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

محورهای موضوعی : Journal of Teaching English Language Studies

Seyedeh Zohreh Pirooz ¹ (Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch)

تاریخ دریافت : 1392/06/19 تاریخ پذیرش : 1392/07/23 تاریخ انتشار : 1392/08/10

کلید واژه: Writing, Collaborative Writing, Structured Peer Interaction, Metacognitive Prompting,

چکیده مقاله :

This research was designed to investigate the effects of two different types of learning modalities, namely Meta-cognitive Prompting and structured peer interaction on intermediate EFL learners’ collaborative writing. For this purpose, 90 learners of total number of 120 intermediate learners studying at Kish English language school were chosen first for homogenization 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 administered among all of them. They were divided in two groups, one in which Students were contributing in their writing samples with each other and the other groups based on their individual efforts and outcomes. each group was exposed to the treatment for 24 sessions in seven weeks. At the end of the instruction, post-test with Analytic rating scale was applied and one-way ANOVA was run to test and the two hypotheses raised in the study. The results showed that while learners benefited from structured peer interaction setting compared to metacognitive prompting one, they were better off receiving writing instruction and more improved in their writing skill.

منابع و مأخذ:

• 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, 2^nd ed., New York: San Francisco State University.

 

• Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching, 2^nd ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.


• Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills, 3^rd 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.

 

• 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.