Tài liệu hạn chế xem trước, để xem đầy đủ mời bạn chọn Tải xuống
1
/ 22 trang
THÔNG TIN TÀI LIỆU
Thông tin cơ bản
Định dạng
Số trang
22
Dung lượng
116,17 KB
Nội dung
HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies Vol. 14, 2010
Investigating theRoleofMetacognitiveKnowledge
in English Writing
1
Zhang Yanyan
Wuhan University
Abstract
Metacognitive knowledge is knowledge about learning. Recent
research suggests that metacognitiveknowledge plays an
important function in cognitive activities concerning language
use and acquisition. This paper aims to investigate theroleof
metacognitive knowledgeintheEnglishwritingof Chinese
EFL learners. The present study involves 120 non-English
major freshmen in China as participants to complete an
English writing task and a self-designed questionnaire on
metacognitive knowledge. It is found that the learners’
metacognitive knowledge base is not strong, metacognitive
knowledge and its three components, i.e., person knowledge,
task knowledge and strategic knowledge, are all positively
correlated with Englishwriting performance, and successful
employment ofmetacognitiveknowledge helps facilitate EFL
learners’ writing proficiency. The results demonstrate that a
good command ofmetacognitiveknowledge can empower EFL
learners in their Englishwriting and cultivate their learning
autonomy inEnglish learning.
1. Introduction
Recent decades has witnessed an increasing recognition ofthe
importance ofmetacognitiveknowledgein cognitive activities related
to language use and acquisition (e.g., Baker & Brown, 1984; Devine,
1993; Flavell, 1979; Kasper, 1997; Vandergrift, 2002; Wenden, 1998;
Xu & Tang, 2007). Many studies have been carried out to examine the
function ofmetacognitiveknowledgein ESL/EFL learner’s
performance of receptive English skills, such as reading and listening
Zhang: InvestigatingtheRoleofMetacognitiveKnowledgeinEnglishWriting
26
(e.g., Baker & Brown, 1984; Vandergrift, 2002; Xu & Tang, 2007;
Yang & Zhang, 2002). It has been found that the learners’ beliefs and
knowledge about learning play a critical rolein those activities.
However, relatively little research has been conducted to investigate
the roleofmetacognitiveknowledgein EFL learner’s performance of
productive English skills, particularly writing, and relevant empirical
studies are especially scarce inthe Chinese context (Xu & Tang,
2005). To address the lack, this paper aims to investigate theroleof
metacognitive knowledgeintheEnglishwritingof Chinese EFL
learners, inthe hope of shedding some light on the teaching and
learning of EFL writing skill in China.
2. Literature Review
2.1 MetacognitiveKnowledge
John Flavell first proposed metacognition theory inthe 1970s. He
defined metacognition as knowledge that focuses on or regulates any
part of cognitive activity and identified two general dimensions of
metacognition: knowledge and experience (Flavell, 1979). In his work
Cognitive Development, Flavell (1985) further elaborated that our
metacognitive knowledge base consists of what we have learned
through experience about cognitive activities. From a theoretical
perspective, Wenden (1998, p.517) summarizes the defining
characteristics ofmetacognitiveknowledge as follows:
(1) a part of a learner’s store of acquired knowledge
(2) relatively stable and statable
(3) early developing
(4) a system of related ideas
(5) an abstract representation of a learner’s experience
According to Flavell (1979, 1985), metacognitiveknowledge involves
three distinct and highly interactive knowledge variables: person
knowledge, task knowledge, and strategic knowledge.
Person knowledge refers to general knowledge that learners have
Zhang: InvestigatingtheRoleofMetacognitiveKnowledgeinEnglishWriting
27
acquired about themselves as learners, which may facilitate or inhibit
learning. Wenden (1998) suggests that person knowledge may include
cognitive and affective variables such as age, language aptitude, and
motivation, specific knowledge learners have acquired about how
these factors may function in their experience, knowledge about their
proficiency in a certain area, self-efficacy beliefs about their general
ability as learners, and beliefs about their ability to achieve specific
learning goals. With regard to writinginEnglish as a foreign language,
person knowledge may refer to theknowledge EFL learners have
acquired about themselves as writers, such as their attitude towards
and motivation inEnglish writing, their beliefs about their writing
proficiency and their perceived ability to achieve certain writing
objectives.
