Enhancing Morphosyntactic Structure Learning in EFL Learners: A Study of Metacognitive Knowledge and Task Type
محورهای موضوعی : Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English
Mohammad Sadegh Ghalibafan
1
,
Shadab Jabbarpoor
2
,
Bahram Mowlaie
3
1 - Ph.D. candidate in TEFL, Department of English Language, Tehran South Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Assistant Professor in TEFL, Department of English Language, Garmsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar, Iran
3 - Assistant Professor in TEFL, Department of English Language, Tehran South Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
کلید واژه: cognitive load, metacognitive knowledge, morphosyntactic structures, EFL learners, task-based learning,
چکیده مقاله :
This study examines how different types of tasks, both input-based and output-based, with varying levels of cognitive demand, influence the learning of morphosyntactic structures—specifically morphosyntactic structures —among EFL learners. Additionally, the research investigates the role of metacognitive knowledge in predicting learners' abilities to recognize and produce these structures. Ninety Iranian EFL learners were divided into three groups: Group A engaged in reading, Group B in reading with textual enhancement, and Group C in reading combined with text reconstruction. The impact of these tasks on the recognition and production of morphosyntactic structures was measured using grammaticality judgment and editing tests. The cognitive load of these tasks was assessed using Sweller's (1988) criteria, which classify tasks by complexity and cognitive demand. The findings indicated that Group C, which was exposed to tasks with the highest cognitive load outperformed the other groups. Procedural knowledge was found to predict the ability to produce morphosyntactic structures, while declarative knowledge was linked to the recognition of structures. Structural equation modeling highlighted the relationship between metacognitive knowledge, recognition, and production across various task conditions. The study suggests that tasks with higher cognitive demands can significantly enhance the learning of morphosyntactic structures and emphasizes the importance of metacognitive knowledge in predicting learners' success in both recognizing and producing these structures across different task types.
This study examines how different types of tasks, both input-based and output-based, with varying levels of cognitive demand, influence the learning of morphosyntactic structures—specifically morphosyntactic structures —among EFL learners. Additionally, the research investigates the role of metacognitive knowledge in predicting learners' abilities to recognize and produce these structures. Ninety Iranian EFL learners were divided into three groups: Group A engaged in reading, Group B in reading with textual enhancement, and Group C in reading combined with text reconstruction. The impact of these tasks on the recognition and production of morphosyntactic structures was measured using grammaticality judgment and editing tests. The cognitive load of these tasks was assessed using Sweller's (1988) criteria, which classify tasks by complexity and cognitive demand. The findings indicated that Group C, which was exposed to tasks with the highest cognitive load outperformed the other groups. Procedural knowledge was found to predict the ability to produce morphosyntactic structures, while declarative knowledge was linked to the recognition of structures. Structural equation modeling highlighted the relationship between metacognitive knowledge, recognition, and production across various task conditions. The study suggests that tasks with higher cognitive demands can significantly enhance the learning of morphosyntactic structures and emphasizes the importance of metacognitive knowledge in predicting learners' success in both recognizing and producing these structures across different task types.
Abdelshiheed, M., Hostetter, J. W., Barnes, T., & Chi, M. (2023). Bridging declarative, procedural, and conditional metacognitive knowledge gap using deep reinforcement learning. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2304.11739
Alanazi, Z. (2023). Data-Driven Learning Tasks and Involvement load hypothesis. World Journal of English Language, 13(2), 23. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v13n2p23
Alavinia, P., & Rahimi, H. (2019). Task type's effects and task involvement load on vocabulary learning of EFL learners. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1501–1516. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12196a
Aotani, N., & Takahashi, S. (2023). Effects of involvement load of the task on Japanese EFL learners’ lexical network changes. SEACE Official Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.22492/issn.2435- 5240.2023.51
Arcipe, C. V. L., & Balones, J. G. (2023). Exploring the impact of motivation on language learning and student engagement. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 46(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2023/v46i31002
Bouknify, M. (2023). Importance of metacognitive strategies in enhancing reading comprehension skills. Journal of Education in Black Sea Region, 8(2), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.31578/jebs.v8i2.291
Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R.M. (2007). Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61, 70–77.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp.65–116). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Cancino, M., & Tomicic, N. (2023). English as a Foreign Language (EFL) reading metacognition awareness in Chilean learners with Autism Spectrum Condition: An exploratory study. TESL-EJ, 26(4), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.26104a12
Chen, Y., Li, L., Wang, M., & Wang, R. (2023). The association between statistical learning and the development of second language grammar learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 37(5), 1027–1036. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4108
Hasibuddin, D. (2022). Neuroscience, metacognition and language teaching. Era’s Journal of Medical Research, 9(2), 224–226.
