Essay:

Essay details:

  • Subject area(s): Engineering
  • Price: Free download
  • Published on: 7th September 2019
  • File format: Text
  • Number of pages: 2

Text preview of this essay:

This page is a preview - download the full version of this essay above.

_________________________________________

Introduction

Metacognitive  strategies  are  strategies  that  function  to monitor  or  regulate  cognitive  strategies (Devine,  1993;  Flavell,  1981). They involve knowledge about learning and controlling learning via planning, monitoring, evaluation, and the learning activity (Oxford, 1990). The basic concept of metacognition deals with the notion of thinking about thinking. Thinking can refer to both what the person knows and what the person is presently doing. It is, in fact, deliberate, planned,  intentional,  goal-directed  and  future-oriented  mental  processing  that  can  be  used  to accomplish cognitive tasks (Flavell, 1981). According  to  Carrell,  Gajdusek  &  Wise  (1998),  the  first  aspect  of metacognition  is  knowledge  of  cognition  and  the  second  one  in  metacognition  has to do with regulation  of  cognition.  In  the  field  of  writing,  regulation  of  cognition  includes  planning, monitoring,  testing,  revising,  and  evaluating  strategies  (Baker  &  Brown,  1984). In  summary, metacognitive  strategies  can particularly be  classified  into  three  groups  of  planning  (pre-writing), monitoring  (during  writing),  and  evaluating  (post-writing)  strategies,  and  each  group  has  a variety of strategies that require writers’ metacognitive processing.  

O’Malley and Chamot, the leaders of the topic under question, pointed out that “planning” is a procedure for conflict resolution among competing action statements that applies to the conditional clause in the production system. In other words, “planning” includes directing the course of language reception and production. Model pre-writing strategies for organizing thoughts, such as brainstorming ideas using a word web, or using a graphic organizer to put ideas into paragraphs, with the main idea at the top and the supporting details below it. Planning consists of five strategies: (1) Advance organizers; (2) Directed attention; (3) Selective attention; (4) Self-management; (5) Functional planning.

“Monitoring” can be marked as being aware of what one is doing. There is only one strategy in this subcategory: (6) Self-monitoring.   “Evaluation” is mental process conscious inspection of learning outcomes, one's own progress in the new language. This category consists of only one strategy: (7) Self-evaluation. O'Malley and Chamot (2001) concluded that metacognitive strategies involve thinking about the learning process, planning for learning, monitoring the learning tasks, and evaluating how one has learned.   

Individual  differences  are  the  variables  that  refer to  learners  and  donate  each  one  his/her individual singularity. The aim of investigating individual differences is to investigate the variety of intellect, shapes of cognitive procedure, and various intellectual functions (Sadeghi, Kasim, Tan, & Abdullah, 2012).  Personality is documented as a very powerful category of individual differences since the individual is often measured based on their personality, which is explained below.

Personality can be defined as those characteristics of an individual that account for unswerving patterns of emotion, thought, and behavior (Pervin & John, 2001).  It  is  generally  perceived    as composed  of  a  series  of  personalities  such  as  extraversion/introversion,  neuroticism/stability,  and  it  is usually measured  by means  of  some  kind  of  self-report  questionnaire  (Eysenck &  Eysenck, 1964). These have been applied to measure certain measurements of personality such as risk-taking, tolerance of ambiguity, etc. among L2 learners. In this study, only extraversion and introversion will be investigated. Each dimension of personality types represents a continuum;  that  is,  individuals  can  be  screened  on  the  spectrum  to  be  less  or  more,  e.g. extroverted, but it is also possible to identify their idealized personality type.

According to Keswer (1987, p. 45), one of the reasons for inconsistencies in research results are the wide variety and dubious validity of the personality assessments which are used. He continues that many second language teachers somehow feel that a student with an extrovert personality is more successful as a second language learner than an introvert student. Language teachers reason that the extrovert will create more situations for himself to engage in conversation in the target language, and this will positively affect the development of the student’s proficiency in it. On the other hand, Scheibner-Herzig, Thiele, Jelinek and Kokoschka (1984) did not find any significant correlation between extroversion and the second language performance in English of West German high school students (p. 43).  