Task knowledge generally involves three aspects: learners’ knowledge
about the task purpose and how it will meet their learning needs and
goals (Breen, 1987); knowledge about the nature of a particular task
identified through a classification process; information about a task’s
demands, such as the approach to the task and theknowledge and
skills needed to complete the task (Wenden, 1998). In relation to EFL
writing, task knowledge may include learners’ knowledge about the
purpose of a certain writing task, such as to improve their writing
ability, and their information about the required skills to fulfill the
task, such as a good command ofEnglish vocabulary and grammar,
and a skillful mastery of developing ideas clearly and logically.
Strategic knowledge refers to general knowledge about the types and
usefulness of strategies, and specific knowledge about their utility for
learning. In second language acquisition, learners’ retrospection upon
their language learning strategies is often taken as evidence of their
stored strategic knowledge (Wenden, 1998). Of particular importance
are metacognitive strategies, which are “general skills through which
learners manage, direct, regulate, guide their learning, i.e. planning,
monitoring and evaluating” (Wenden, 1998, p.519). Inthe case of
writing inEnglish as a foreign language, strategic knowledge often
refers to EFL learners’ knowledge about pre-writing planning,
on-writing monitoring of errors, post-writing checking and reflection
Zhang: InvestigatingtheRoleofMetacognitiveKnowledgeinEnglishWriting
28
of their writing processes and products.
2.2 MetacognitiveKnowledge and English Learning
Research inthe past few decades has demonstrated that possession of
a strong metacognitiveknowledge base is critical to successful
learning (e.g., Baker & Brown, 1984; Devine, 1993; Flavell, 1979;
Kasper, 1997; Vandergrift, 2002; Xu & Tang, 2007) and that a good
learner is “one who has ample metacognitiveknowledge about the
self as learner, about the nature ofthe cognitive task at hand, and
about appropriate strategies for achieving cognitive goals” (Devine,
1993, p.109).
The recognition ofthe importance ofmetacognitiveknowledgein
learning has led to an increasing number of relevant studies inthe
field of second language acquisition. While extensive research has
been carried out on theroleof metacognition in listening and reading
performance of ESL/EFL learners (see Baker & Brown, 1984; Devine,
1993; Yang & Zhang, 2002), corresponding research inwriting has
been relatively rare (Devine, 1993), especially inthe Chinese context
(Xu & Tang, 2005). A pioneer study on ESL writingin this vein is
Devine, Railey & Boshoff (1993), which attempted to examine the
influence of metacognition on second language writing by
investigating cognitive models in 10 second language and 10 first
language beginning writers and assessing the effects of these models
on their writing performance. The results suggest a potential link
between ESL learners’ metacognitive models and their writing
performance.
Another study on metacognition and writing is Zimmerman &
Bandura (1994), which examined the influence of beliefs that learners
hold about their ability to mobilize and direct resources for learning
and to sustain this effort (i.e. self-efficacy beliefs) on their writing
performance. They proposed a causal model of student self-regulation
of writing achievement, which indicates a close relationship between
metacognitive person knowledge and learners’ writing outcome.
Zhang: InvestigatingtheRoleofMetacognitiveKnowledgeinEnglishWriting
29
Kasper (1997) further explored themetacognitive growth of 67
intermediate level ESL students and 53 advanced level ESL students
from diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. She found
that ESL students’ metacognitive growth correlates significantly and
positively with their actual writing performance, along and across the
three components ofmetacognitiveknowledge base.
The above three studies suggest a positive roleofmetacognitive
knowledge inEnglishwriting and have presented an important
contribution to the field. However, all these studies involve
participants of ESL students only. As English has been given a high
priority inthe curriculum in China, where there is a large population
of EFL learners, Englishwriting is of great importance for Chinese
students and research on Englishwriting development and instruction
is therefore in urgent need. So far, the studies on metacognition and
writing inthe Chinese context have been rather rare, and empirical
studies are especially scarce (Xu & Tang, 2005). Lu (2006) is an
earliest study that explored the relationship between metacognitive
strategies and English writing, but the participants of this study were
senior English major students and thus cannot represent non-English
majors who far outnumber English majors in China. Another more
recent study of relevance is Xu & Tang (2007), which compared 5
successful and 5 unsuccessful Chinese EFL writers’ metacognitive
knowledge by using think-aloud protocols and interviews. They found
that good writers are superior to poor ones inmetacognitive
knowledge and attribute the good writers’ success to their possession
of a better metacognitiveknowledge base. Although insightful, Xu &
Tang’s study is a qualitative analysis of only a few non-English major
students’ metacognitiveknowledge and its generalizability therefore
awaits further confirmation.
