Languagehttp://ltr.sagepub.

com/ Teaching Research

Examining the effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on ESL group discussions: A synthesis of approaches
Wendy Y.K. Lam Language Teaching Research 2009 13: 129 DOI: 10.1177/1362168809103445 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/13/2/129

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Language Teaching Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/13/2/129.refs.html

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

Language Teaching Research 13,2 (2009); pp. 129150

Examining the effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on ESL group discussions: A synthesis of approaches
Wendy Y.K. Lam The Hong Kong Institute of Education

This article presents the findings of an intervention study designed to examine the effects of metacognitive strategy instruction (MCSI) on learners performance and on strategy use. Two classes in the secondary English oral classroom in Hong Kong participated in the study; one class received eight sessions of MCSI and the other served as a comparison group. In weeks 1, 10 and 20, data were collected from the learners performance in group-work discussions, from the self-report questionnaires, from the observations of learners strategy use, and from the stimulated recall interviews. The findings indicated that the treatment class generally outperformed the comparison class in the group discussion task. In addition, there was corroborating evidence from the multi-method approach to support the view that the learners tended to deploy problem identification as a global planning strategy to cope with an upcoming prioritization group discussion task. The findings are discussed with respect to awareness-raising value of the MCSI, the interaction effect between strategy instruction and research method, explicit and implicit learning, and a match of task type and strategy choice. Finally, the distinct advantages of using a multi-method approach to gauging the effects of MCSI are appraised. Keywords: metacognitive strategies, strategy instruction, second language planning, group work discussion, multi-method approach

I Introduction
This article reports on a study that aims to achieve two purposes. The first purpose is to assess the effects of metacognitive strategy instruction (MCSI) on task performance and on strategy use for oral language tasks in the English as a second language (ESL) classroom. The other purpose is to argue for a synthesis of approaches to investigating the impact of strategy instruction. This article begins by identifying and defining seven metacognitive strategies (MCSs) targeted for teaching in the present study and by providing rationale for more MCSI research. It is then followed by an overview of the research design of the present study. The multi-method approach to data collection and data analysis is delineated. Last, the findings are discussed
Address for correspondence: Wendy Y.K. Lam, English Department, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, Hong Kong; email: wlam@ied.edu.hk
The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalspermissions.nav 10.1177/1362168809103445

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

130

Metacognitive strategy instruction

together with pedagogical implications, limitations of the study as well as suggestions for further research.

II Metacognitive strategies (MCSs) targeted for teaching

According to OMalley and Chamot (1990), MCSs are higher order executive skills that may entail planning for, monitoring, or evaluating the success of a learning activity (p. 44). Recently, Rubin (2005) considers the ability to deploy MCSs and to access ones knowledge and beliefs to be inherent in the expert language learner, thereby reiterating the importance of MCSs in language learning and language use. The role of MCSs is to oversee the general learning process by enabling the learner to think ahead of the goal and demand of the learning task, to plan for some action to tackle the task, and to assess how well one has done the task. As such, Littles (1996) postulation of task planning comprising both the prospective and retrospective aspects is an adept description of the role of MCSs. The prospective aspect determines the linguistic and other requirements of the activity in question (Little, 1996, p. 31) and the retrospective aspect is concerned with establishing how successfully the activity has been performed (Little, 1996, p. 31). On the basis of this, it is argued that MCSs that might enable the second language (L2) speaker to do intentional planning before and after an oral task are likely to facilitate students in accomplishing the task, thereby enhancing task performance. (For a detailed account of the relationship between different kinds of pre-task/within-task planning and task performance, see Ellis, 2005.) Regarding prospective planning, this study proposes three MCSs that might be beneficial to task completion and performance for L2 oral communication: problem identification, planning content and planning language. Problem identification aims to facilitate the global planning of an L2 oral communication task by enabling the learner to assess, first and foremost, the purpose and expected outcome of the task (Wenden, 1995). Next, the learners try out planning content and planning language to prepare respectively for ideas and language needed for the task. Ellis (2005) regards planning for content and planning for language as strategic planning believed to be beneficial to task performance. Hence, it is proposed that the learners in the present investigation be taught to deploy the aforementioned three strategies for prospective planning prior to an upcoming L2 oral task or ones turn to speak. Regarding retrospective planning, evaluation is targeted for teaching as it may promote reflection after the L2 task is completed or ones turn to speak during the task (Rubin, 2005). Retroactive planning aims to help the learners perform better on similar tasks in future. This study adopts Macaros (2006) strategy framework, which subsumes social strategies and affective strategies (recognized as different categories