According to Hjelle and Ziegler (1992) most of the efforts have been aimed at determining whether there are significant differences in behavior associated with individual differences along the introversion-extroversion continuum. Some empirically established ways in which introverts and extroverts have been found to differ include:

1. Introverts prefer theoretical and scientific vocations (e.g., engineering and chemistry), whereas extroverts tend to prefer people oriented jobs (e.g., sales and social work).

2. Introverts attain higher grades in college than extroverts. Also, students who withdraw from college for psychiatric reasons tend to be extroverts.

3. Introverts show higher arousal levels in the mornings, whereas extroverts show higher arousal levels in the evening. Furthermore, introverts work better in the morning, and extroverts work better in the afternoon (p. 284).

Writing is one of the four basic communication skills whose learning can lead to learning a second language. According to Bello (1997), writing increases language acquisition because learners deal with words, sentences, and other elements of writing to convey their ideas effectively and to reinforce the grammar and vocabulary they are learning in class. As Chastain (1988) states, writing is a kind of practice which helps writer to store the material in long-term memory, in other words, the vocabulary, grammar, and patterns are more easily learned through being carefully applied in a piece of writing. Undoubtedly writing is the most difficult skill for second language learners to master (Richards & Renandya, 2002). As a skill, production of a piece of writing which is coherent, fluent, and extended is probably the most difficult task to do with language, even for a native speaker (Nunan, 2003). Cumming (2006), emphasizing the role personality plays in writing, defined this skill as a “uniquely personal form of individual expression” (p. 473). The belief that each student, as an individual, has individual traits that uniquely influence his or her behavior and the difficulties most learners face in producing a coherent, fluent, and extended piece of writing persuades the present researchers to design this study focusing on EFL learners’ personality type and its effect on their writing ability.

This  study  through  a  review  of  related  studies  on  the  relationship  between  writing strategies, writing achievement, and personality traits, will aim to shed more light on the relationship between  personality  traits  (extroverts  vs. introverts), metacognitive  strategies  and writing achievement to draw attention to the need for further researches in this domain.

Statement of the Problem

With the status of English as an international language and the expansion in the use of English, an increasing number of second language learners are engaged in academic pursuits that require them to write compositions (Jalilifar, 2008, p. 114). Only a few of studies done (Shokrpour & Fallahzadeh, 2007) in Iran in the area of EFL writing problems have identified actual problems in the area of writing skills in terms of metacognitive strategies in general and planning and monitoring metacognitive strategies in particular. Whereas reading requirement is recreating the writer's intended meaning, not extending much beyond deciphering signs, writing puts a heavy burden on the writer to create meaning. In fact, the writer is responsible for providing appropriate cohesive devices for the reader's convenient track of the writer's logic.

One factor that has not received much attention in Iran is Metacognition. Livingston (1997, p.1) refers to the term ‘Metacognition’, which was first used by Flavell (1976), as “higher order thinking that involves active control over the thinking processes involved in learning”. Oxford (1990) believes, “Metacognitive strategies help learners manage: (1) themselves as learners, (2) the general learning process, and (3) specific learning tasks” (cited in Carter & Nunan, 2001, p.197).

Many  EFL  teachers  complain  and  wonder  why  their  students  do  not  show  considerable improvement in their writings every time they check the students’ writings. This shortcoming on the part of a student maybe partly due to lack of presence of metacognitive strategies to be taught. This study will mainly concern writing achievement among introvert and extrovert EFL learners.

Statement of the Research Question

In order to meet the objectives of introvert and extrovert (male and female) EFL learners’ writing achievement with planning and monitoring metacognitive strategies, the primary aim of this study will intend to find answers to the following question:

Does teaching planning and monitoring metacognitive strategies have any effect on introvert and extrovert EFL learners' writing achievement?

Planning and monitoring metacognitive strategies

Metacognitive  strategies  involve  the  ability  of readers  to  behave  mentally  for  directing  and controlling  their  cognitive  strategy  processing for  successful  performance  (Phakiti,  2003).