https://doi.org/10.24041/ejmr2022.35
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied linguistics, 22(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.1
Jabbarpoor, Sh., & Tajeddin, Z. (2013a). Enhanced input, individual output, and collaborative output: Effects on the acquisition of the English subjunctive mood. RevistaSignos, 46(82), 213-235. doi:10.4067/S0718-09342013000200003
Khurram, B. A. (2023). The impact of metacognitive instruction on ESL university level students’ awareness and use of the reading strategies. SAGE Open, 13 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231179695
Kim, S. H. (2013). Metacognitive knowledge in second language writing. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Michigan State University Panggabean, C. I. T., & Triassanti, R. (2020). The implementation of metacognitive strategy training to enhance EFL students’ oral presentation skill. English Education: Journal of English Teaching and Research (Online) (Kediri), 5(1), 32–40. https://doi.org/10.29407/jetar.v5i1.14324
Liu, H., Liu, Z., Ye, M., & Chen, T. (2023). The effect of cognitive load on code-switching. International Journal of Bilingualism, 136700692311701. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069231170142
Liu, Q., & Nesbit, J. C. (2023). The relation between need for cognition and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 003465432311604. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231160474
Payaprom, S. (2022). Investigating the relationship among metacognitive awareness, self-efficacy, and EFL learners’ listening comprehension performance. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 13(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1301.04
Pei-Shan, J., & Wang, H. (2023). Research on English learning strategies in Junior High Schools based on Cognitive Load Theory. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 10(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijelt.v10n1p1
Perpiñán, S. (2014). L2 grammar and l2 processing in the acquisition of Spanish prepositional relative clauses. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(4), 577-596. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728914000583
Phadungsilp, P., & Supasiraprapa, S. (2023). The effects of task-induced involvement load and gloss languages on incidental L2 vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231176331
Qin, M. (2023). The involvement load hypothesis or the technical feature analysis: Evidence from four EFL vocabulary learning tasks. International Journal of Education and Humanities, 8(2), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.54097/ijeh.v8i2.7501
Qiu, X. (2022). Revisiting the cognition hypothesis: the impact of task complexity on L2 learner engagement in task performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2142245
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic framework for examining task influences on SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 287-318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruan, Z. (2014). Metacognitive awareness of EFL student writers in a Chinese ELT context. Language Awareness, 23(1–2), 76–91.
Saffari, N. (2019). Metacognitive knowledge and its effect on second language writing: Students’ perceptions of writing task. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(5), 221. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n5p221
Sato, M. (2022). Metacognition. In Routledge eBooks (pp. 95–110). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003270546-8
Scharff, L., Draeger, J., Verpoorten, D., Devlin, M., Dvořáková, L., Lodge, J. M., & Smith, S. (2017). Exploring metacognition as support for learning Transfer. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.1.6
Schraw, G. & Dennison, R.S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
Schuster, C., Stebner, F., Leutner, D., & Wirth, J. (2020). Transfer of metacognitive skills in self-regulated learning: an experimental training study. Metacognition and Learning, 15(3), 455–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09237-5
Stalyanova, N., & Krejčová, E. (2023). Second language acquisition and some of its aspects. ČuždoezikovoObučenie, 50(2), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.53656/for23.201seco
Stebner, F., Schuster, C., Weber, X., Greiff, S., Leutner, D., & Wirth, J. (2022). Transfer of metacognitive skills in self-regulated learning: effects on strategy application and content knowledge acquisition. Metacognition and Learning, 17(3), 715–744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09322-x
Sumitha, P., & Mandal, R. R. (2022). Metacognitive teaching strategies. Scholarly Research Journal for Humanity Science & English Language, 10(50), 12346–12353. https://doi.org/10.21922/srjhsel.v10i50.10158
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem-solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Sweller, J. (2023). Cognitive load theory. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 127–134). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-818630-5.14020-5
Taouki, I., Lallier, M., & Soto, D. (2022). The role of metacognition in monitoring performance and regulating learning in early readers. Metacognition and Learning, 17(3), 921–948. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09292-0
Teng, M. F., Qin, C., & Wang, C. (2021). Validation of metacognitive academic writing strategies and the predictive effects on academic writing performance in a foreign language context. Metacognition and Learning, 17(1), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09278-4
Teng, M. F., & Zhang, D. (2021). Task-induced involvement load, vocabulary learning in a foreign language, and their association with metacognition. Language Teaching Research, 28(2), 531–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211008798
Toth, P. D. (2000). The interaction of instruction and learner-internal factors in the acquisition of l2 morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,22(2),169-208. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100002023
Vraciu, A. (2020). Production accuracy of verb morphology in early EFL: Does primary school CLIL make a difference? Linx, 81. https://doi.org/10.4000/linx.7112
Wongdaeng, M., & Higgins, S. (2022). Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions in tertiary EFL contexts: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 17(4), 795–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2022.2146122
Xu, J., & Li, C. (2022). Timing of form-focused instruction: Effects on EFL learners’ grammar learning. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(3), 405–433. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.3.
Yanagisawa, A., & Webb, S. (2022). Involvement load hypothesis plus: creating an improved predictive model of incidental vocabulary learning – erratum. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(5), 1502. https://doi.org/10.1017/s027226312200033x
