Students. English Language Teaching, 3(3).

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in second language acquisition, 26(3), 399-432.

Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach (Vol. 18). John Benjamins Publishing.

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language teaching, 46(1), 1-40.

Magogwe, J. M. (2013). An assessment of the metacognitive knowledge of Botswana ESL university student writers. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(21), 1988-1995.

O'Malley, M. J., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge university press.

Oxford, R. L. (2002). Language Learning Strategies. In r. Carter, & d. Nunan (eds.), the Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Otherlanguages (pp. 166-172). In: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships.

Panahandeh, E., & Asl, S. E. (2014). The effect of planning and monitoring as metacognitive strategies on Iranian EFL learners’ argumentative writing accuracy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1409-1416.

Rahimi, F., & Karbalaei, A. (2016). The role of metacognitive strategies training on developing writing skill among Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Current Research in Science(1), 327.

Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students' oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. na.

Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (2000). An update on strategic learning: It's more than textbook reading strategies. Journal of adolescent & adult literacy, 43(6), 528-541.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language teaching research, 1(3).

Tabrizi, A. R. N., & Rajaee, M. (2016). The Effect of Metacognitive and Cognitive Writing Strategies on Iranian Elementary Learners¡¯ Writing Achievement. International Journal of Learning and Development, 6(3), 216-229.

Teng, F. (2016). Immediate and delayed effects of embedded metacognitive instruction on Chinese EFL students’ English writing and regulation of cognition. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 289-302.

Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.

Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. In: London: Prentice Hall.

Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. University of Hawaii Press.