O’Malley and Chamot held that “planning” is a procedure for conflict resolution among competing action statements that applies to the conditional clause in the production system. In other words, “planning” involves in directing the course of language reception and production.

“Monitoring” is a response to ambiguity in comprehending language where an individual selects a best guess of the message's meaning based on available meaning. “Monitoring” can also be described as being aware of what one is doing. There is only one strategy in this subcategory: Self-monitoring. “O'Malley and Chamot (2001) concluded that metacognitive strategies involve thinking about the learning process, planning for learning, monitoring the learning tasks, and evaluating how one has learned.   

Introvert and extrovert learners

According  to Brown (2000),  an  extrovert  is  the  dimension  to  which  a  person  has  a  fundamental  need  to  be presented  in  their  self-image  improvement,  self-esteem,  and  a  sense  of  completeness  from another  person.  In  contrast,  introvert  people  are more  fascinated  in  activities  like writing, reading,  and  drawing  than  in  activities,  which  require  them  to  act  in  outgoing  way  like speaking,  gossiping  and  so  on  (Naik,  2010).

Oxford Advanced Learners' Dictionary (2005) presents the following definitions for the two terms:

Introvert: A person who is more interested in his own thoughts and feelings than in things outside himself, and is often shy and unwilling to speak or join in activities with others.

Extrovert: A person who is more interested in what is happening around him than in his own thoughts and emotions.

Significance of the Study

Writing has an important role in helping students understand ideas and concepts. The results of a study carried out by Sommers (1999) at Harvard University showed that for most of the students, writing is a beneficial way to comprehend and use the ideas of the course. Although  reading  is  a  basic  strategy  to  gather  information, writing  is  the  eventual communication strategy which leads to clarify ideas and thoughts.

Besides being a means of communication, writing also serves as a means of thinking, organizing knowledge or ideas, and learning. It is a complicated activity which includes different levels of composition task completion (Chen, 2002; Watskins, 2004). There exists no doubt that this skill, particularly for EFL learners, is a difficult skill to master because the students need to choose appropriate vocabulary, sentence , and paragraphs, and they also have to change these ideas into a readable text.

In most courses of English as a Second Language, the focus of attention is on improving the student’s skills abilities in speaking, listening and reading but the development of writing skill is often ignored (Edelsky & Smith, 1989). The results of some studies reveal that only 2% of ESL courses are involved in improving student’s writing skills (Harris, 1985). The mechanical  aspects  of writing  such  as  syntax,  punctuation,  and  spelling  get  the most  attention, which is about 72% of this two percent. Yet, writing is considered an essential language skill for L2 learners (Hughey et al., 1983).

Chastain (1988) has declared that this kind of communication has a great importance in modern world, whether it is done by means of paper-and-pencil or advanced electronic mails. In advanced composition courses the emphasis is primarily placed upon writing as communication. Writing,  in  both  communicative  and  practical  sense, involves some  features  that  lead  to overall  language  learning  (Chastain, 1988). Writing anything to be learned assists students practice and rehearse the material and store it in long-term memory.  

Research shows that teaching study strategies in content courses improves learning. (Commander & Valeri-Gold, 2001; Ramp & Guffey, 1999; Chiang, 1998; El-Hindi, 1997; McKeachie, 1988). Research also shows that few instructors teach study strategies; they seem to assume that students have already learned them in high school—but they haven’t. (McKeachie, 1988). Rote memorization is the usual learning strategy—and often the only strategy—employed by high school students when they go to college (Nist, 1993).

Despite the fact that a multitude of research projects have strived to address the notion of introversion/extroversion from a range of varied perspectives (e.g. Bonner, et al., 2007; Salehi, 2010; Mitchell, et al., 2011), a fleeting glimpse through the literature on the issue reveals that most of the studies addressing the effect of introversion and extroversion (e.g. Busch, 1982; Shackleton & Fletcher, 1984), have tried to find the impact of this personality trait on facets like speaking ability and verbal fluency.