From the review of previous studies, we notice a few research gaps in
this field. First, the research on the relationship between
metacognition and writing is still relatively rare, and the existing
studies tend to focus on ESL contexts. Second, empirical studies of
large scales are limited, especially inthe Chinese context. Third, the
previous studies have seldom controlled the influence ofEnglish
Zhang: InvestigatingtheRoleofMetacognitiveKnowledgeinEnglishWriting
30
proficiency on English writing. Fourth, both Devine et. al.’s (1993)
proposed link between metacognitiveknowledge and writing
performance and Zimmerman & Bandura’s (1994) causal model on
writing achievement need proofs from other studies. To address the
lack, the present study undertakes an investigation oftheroleof
metacognitive knowledgeintheEnglishwritingof 120 non-English
major EFL learners in Mainland China. The specific research
questions are as follows:
(1) What is the current situation of Chinese EFL writers’
metacognitiveknowledge base and its three components?
(2) What’s the relationship between metacognitiveknowledge
and English writing?
(3) Can the development ofmetacognitiveknowledge help facilitate
English writing?
In addition, this research also intends to explore the relationship
between metacognitiveknowledge and Englishwriting by controlling
English proficiency so as to formulate an influence route model of
metacognitive knowledge on English writing.
3. Research Design
3.1 Participants
The participants of this study involve 120 freshmen from 4 intact
English classes across various non-English majors, including
chemistry, physics, surveying, mathematics, management, accounting,
etc., in a key university in Mainland China. There are 68 males and 52
females. When the study was carried out, the students were at the
beginning of their second semester in university, so all the students
have been learning English for at least six years. According to the
teaching syllabus of college Englishin China, first-year university
students should be able to write an English essay of 150 to 200 words
within thirty minutes.
Zhang: InvestigatingtheRoleofMetacognitiveKnowledgeinEnglishWriting
31
3.2 Instruments
(1) MetacognitiveKnowledge Questionnaire
Questionnaires have often been used in previous research on learners’
metacognitive knowledgeinEnglish reading, listening and writing
performance, and have been proved to be an effective tool to study
metacognition. Borrowing insights from theoretical discussions on the
concept ofmetacognitiveknowledge (e.g., Wenden, 1998) and
previously used questionnaires (see Pajares, Hartley & Valiante (2001)
for writing self-efficacy questionnaire; Lu (2006) for metacognitive
strategies questionnaire), the author ofthe present paper designed a
metacognitive knowledge questionnaire on Englishwritinginthe
Chinese context. The questionnaire consists of two sections, with the
first aiming to gather the participants’ basic information, such as the
scores of their College English course
2
inthe first semester, and the
other intending to illicit the learners’ retrospection upon their stored
knowledge about English writing, including person knowledge, task
knowledge, and strategic knowledge. The section on metacognitive
knowledge has 34 items in total, all designed on a five-point Likert
scale. Each item is a statement concerning an aspect ofmetacognitive
knowledge, accompanied with five response options ranging from five
to one corresponding to from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.
For instance, “I think my Englishwriting is good compared with my
peers”. Learners were asked to judge every statement and select a
choice that suits them best. Among all the items, items 1 to 14 are
concerned with person knowledge, items 15 to 22 with task
knowledge, and item 23 to 34 with strategic knowledge
3
. The internal
reliability alpha reaches 0.89 for person knowledge, 0.81 for task
knowledge, and 0.87 for strategic knowledge. To ensure that the
participants fully understand the items so that their answers can best
represent their true ideas, two versions ofthe same questionnaire were
designed, with the Chinese one for the students and theEnglish one
for writing this paper.
Zhang: InvestigatingtheRoleofMetacognitiveKnowledgeinEnglishWriting
32
(2) EnglishWriting
To gather data on their English writing, the participants were required
to write an English composition on the topic “Part-time Job” within
thirty minutes during regular class time. The composition should be
no less than 100 English words, following thewriting practice of
CET4
4
in China. “Part-time job” is a popular topic in universities in
Mainland China and was thus chosen for writing so that the students
would not feel too difficult and could display their Englishwriting
ability.
(3) English Proficiency Test
All the participants have just taken a College English test, along with
the other freshmen, at the end of their first semester, which is also
their first English test in university. The test consists of listening
comprehension, vocabulary and grammar, reading comprehension,
translation and writing, and has been graded by English teachers
according to the same criteria
5
. This test was therefore adopted as the
English proficiency test for our research, and the students’ scores were
collected as an indicator of their current English proficiency.