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

Wendy Y.K. Lam

131

by OMalley and Chamot, 1990) under MCSs because social strategies are clusters of cognitive and metacognitive strategies that lead to Strategic Plans (Macaro, 2006, p. 328) while affective strategies require the knowledge of oneself as a learner through recurrent monitoring of ones learning (Macaro, 2006, p. 328). (For a detailed discussion of the rationale for the classification, see Macaro, 2006.) Three social-affective strategies classified as MCSs are selected for instruction in this study: asking for help, giving help and positive self-talk. The first two are social strategies that may benefit task performance if students are encouraged to cooperate with peers, to help each other with linguistic aspects of the task, and to offer scaffolded help (Lam and Wong, 2000). The third one is an affective strategy that may help students maintain a favourable affective state. The three strategies taken together may be effective in enabling the L2 speaker to develop a social or psychological environment conducive to the successful completion of a task, thereby enhancing task performance. To sum up, it is argued that the seven MCSs (problem identification, planning content, planning language, evaluation, asking for help, giving help and positive self-talk) targeted for teaching in this study may help the L2 speakers to develop an executive ability to plan for task performance, to enhance task knowledge, to manage a task and to develop their competence.

III Metacognitive strategy instruction (MCSI) research

Despite the importance of MCSs to language learning and language use (Cohen, 1998; Macaro, 2006), the number of MCSI studies pertaining to the speaking skill in the ESL context remains small. Reactions to strategy instruction have, in fact, been mixed and conclusive findings about the value of strategy instruction are yet to be established (e.g. Chamot, 2001; Chamot and Rubin, 1994; Cohen, 1998; Hassan et al., 2005; Nunan, 1997; Rees-Miller, 1993). We now visit the few MCSI studies to support the rationale for more research in the ESL oral classroom. The primary aim of the first experimental study reported in OMalley et al.s (1985) was to determine whether metacognitive, cognitive and social/ affective strategies could be taught successfully in an ESL classroom context. Seventy-five high-school ESL students were involved and the treatment group received the strategy instruction for two weeks. Significant differences in oral proficiency favouring the treatment group were found for the transactional speaking task, in which students had to prepare a brief oral report and to present to a small group of classmates. In general, the results indicated the usefulness of metacognitive instruction that aimed at raising students awareness of strategies to help them deliver meaningful messages. The effect of social/affective strategies was, however, a lot less clear.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