Thus, in order to take a somewhat unique approach to the study of this well-established learner variable, the present study grapples to explore the probable impact of introversion/extroversion on listening ability of Iranian EFL learners. The results of this study will show that serious pedagogical considerations have to be taken by syllabus designers to include teaching of planning and monitoring metacognitive strategies in order for the learners to reach higher achievement in writing a composition.

Delimitation and Limitation

Like other research studies, this prospective research will be conducted under prospective limitations.

In order to delimit the research:

- The study will focus only on the planning and monitoring metacognitive strategies and will not be concerned much with such a strategy as self-evaluation.

- The participants are limited to the Iranian intermediate EFL students at Tehran Institute of Technology.

- Adults are the participants of this study; hence, the findings may not necessarily be generalizable to other age groups.

Review of the Literature

Metacognitive strategy is a term used in information-processing theory to indicate an “executive” function and it refers to the strategy that is used by learners as the means to manage, monitor and evaluate their learning activities. To put it simply, metacognitive strategies are skills, approaches, and thinking and actions learners use to control their cognition and learning process. Researchers (Brown, 1983; O'Malley & Chamot 1990; Cohen, 1998) of foreign/second language learning shared similar view with regard to definition and function of metacognitive strategies. They all emphasized that the essential nature and general function of metacognitive strategies is planning, organizing, and evaluating one's own learning (Wu Hongyun & Liu Runqing, 2004).

Without any direct link to the metacognition, Busch  (1982)  explored  the  relationship  between  introversion-extroversion  and English  language  proficiency  of  105  adult  school  and  80  junior  college  learners  in Japan.  A  Japanese  version  of  EPQ  and  a  nationally  standardized  English  test,  consisting grammar/vocabulary,  reading,  aural  comprehension,  and  dictation, were  used  to  collect  the data.  In  general,  no  significant  relationship  was  found  between  extroversion  and  language measures.  Only,  pronunciation,  a  subcomponent  of  the  oral  test,  was  significantly  and negatively correlated with extroversion.

Lightbown and Spada (2006) state  that many classroom    teachers   believe    that    in   second   or  foreign  language  learning,  extroverts  are  more  successful  than introverts, particularly in their communicative  ability.  In a study, Dewaele and Furnham (2000) found that extroversion is inextricably linked with fluency in second language (L2) production. Also, based on the findings of  several  studies,  extroverts  were  found  to  be  superior  to  introverts  in  short-term  memory. Among them is the finding of Eysenck (1981) that to retrieve information from long-term memory introverts need more time than extroverts do.

Somehow related to language skills, Wakamoto  (2007)  examined  the  impact  of  extroversion/introversion  and  associated  learner strategies  on  English  language  comprehension. He found that extrovert Japanese EFL learners used socio-affective strategies more frequently than introvert ones. Millot and Cranney (1973) in a  study  on  relationship  between  personality  type  and  learning  style  in  reading  comprehension  found  a  significant  link  between  personality types  of  introversion,  intuition  and  perceiving  and  learning  style.  In another study, Kiany (1997) investigated the relationship between extroversion and English proficiency of 237 Iranian postgraduate students studying in English-speaking Countries. He used Persian version of EPQ; and TOEFL, IELTS, MCHE, and cloze tests.  The results of his study showed a negative and a significant relationship between extroversion and TOEFL subcomponent of reading comprehension.

Ehrman  and Oxford  (1995) did  a  study  investigating  the  relationship  between  personality type  and  language  learning  strategies with  a  larger  sample.  Their study showed that extroverts are different from introverts because of using more social strategies. Furthermore, Ehrman and Oxford (1990) found an important relationship between extroversion/introversion and learner strategies of 20 adults learning Turkish as a foreign language. They found that extroverts preferred  social  strategies  such as asking  for clarification, and  functional practice strategies  such  as  seeking  practice  opportunities  outside  of  class while  introverts  preferred  to learn alone and avoid social contacts and  spontaneous  situations.