3.3 Data Collection and Analyses Procedures
The research was carried out at regular English teaching hours with
the help ofthe participants’ teachers. For fear that the questionnaire
might affect the students’ writing process, theEnglishwriting task
was assigned first, followed by themetacognitive questionnaire. It
took about 40 minutes for all the participants to complete thewriting
task and fill up the questionnaire.
Each English composition was scored independently by two
experienced English teachers, following the same grading criteria as
in CET 4, with the full mark being 15 points. The inter-rater reliability
is over 0.9. The average ofthe two scores for each composition was
adopted as its final grade. Whenever the two scores of a composition
disagreed by three points or above, the two raters would examine it
Zhang: InvestigatingtheRoleofMetacognitiveKnowledgeinEnglishWriting
33
again and reach a final agreement after consideration.
As all themetacognitiveknowledge items are on a five-point Likert
scale, with the options ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly
disagree”, the options were given values from 5 to 1 accordingly. The
criteria for judging the average metacognitiveknowledge level are
shown inthe following Table 1.
Table 1: Grading criteria ofmetacognitiveknowledge level
Metacognitive knowledge level Mean Options
4.5-5.0 Strongly agree
High
3.5-4.4 Agree
Medium 2.5-3.4 Uncertain
1.5-2.4 Disagree
Low
1.0-1.4 Strongly disagree
All the data, including those ofthewriting performance,
metacognitive knowledge and English proficiency, were typed into
computer. SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) programme
was then run to undertake statistical analyses. To serve the purposes of
the present study, the following analyses were carried out step by step:
(1) descriptive analyses of each ofthe variables concerning
metacognitive knowledge;
(2) correlation analyses between the participants’ metacognitiveknowledge and their Englishwriting performance;
(3) an independent-samples t-test oftheEnglishwriting
performance between students with different metacognitiveknowledge statuses as well as an independent-samples t-test ofthemetacognitiveknowledge status between students with
different writing performance;
(4) regression analyses for a close examination ofthe influence ofmetacognitiveknowledge on Englishwriting by controlling
theEnglish proficiency variable.
4. Results
4.1 Descriptive Analyses
Table 2 presents the average score (Mean) and the standard deviation
Zhang: InvestigatingtheRoleofMetacognitiveKnowledgeinEnglishWriting
34
(Std. Deviation) of each intended aspect concerning metacognitive
knowledge together with its corresponding item number inthe
questionnaire.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of each metacognitiveknowledge variable
Person Knowledge N Mean
Std.
Deviation
1. Positive attitudes towards Englishwriting 120 3.14 1.08
2. Beliefs on Englishwriting proficiency 120 2.85 .82
3. Beliefs on Englishwriting achievement 120 4.05 .65
4. Beliefs on overcoming writing difficulties 120 3.55 .67
5. Englishwriting motivation 120 3.36 1.09
6. Self-efficacy of ability in word spelling 120 2.68 .65
7. Self-efficacy of ability in using punctuations 120 3.18 .85
8. Self-efficacy of ability in using word class 120 2.82 .85
9. Self-efficacy of ability in using English grammar 120 2.95 .79
10. Self-efficacy of ability inwriting topic sentences 120 3.68 .89
11. Self-efficacy of ability inwriting supporting details 120 3.64 .79
12. Self-efficacy of ability inwriting endings 120 3.45 .91
13. Self-efficacy of ability in thesis organization 120 3.32 .99
14. Self-efficacy of ability in expressing ideas 120 3.68 .78
Task Knowledge N Mean
Std.
Deviation
15. Familiarity with thewriting topic 120 3.38 1.07
16. Englishwriting task purpose 120 4.15 .73
17. Demands for a large vocabulary 120 2.82 .86
18. Demands for proficient grammar 120 2.68 .94
19. Demands for clear expression 120 3.95 1.06
20. Demands for good organization 120 3.75 .96
21. Demands for rich contents 120 3.60 .94
22. Demands for originality 120 3.20 1.16
Strategic Knowledge N Mean
Std.