132

Metacognitive strategy instruction

Based on the transactional speaking component of the OMalley et al.s (1985) studies, Varela (as cited in Breen, 2001, p. 38) investigates the effects of using metacognitive strategies, i.e. graphic organizers, selective attention, self-assessment and self-talk on oral reporting in a middle school ESL-science classroom. After two weeks of instruction, students in the strategies group not only reported using significantly more strategies than the control group students, but the video-taped performance of their oral reports showed significant improvement over their performance prior to the strategy instruction. The finding has thus cast light on both learner uptake of strategies and task performance. Nakatani (2005) focuses on metacognitive awareness-raising instruction on oral communication strategy use. In the experiment, 62 Japanese female learners of English were involved. Over 12 weeks, the treatment group received metacognitive strategy instruction whereas the comparison group received only the normal communication course. The effects of instruction were assessed by speaking test scores, transcription data from the tests, and retrospective protocol data for their task performance. The findings revealed that participants in the treatment group improved their oral proficiency test scores but those in the control group did not. There have been even fewer empirical studies on the effects of affective strategies. Cohen (1998) investigated the effects of a range of speaking strategies on three tasks performed by university foreign language students: a self-description, a story retelling and a description of a favourite city. Quite a number of the strategies considered by teachers and students in the three experimental classes to be useful for the oral tasks were affective: deepbreathing, positive self-talk, visualization exercises, relaxation techniques, taking ones emotional temperature, self-rewards, persistence and risk-taking. Superior results in overall speaking performance shown by the experimental group on the city description task were attributed to the use of strategies, some of which were affective. The effect of the affective strategy component alone, however, could not be separated out. Rossiter (2003) presents the findings of an intervention designed to examine the effects of affective strategy instruction on measures of second language proficiency and of self-efficacy. The participants in this study were 31 adult intermediate-level ESL learners registered in a full-time ESL program in a post-secondary institution in Canada. Two classes participated in this study: one received 12 hours of affective strategy instruction, and the second served as a comparison group. The data from the self-report questionnaires and from the transcripts of the audio-tapes were used to analyse students perceptions of self-efficacy and their second language performance. The results of this study show that instruction in affective strategies provided no significant between-group benefit for L2 performance or perceptions of self-efficacy measured in a narrative task or in an object description task.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

Wendy Y.K. Lam

133

The necessarily brief review of studies has indicated the paucity of work on investigating the impact of MCSI on task performance and strategy use in the ESL classroom that has a focus on interactive, oral skills. This provides a good justification for more studies in the area. An apparent lack of consistent findings across studies conducted in different contexts, resulting in the continuing uncertainty about the effectiveness of strategy instruction on strategy use and task performance provides a further general rationale. As Hassan et al. (2005) summarize, for speaking ability, instructing learners to use certain strategies appears successful but the evidence is not compelling (small number of studies, varied relevance, varied reliability) (p.3). Last but not least, most of the studies reviewed did not adopt a multi-method approach to investigating the effects of strategy instruction on learners strategy use. It has been argued that a synthesis of approaches to investigating the impact of strategy instruction may offer a more comprehensive and fuller picture of learners strategy use (Lam, 2006; Wigglesworth, 2005). Hence, the fact that previous studies have tended to be relatively uni-dimensional in research approach provides yet one more good justification for a multi-dimensional study.

IV Design of the study

As explained above, seven MCSs were selected for instruction in the present study. The following two research questions formed the basis of the present investigation: 1) Does instruction in the use of the target strategies lead to improved performance (English proficiency and task effectiveness) in L2 oral tasks? 2) Does instruction in the use of the target strategies lead to greater use of these strategies in L2 oral tasks? An intervention study was conducted in Hong Kong; two intact classes of Secondary Two ESL students (20 in each) who were between 1314 years old and had six years of English at primary level and one year at secondary level were involved. The mean scores of the two classes in a three-part standardized English examination were 61.13 and 60.80, and the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that the scores showed no statistically significant differences (ANOVA, p = .1593). The two classes were randomly assigned to the comparison class (C) and treatment class (E). The teaching materials of both the C and E classes were designed by the researcher, field-tested and revised in the light of the feedback from the teachers and students in a pilot study (Lam, 2004). Group discussion was selected as the major task type in the study in the light of the findings from Foster and Skehan (1999), which indicate that group-based, pre-task planning does not enhance task performance if it is unstructured. Foster and Skehan (1999) argue that unguided group planning mitigates against effective task