Paktinat, (2005) found strong relationship between the subjects’ proficiency level and strategy use for five categories including memory, cognition, compensation, and metacognition.  Although  the  relationship between  metacognitive  strategy  use  and  the learners’ proficiency  level has been emphasized in other  studies, the  present  study  aims  to investigate  the  effect  of metacognitive  strategy use on learners reading comprehension performance. This study will specifically focus on the effect of instructing two metacognitive strategies, that is, planning and self-monitoring on EFL learners’ writing achievement.

Eysenck’s psychological questionnaire. The EPQ (Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985) is a validated 57 Yes/No item questionnaire to assess the personality traits of a person. The test provides the testees with three different scores: the  E  score  which  is  related  to  how  much  extrovert  a  person  is,  the  N  score  measuring  the neuroticism, and the Lie score which tries to measure how socially desirable a person has wanted to prove to be. The E score is computed out of 24 since it consists of 24 items, the N score is out of 24, and the Lie score is out of nine.

For  this study,  only  scale  E  will be  needed  since  only  this  scale measures  the  extent  of  extroversion  and  introversion.  In Eysenck’s  Personality  Inventory  (EPI) which  contains  24  questions,  the  students  should  read  the  questions  and  give  the  first  answer which comes to their mind by writing yes or no.

To examine the individual trait in question, i.e. extroversion/introversion, the researchers will make use of Eysenck Personality Test (Eysenck, 1999), which is the shortened version of the last Eysenck test (1999). This test consists of two criteria known as psychoticism and extroversion/introversion. It should be emphasized that the questions used in the current probe are only those which have been developed for determining introversion and extroversion. According to what Eysenck reports in the test manual, the reliability of the questionnaire is 88% and 84% (for extroversion and introversion scale) and 61% and 62% (for psychoticism scale) for males and females, respectively.

Preliminary English Test (PET). To begin with, the researcher will utilize a sample PET to choose a homogenous sample of participants based on their level of proficiency prior to the study. PET consists of the four parts of reading and writing (paper 1), listening (paper 2), and speaking (paper 3). The first paper (reading and writing) takes one hour and 30 minutes. The reading part consists of five parts (35 questions) which test different reading skills with a variety of texts, ranging from very short notices to longer continuous texts. The test’s focus in this part is the assessment of candidate’s ability to understand the meaning of written English at word, phrase, sentence paragraph, and whole text level. Each of the questions in the reading part carries one mark so that this section comprises 25% of the total mark for the whole examination.

The writing part comprises three parts which test a range of writing skills. The test’s focus here is the assessment of candidates’ ability to produce straightforward written English, ranging from producing variations on simple sentences to pieces of continuous text. The section consists of eight questions. Questions 1-5 carry one mark each. Question 6 is marked out of five; and 7 and 8 are marked out of 15. This gives a total of 25 which represents 25% of the total mark for the whole examination.

Paper 2 (listening) allows 30 minutes. This part consists of four parts ranging from short exchanges to longer dialogues and monologues which will be heard by students two times. The test focus in this section is assessment of candidates’ ability to understand dialogues and monologues in both informal and neutral settings on a range of everyday topics. This part has 25 questions. Each item carries one mark. This gives a total of 25 marks, which represents 25% of the total mark for the whole examination.

The last paper which is speaking lasts for 10-12 minutes per pair of candidates. It has four parts. In first part, candidates interact with an examiner. In parts two and four, they interact with another candidate and in part three, they have an extended individual long turn. The test focus of the speaking part is assessment of candidates’ ability to express themselves in order to carry out functions as threshold level, to ask and to understand questions, to make appropriate responses, and to talk freely on matters of personal interest. Candidates are assessed on their performance throughout the test. There are a total of 25 marks in this paper, making 25% of the total score for the whole examination.

Furthermore, the test originally contains 67 items.

Writing Pre-test. A pre-test will be run at Tehran Institute of Technology to homogenize the participants in terms of their writing ability. Sixty participants (30 from the introvert group and 30 from the extrovert group) will sit the test. The researcher and another teacher will administer the test. The researcher will tell all the participants that he is doing some research and that they will have been chosen randomly to sit a diagnostic test on English language. (The participants will not be told that the test is to be based on the effect of teaching planning and monitoring metacognitive strategies on introvert and extrovert EFL learners' writing achievement so that the researcher can diagnose their real ability i.e. in order to avoid their preparing for that specific area). The result of the test will not affect their English achievement score at the Language School. They will also be informed that the aim of the test is to diagnose their common errors so that their teachers (after being informed of these errors and their causes) will help the students by preventive and remedial teaching.