Deviation
23. Knowledge on pre-writing planning 120 3.79 1.19
24. Thinking from readers' perspective 120 2.21 1.03
25. Knowledge on on-writing monitoring 120 3.74 1.07
26. Using avoidance strategies inwriting exams 120 3.99 1.05
27. Seeking help in times of difficulty 120 2.07 .87
28. Knowledge on post-writing checking 120 3.42 1.04
29. Checking spelling 120 3.58 1.21
30. Checking grammar 120 3.64 1.09
31. Checking expression 120 2.15 .95
32. Checking organization 120 2.56 1.04
33.Checking content 120 2.76 .98
34.Knowledge on after-writing reflection 120 2.21 1.22
Table 3 summarizes the results ofthe three components of
metacognitive knowledge and the overall metacognitiveknowledge
[...]... revise their compositions for improvement 6 Conclusion This paper explored theroleofmetacognitiveknowledgeintheEnglishwritingof Chinese EFL learners By analyzing the data collected from an Englishwriting task and self-designed questionnaires on metacognitive knowledge, this study has obtained the following major findings: 43 Zhang: InvestigatingtheRoleofMetacognitiveKnowledgeinEnglish Writing. .. knowledgeinEnglishwritingThe results of correlation and regression analyses demonstrate that metacognitiveknowledge exerts positive influences not only on English writing, but also on English proficiency More specifically, the influence route chart obtained inthe present study clearly 42 Zhang: InvestigatingtheRoleofMetacognitiveKnowledgeinEnglishWriting indicates that metacognitive knowledge. .. to improve their Englishwriting ability 5.3 The Influence ofMetacognitiveKnowledge on EnglishWritingThe results ofthe two independent-samples t-tests indicate that students with a higher Englishwriting proficiency often have a stronger metacognitiveknowledge base and that students with a better metacognitiveknowledge status often have a higher Englishwriting proficiency These findings suggest... average level of our students’ strategic knowledge is only 3.01, suggesting that our students, on the whole, have a relative poor knowledge about the use ofwriting strategies Although they have a fairly good awareness to 41 Zhang: Investigating the Roleof Metacognitive KnowledgeinEnglishWriting plan their writing beforehand and monitor their writing process, they have little knowledgeof thinking from... writing, metacognitiveknowledge and English proficiency EnglishWritingMetacognitiveKnowledgeEnglishWriting 1 378(**) MetacognitiveKnowledge 1 English Proficiency ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) English Proficiency 640(**) 361(**) 1 4.3 T-test Analyses To testify the influence ofmetacognitiveknowledge on English writing, an independent-samples t-test oftheEnglish writing. .. average Englishwriting grade (Mean=9.45) as the cut point Among 120 participants, 58 students whose writing is above or equal to the average have a mean metacognitiveknowledge value of 3.31 while the other 62 students whose writing is below the average have a mean metacognitiveknowledge value of 3.20 The difference between themetacognitive 36 Zhang: Investigating the Roleof Metacognitive Knowledge in. .. level of our learners’ strategic knowledge 39 Zhang: Investigating the Roleof Metacognitive KnowledgeinEnglishWritingIn order to explore the causes for the students’ poor metacognitiveknowledgeinEnglish writing, we undertook an informal interview with a few participants afterwards, in which some learners confess that, (1) “I have a lot of difficulties in expressing myself, so I don’t like writing. ..Zhang: Investigating the Roleof Metacognitive KnowledgeinEnglishWriting status ofthe participants Table 3: Descriptive statistics ofmetacognitiveknowledgeKnowledge N Mean Std Deviation Person knowledge 120 3.31 82 Task knowledge 120 3.44 67 Strategic knowledge 120 3.01 74 Metacognitiveknowledge 120 3.25 58 Table 4 presents the results ofthewriting performance and theEnglish proficiency... follows: English Proficiency = 0.361 * MetacognitiveKnowledgeThe above two equations demonstrate to us in accurate figures that metacognitiveknowledge influences both Englishwriting and English proficiency directly Moreover, metacognitiveknowledge also exerts its influence on Englishwriting indirectly by influencing English proficiency We therefore can draw the following route chart to show these influences... Chinese learners ofEnglish EFL learners from other first language backgrounds should also be examined to test the generalizability ofthe positive correlation between metacognitiveknowledge and Englishwriting found in this study In conclusion, a better command ofmetacognitiveknowledge can empower learners inEnglishwriting and cultivate their autonomous 44 Zhang: Investigating the Roleof Metacognitive . findings:
Zhang: Investigating the Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in English Writing
44
(1) Chinese EFL learners’ metacognitive knowledge of. Third, the
previous studies have seldom controlled the influence of English
Zhang: Investigating the Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in English Writing