An Investigation into the Relationship Between Metacognitive Knowledge and Writing Achievement of Turkish EFL Learners

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 1 - JLR, 49 - 64, 30.12.2023

Esra Çam

https://doi.org/10.51726/jlr.1374408

Öz

Writing poses a substantial yet demanding challenge for individuals learning English as a foreign language (EFL). In contemporary frameworks, this skill is characterized as a complex, recursive, strategic, and multifaceted process that engages both cognitive and metacognitive faculties. Consequently, recent decades have witnessed a burgeoning body of research spotlighting the pivotal role of metacognition in EFL writing. This study, employing an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach, set out to delve into the depth of metacognitive awareness among Turkish EFL students concerning English writing. The study encompassed a cohort of 120 Turkish EFL students at the B2 level. To gauge the participants' metacognitive understanding concerning the variables of person, task, and strategy, a questionnaire was administered. Additionally, interviews were conducted with 35 participants to augment and elucidate the quantitative findings. Analyzing the data disclosed that participants exhibited an average level of knowledge with respect to person and strategy dimensions, but they demonstrated a robust understanding of the task dimension. Further scrutiny through correlation analysis, which explored the link between students' writing achievement and their metacognitive awareness, revealed a weak positive relationship between students' writing proficiency and their comprehension of both person-related and strategy-related aspects. In contrast, there was no statistically significant correlation between task-related knowledge and writing achievement. Content analysis of the findings shed light on noteworthy disparities among high-achieving, average-achieving, and low-achieving EFL writers concerning their grasp of metacognitive knowledge. In alignment with their writing performance, high-achieving writers outperformed their counterparts in all the metacognitive subcategories.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Metacognition, metacognitive knowledge, EFL writing, person knowledge, task knowledge, strategy knowledge

Etik Beyan

The data and findings reported in the study were acquired as part of a master’s thesis entitled “The role of metacognitive knowledge and strategies in Turkish EFL learners’ writing achievement”, which was submitted to Uludağ University Institute of Educational Sciences in 2019. The author certifies that no ethical considerations were violated in this study and that the study conforms to the formal standards and ethics of research and publication.

Destekleyen Kurum

None.

Teşekkür

As the author of the study, I am grateful to the lecturers at Yalova University School of Foreign Languages for their help during the data collection procedure, and to the students who participated in this study, and helped my understanding of writing in many ways.

Kaynakça

• Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. ERIC Digest, EDO. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
• 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 UK.
• Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Blakey, E., & Spence, S. (1990). Developing metacognition. Eric Reproduction Services No. ED327218. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED327218.pdf
• 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). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Devine, J. (1993). The role of metacognition in second language reading and writing. In J. G. Carson, & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp.105-127). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
• Devine, J., Railey, K, & Boshoff, P. (1993). The implications of cognitive models in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 203-225.
• 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.
• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
• Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive development (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Flower, L. (1990). The role of task representation in reading to write. In L. Flower, V. Stein, J. Ackerman, & M. Kantz (Eds.), Reading to write: Exploring a cognitive and social process (pp. 35–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1980). The dynamics of composing: making plans and juggling constraints. In L. Gregg, & E. Sternberg (Eds.), Cognitive process in writing (pp.31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
• Göy, N. (2017). An action research on the development of self-regulated writing strategies of Turkish EFL students. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(2),191–204.
• 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 and London: Routledge.
• Harris, K. R., Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2010). Metacognition and strategies instruction in writing. In H. S. Waters, & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 226-256). New York: London: The Guilford Press.
• Hartman, H.J. (2001b). Teaching metacognitively. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (pp. 149-172). Boston: Kluwer Academic.
• Kasper, L.F. (1997). Assessing the metacognitive growth of ESL student writers. TESL-EJ, 3(1).
• Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding language classroom. U.K.: Prentice Hall.
• Öz, H. (2005). Metacognition in foreign/second language learning and teaching. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 29, 147-156.
• Öz, H. (2014). The relationship between metacognitive awareness and academic achievement among English as a foreign language teachers. In J. Huang & A. C. Fernandes (Eds.), Non-native language teaching and learning: Putting the puzzle together (pp. 139-167). New York, NY: Untested Ideas Research Center.
• Panahandeh E., & Esfandiari Asl S. (2014). The effect of planning and monitoring as metacognitive strategies on Iranian EFL learners' argumentative writing accuracy. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1409 – 1416.
• Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2003). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. (3rd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ruan, Z. (2005). A metacognitive perspective on the growth of self-regulated EFL student writers. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 175-202.
• Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.
• Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
• Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351- 371.
• Taber, K.S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s Alpha When developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
• Vandergrift, L. (2002). It is nice to see that our predictions were right: Developing metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 555-575.
• Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. M. (2011). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. Clifton, NJ: Routledge.
• Vann, R. J., & Abraham, R. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 177-198.
• Veenman, M. V. J. (2005). The assessment of metacognitive skills: What can be learned from multi method designs? In C. Artelt, & B. Moschner (Eds), Lernstrategien und Metakognition: Implikationen fu¨ r Forschung und Praxis (pp. 75–97). Berlin: Waxmann.
• Veenman, M. V. J., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction, 14, 89–109.
• Wenden, A. (1987). Metacognition: An expanded view on the cognitive abilities of L2 learners. Language learning, 37(4), 573-597.
• Wenden, A. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537.
• Wong, H., & Storey, P. (2006). Knowing and doing in the ESL writing class. Language Awareness, 15, 283-301.
• Xiao, Y. (2016). An exploratory investigation into the metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies of university EFL writers in China (Published doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York.
• You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. (2001). Investigating the metacognitive awareness and strategies of English-majored university student writers. The Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching, 106-119. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
• Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845-62.