Writing Post-test. The post-test will be conducted to measure the improvement of the participants’ writing ability using metacognitive strategies depending on whether they are introvert or extrovert. The same test (pre-test) will be administered to the both groups (60 participants) after six weeks of the treatment period. Since the purpose of the research is to improve students’ writing using teaching metacognitive strategies, the administration of the same test with a six-week interval will have a less possibility that students’ improvement is due to the fact that they could have been familiar with the topic.

The rubrics of the post-test will be similar to that of the pre-test in terms of the scoring procedure.

American English File, Second Edition, Level Three. American English File, second edition, provides six-level curriculum ranging from starter level to advanced one (starter level to level 5). This series enjoys engaging videos developing communication skills through real-life example and scenarios. Each level of curriculum contains 10 to 12 units depending on its level.  This book, American English File, Second Edition-level 3, is organized around different topics, and divided into 10 units. Each unit consists of 12 pages which focus on grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation. At the end of each unit, you can find a video practice to review and put into practice what you have learned in each lesson. It also contains iChecker application which includes progress checks and workbook audio material to develop learner independence and self-assessment. Beside a workbook is provided for further exercise. At the end of each two units, there a review and check section which assesses the progress of student’s achievement.

Procedure

To begin the study, the researcher will pilot a sample PET among a group of 30 EFL participants. As Mackey and Gass (2005) argued, to assess the feasibility and usefulness of the data collection methods and make the necessary revisions, the whole study will be piloted before the beginning of the main study. Following item analysis, the finalized version will be administered for participant selection; the participants of this study will include 60 Iranian male intermediate EFL learners to be selected based on their performance on the piloted PET from a group of 90 students at Tehran Institute of Technology where the researcher teaches English.

The PET language proficiency test will be distributed among 90 participants to homogenize them. Those students whose scores  in proficiency  test are one standard deviation  above  the  mean  and  one  standard  deviation  below  the  mean  will be chosen for  the study. Eysenck’s psychological questionnaire will be administered to the homogenized participants in order to distinguish their personality traits (extrovert / introvert). Consequently they were divided into two groups "extrovert and introvert". The 60 learners will be randomly assigned to two groups each including 30 introvert and 30 extrovert participants. Those participants who answer yes to 2/3 questions out of the whole on the extroversion/introversion scale will be considered as introverts and the rest were grouped as extroverts. Then, the participants will take the writing test for assessing the extrovert and introvert groups writing ability. Procedure will be accomplished approximately in six weeks. After collecting the two tests and the two completed questionnaires (pre-test and post-test), the researcher will analyze the data.

The results of the independent sample t-test comparing the mean score of the control and experimental group on the writing pre-test might signify that the two groups are homogeneous with respect to their writing ability. It is hopefully expected that the analysis of data using an independent sample t-test can indicate significant differences between the performances of both groups. It is worth noting that, in order to control the teacher variable, both groups will be taught by one teacher.

The experiment will be conducted within six successive weeks with two 90-minute sessions in each. Each group will consist of two classes, each consisting of 15 participants since it is not ideal for the teacher to attend all thirty students’ tasks and activities in one class. After the first experimental class finished, the next 15 students will attend the second class. Totally there will be 12 sessions for each group.

Raters and the Rating Procedure. The  analytic  writing  scale,  which  will be  used  to  rate  participants  performance  on  the  both  writing  tests,  is  based  on  analytic  scoring  profile  by Jacobs,  Zingraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, and Hughey (1981, as cited in Weigle , 2002 , p.116). The students’ compositions on the pre-test and on the post-tests will all be scored by two raters; the researcher himself and a colleague, using the above-mentioned profile for ESL composition scoring. This  profile  is  a 100-point  scale  and  uses  five  sets  of  criteria  in  scoring  a  composition: content  criteria,  organization  criteria,  vocabulary  criteria,  language  use criteria  and mechanics  criteria. Each  set of  criteria  changes a  four  level subjective  judgment  scale  into  interval  scores. This profile is one of the most commonly used and dependable profiles for ESL composition rating since it has been developed in 1981. It considers all the different aspects of the composition and it is a successful scale based on both the holistic and analytical approaches for writing evaluation.

