Türkiye’de Yabancı Dil olarak İngilizce Öğrenenlerin Üst Bilişsel Yazma Stratejileri Kullanımları: Betimsel Bir Çalışma

Year 2024, , 240 - 249, 30.08.2024

Ümran Üstünbaş

https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.1364465

Abstract

Eğitimde 21. yüzyıl becerilerinin ön plana çıkmasıyla birlikte üst bilişsel farkındalık ve ikinci yabancı dil öğrenimi ve öğretiminde yer alan kavramlar arasındaki ilişki önem kazanmıştır. Bu bağlamda, üst bilişsel farkındalık kapsamında da yer alan ve genellikle üst düzey dil yetkinliğiyle ilişkilendirilen strateji kullanımı, dil öğrenmenin ve dil becerilerinin geliştirilmesinin çok yönlü olmasından dolayı ikinci dil edinimi araştırmalarında ilgi duyulan bir konu olmuştur. Bilişsel becerilerin kullanımını ve farkındalığını gerektiren söz konusu dil becerilerinden biri yazma becerisidir. Buna göre, bu makale, amacı yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenen Türk öğrencilerinin üst bilişsel yazma stratejileri kullanımlarını kavramın alt bileşenleri kapsamında araştırmak olan bir karma yöntem çalışmasını sunmaktadır. Açıklayıcı sıralı karma yöntem desenine uygun biçimde tasarlanan bu çalışmanın nicel verisi, Türkiye’de yabancı dil olarak İngilizce eğitimi almakta olan 110 üst düzey dil yetkinliğine sahip öğrenciden toplanmıştır ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla toplanan nitel veriyle desteklenmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları, katılımcıların üst bilişsel yazma stratejileri kullanım düzeylerinin yüksek olduğunu fakat bu düzeylerin kavramın alt bileşenleri kapsamında farklılık gösterdiğini ortaya koymuştur. Bu bulgulara dayanarak, bu makalede dil öğrenenlerin üst bilişsel farkındalık düzeylerini artırmaya yönelik birtakım önerilere yer verilmektedir.

Keywords

üst bilişsel farkındalık, ikinci yabancı dil yazma becerisi, strateji kullanımı, dil yetkinliği

EFL Learners’ Use of Metacognitive Writing Strategies in Türkiye: A Descriptive Study

Abstract

With a great emphasis on 21st century skills in education, the association between aspects involved in metacognitive awareness and second language learning and teaching has gained importance. To this end, strategy use, also part of metacognitive awareness and commonly associated with high level of language proficiency, has been an interest in second language learning research due to multi-faceted nature of learning a language and improving skills. One of those skills requiring use of cognitive skills and awareness is writing. Thus, this paper presents a mixed-methods study the aim of which is to examine Turkish English as a foreign language learners’ metacognitive writing strategy use in terms of its sub-dimensions. In line with explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, the quantitative data collected from 110 English as a foreign language learners with the upper-intermediate level of proficiency in a Turkish context were supported by the qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews. The findings indicated that the level of these learners’ metacognitive awareness about writing strategy use was high but differed with respect to sub-categories of metacognitive awareness. Based on the findings, the paper suggests several educational implications to promote metacognitive awareness of language learners.