To reiterate, all the papers will be rated by two raters, the researcher himself and a colleague using ESL composition scoring profile by Jacobs et. al. (1981). There will be two scores for each learner at the writing pre-test. To establish the reliability of the scoring scale, the researcher will follow the inter-reliability of raters. A sample of 10 papers will be chosen randomly and will be scored by the two raters independently. The inter-raters' reliability will be computed using Cronbach Alpha Formula. The researcher hopes that there will be a high positive correlation between the ratings of the two scorers.  

As it was mentioned earlier, this study will work on two metacognitive strategies (planning and monitoring components). As a treatment, the researcher will carry out the teaching phase by integrating the two components into CALLA mode of teaching strategy:

Preparation. In the phase of preparation, the researcher will help students to identify what they know about the contents and strategies, what gaps in prior knowledge should be addressed. Elaboration, advance organization and selective attention will be most commonly taught and practiced in this stage. Then the teacher will offer metacognitive writing strategies to students and explain the importance of it and help them to set positive, practical, feasible goals.   

Presentation. In this phase, the metacognitive strategies in writing will be presented and explained to students in English which are supported by contextual clues. The researcher will hand out a list of the metacognitive strategies in writing including self-planning and self-monitoring. Then, the characteristics, usefulness, and applications of the strategy will explicitly be explained through examples. The key point is that the researcher should make sure that students comprehend the new strategies so that they can practice the strategies meaningfully in the next phase. Therefore, the teacher should explicitly explain how, when and where to apply these strategies in writing which help facilitate strategy transferring.   

The author will integrate metacognitive strategy teaching into each regular course and will have students practice by doing specific language tasks including vocabulary and reading. In each reading class, the author will not only instruct the students reading skills but also will give great importance to writing skills and will encourage them to employ the writing skills to their own writings. By integrating strategy use and instruction into regular language classes, learners can be provided with hand-on practice and reinforcement of strategy use (Cohen, 1998, p. 91) and thus can help learners become more efficient in their efforts to learn as well as can provide a meaningful way to focus one’s teaching efforts.

Practice. Students will be offered opportunity of practicing new strategies with authentic writing activities in this stage. They will be required to recall metacognitive writing strategies that were presented in the presentation stage; then students will begin to plan their writings according to self-planning strategy.   

Self-planning includes the following writing activities: students will examine and identify the topic, consider readers, gather information, brainstorm, make an outline and discuss the writing. During the writing process, students will be encouraged to employ self-monitoring strategy which helps them to assess their ongoing writing and take some sort of remedial action if they encounter difficulties.

Design

The design of the study will be experimental. The study will be a pre-test/post-test design. There is one independent variable in this study: metacognitive strategies (planning and monitoring). There is one dependent variable in this study, which is writing achievement. The moderator variable in this study deals with the introvert and extrovert personality types of English as a foreign language learners. This study will focus on the following question:

- Does teaching planning and monitoring metacognitive strategies have any effect on introvert and extrovert EFL learners' writing achievement?

Statistical Analysis

Having scored the PET exam, the mean and the standard deviation of participants’ scores are estimated to select a homogenized sample of participants whose scores fall one standard deviation above and below the mean. In addition, to control for the consistency of the ratings given by the two raters to the participants’ writing, inter-rater reliability will be calculated.

Pre-treatment and post-treatment student papers will be analyzed to determine whether teaching planning and monitoring metacognitive strategies has any effect on introvert and extrovert EFL learners' writing achievement.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

This essay was submitted to us by a student in order to help you with your studies.

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, . Available from:< https://www.essaysauce.com/essays/engineering/2016-7-17-1468737900.php > [Accessed 17.10.19].