Keywords

metacognitive awareness, L2 writing, strategy use, language proficiency

References

• Akin, A., Abaci, R., & Cetin, B. (2007). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the metacognitive awareness inventory. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(2), 671-678.
• Al-Jarrah, T. M., Mansor, N., Rashid, R. A., Bashir, I., & Al-Jarrah, J. M. (2018). EFL students’ attitude toward using metacognitive strategies in writing. English Language Teaching, 11(10), 162-171.
• Anderson, N. J. (2012). Metacognition: Awareness of language learning. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Insights from research, theory and practice (pp. 169-187). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D. F., McKim, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 25-38.
• Chen, A. H. (2022). The effects of writing strategy instruction on EFL learners’ writing development. English Language Teaching, 15(3), 29-37.
• Council of Europe (CEFR) (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Cross, J. (2010). Raising L2 listeners’ metacognitive awareness: A sociocultural theory perspective. Language Awareness, 19(4), 281-297.
• Cross, J., & Vandergrift, L. (2018). Metacognitive listening strategies. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1-5.
• De Silva, R., & Graham, S. (2015). The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students of different proficiency levels. System, 53, 47–59.
• Efklides, A. (2002). The systemic nature of metacognitive experiences. In P. Chambres, M. Izaute, & PJ. Marescaux, (Eds.), Metacognition (pp. 19-34). Boston: Springer.
• Efklides, A. (2008). Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist, 13, 277-287.
• Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 59–84.
• Fajrina, D., Everatt, J., & Sadeghi, A. (2021). Writing strategies used by Indonesian EFL students with different English proficiency. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 21, 1-15.
• Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
• Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Guobing, L. (2015). Investigating the English writing strategies used by Chinese senior high school students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(4), 844-850.
• Hacker, D. J., Keener, M. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2009). Writing is applied metacognition. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 154–172). New York: Routledge.
• Huang, Y., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Facilitating L2 writers’ metacognitive strategy use in argumentative writing using a process-genre approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1036831.
• Isaacson, R., & Fujita, F. (2006). Metacognitive knowledge monitoring and self-regulated learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 39-55.
• Iwai, Y. (2011). The effects of metacognitive reading strategies: Pedagogical implications for EFL/ESL teachers. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 150–159.
• Jaleel, S. & Premachandran, P. (2016). A study on the metacognitive awareness of secondary school students. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(1), 165-172.
• Jun Zhang, L. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268-288.
• Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390-403.
• Livingston, J. A. (2003). Metacognition: An overview. ERIC.
• Mitchell, K. M., McMillan, D. E., & Rabbani, R. (2019). An exploration of writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulatory behaviours in undergraduate writing. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1-25.
• Mutar, Q. M., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2017). The effect of gender and proficiency level on writing strategy use among Iraqi high school students. Arab World English Journal, 8(2), 171-182.
• Narang, D., & Saini, S. (2013). Metacognition and academic performance of rural adolescents. Studies on Home and Community Science, 7(3), 167-175.
• Negretti, R. (2012). Metacognition in student academic writing: A longitudinal study of metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation, and evaluation of performance. Written Communication, 29(2), 142-179.
• Oxford, R. I. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 41(4), 271–278.
• Papi, M. (2021). The role of motivational and affective factors in L2 writing performance and written corrective feedback processing and use. In R. M. Manchón, & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 152- 165). New York: Routledge.
• Park, S., & Yun, H. (2018). The influence of motivational regulation strategies on online students’ behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. American Journal of Distance Education, 32(1), 43- 56.
• Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219-225.
• Ramadhanti, D. & Yanda, P. (2021). Students’ metacognitive awareness and its impact on writing skill. International Journal of Language Education, 5(3), 193-206.
• Raoofi, S. & Maroofi, Y. (2017) Relationships among motivation (self-efficacy and task value), strategy use and performance in L2 writing. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 35(3), 299-310.
• Ridley, D. S., Schutz, P. A., Glanz, R. S., & Weinstein, C. E. (1992). Selfregulated learning: The interactive influence of metacognitive awareness and goal-setting. The Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 293-306.
• Ruan, Z. (2014) Metacognitive awareness of EFL student writers in a Chinese ELT context, Language Awareness, 23(1-2), 76-91.
• Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1), 113-125.
• Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460-475.
• Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431-449.
• Song, J. H., Loyal, S., & Lond, B. (2021). Metacognitive awareness scale, domain specific (MCAS-DS): Assessing metacognitive awareness during raven’s progressive matrices. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-14.
• Sungur, S., & Senler, B. (2009). An analysis of Turkish high school students’ metacognition and motivation. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(1), 45-62.
• Sun, T., & Wang, C. (2020). College students’ writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulated learning strategies in learning English as a foreign language. System, 90, 1-17.
• Sun, T., Wang, C., Lambert, R. G., & Liu, L. (2021). Relationship between second language English writing self-efficacy and achievement: A meta-regression analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing, 53, 1-14.
• Sun, Q., Pan, H., & Zhan, J. (2023). Untangling the relationship between English as a foreign language learners’ metacognitive experiences and writing proficiency: A mixed-methods approach. System, 117, 103100.
• Sun, Q., Zhang, L. J., & Carter, S. (2021). Investigating students’ metacognitive experiences: Insights from the English as a foreign language learners’ writing metacognitive experiences questionnaire (EFLLWMEQ). Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-15.
• Sun, Q., Zhang, L.J. (2023). Examining the effects of English as a foreign language student-writers’ metacognitive experiences on their writing performance. Current Psychology, 42, 23743–23758.
• Teng, F. (2020). The role of metacognitive knowledge and regulation in mediating university EFL learners’ writing performance. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14, 436–450.
• Teng, L. S., Sun, P. P., & Xu, L. (2018). Conceptualizing writing selfefficacy in English as a foreign language contexts: Scale validation through structural equation modeling. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 911-942.
• Teng, M. F., Qin, C., & Wang, C. (2022). 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.
• Teng, M. F., Wang, C., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Assessing self-regulatory writing strategies and their predictive effects on young EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessing Writing, 51, 100573.
• Teng, M.F., Yue, M. (2023). Metacognitive writing strategies, critical thinking skills, and academic writing performance: A structural equation modeling approach. Metacognition and Learning, 18, 237–260.
• Urban, M., Urban, K. & Nietfeld, J.L. (2023). The effect of a distributed metacognitive strategy intervention on reading comprehension. Metacognition and Learning 18, 405–424.
• Veenman, M. V., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 89- 109.
• Wei, J., Chen, J. C. & Adawu, A. (2014). Teaching ESL beginners metacognitive writing strategies through multimedia software. The CATESOL Journal, 26(1), 60-75.
• Young, A., & Fry, J. D. (2008). Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1-10.
• Zhang, L. J., & Qin, T. L. (2018). Validating a questionnaire on EFL writers’ metacognitive awareness of writing strategies in multimedia environments. In Å. Haukås, C. Bjørke & M. Dypedahl (Eds.), Metacognition in language learning and teaching (pp. 157- 178). New York: Routledge.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.