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

134

Metacognitive strategy instruction

planning, and it will be interesting to explore, in future research, whether instruction for such planning may produce different results (p. 239). Group work oral tasks were, therefore, chosen to see whether instruction in planning would result in improved task performance. During the oral lessons, all the 20 students in each class were asked to work in five groups of four. Each group was engaged in a variety of discussions involving problem-solving, ranking, information gaps and opinion-sharing. The intervention study involved a total of eight oral lessons spread over five months (i.e. week 1 to week 20) for each of the two classes. Each lesson lasted for 80 minutes. The two classes did very similar activities in the English oral lessons. Nonetheless, the E class received additional instruction in the use of the seven target strategies whereas the C class did not. In lesson 1, students had to map a list of things on an island. To help students understand how to use problem identification strategically in order to successfully complete the task, the E class was taught how to analyse the purpose and demands of the task. In lesson 2, students had to prioritize items to be taken on a camping trip on the island. To help students think of as many ideas as possible, the E class was taught to do strategic planning content by using mind mapping. In lesson 3, the students were given a list of outdoor activities and had to describe each activity for a minute. To help students conduct strategic planning language to enhance performance, the E class was taught to plan for the vocabulary, pronunciation and structures that may be needed for the description. In lesson 4, the students had to offer advice on how to keep fit. To help the learners to understand how to improve in future tasks, the E class was taught how to strategically think back to do evaluation in identifying their strengths and weaknesses in their performances. In lessons 5 and 6, to overcome problems with language and/or ideas, the E class was taught how to ask for help and give help as appropriate. In lesson 7, the students took turns to give information about food items so that the group could fill out a table. To better cope with the task, the E class was asked to try positive self-talk by thinking positively about their performance. In lesson 8, the students were asked to rank important attributes of friendship. The E class was asked to freely use whatever strategies they had learnt hitherto to do the task as a means of consolidating strategy use. The instructional approach adopted for the E class was explicit strategy instruction (Anderson, 2005). Students were informed of the rationale and the value of strategy instruction, given names and examples of the seven target strategies to model on, and provided with opportunities to use and consolidate the target strategies. As for the C class, the teacher conducted the group tasks based on her knowledge and skills and experience with no reference whatsoever to strategy use. The teachers of both classes possessed a bachelors degree in English language and literature, had qualified teacher status and had taught in the

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

Wendy Y.K. Lam

135

school for about seven years. In the E class, the teacher had also been involved in the piloting of the present study and was thoroughly inducted into strategies-based instruction prior to the intervention. During the study, the researcher maintained close contacts with both teachers, making sure that they understood the lesson objectives, teaching materials and suggested procedures. In addition, for the E class, it was ensured that the thinking and rationale behind the design of the strategy materials were made transparent to the teacher.

V Data collection
As mentioned above, a multi-method approach to assessing the effects of MCSI was advocated (Lam, 2006). It is a research tradition to assess the effects of treatment by measuring the learning outcome. Hence, the first approach adopted by the present study was to rate students performances on group work discussions. Yet, there might be changes not amenable to observable changes in performance. In view of this, three other methods were used to probe strategy use to see whether it was altered by the MCSI. A questionnaire was designed to assess students perceptions of their own strategy use over the intervention period. While the questionnaire data were useful in yielding information about students beliefs and perceptions, they did not necessarily provide evidence about students actual strategic behaviours when engaging in specific tasks. It was then necessary to study observed strategy use when students were engaged in a task. However, surface evidence from observations did not yield insights into covert strategic thinking. Hence, stimulated recall as an introspective method employed to elicit data about thought processes involved in carrying-out a task or activity (Gass and Mackey, 2000) was needed to gauge students covert strategy use by tapping their underlying thought processes. The following section presents a synopsis of each of the research methods.

1 Task rating
To gauge whether the MCSI would lead to improved task performance, a whole-class group discussion task was conducted during normal class hours. Students were asked to carry out the task in groups of four and there were five groups in each of the C and the E classes. An audio-tape recorder was placed in each group. The performances of all the groups in the C and E classes in the task were collected in week 1 and week 20. Apart from the whole-class task, there was a pull-out group task designed for two randomly selected groups in each of the C and the E classes to do outside normal class hours. A total of 20 recordings of the whole-class task and eight recordings of the pull-out group task were collected in week 1 and week 20 for analysis. Each recording lasted about 10 minutes.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

136

Metacognitive strategy instruction

Both the whole-class task and the pull-out group task required the students to prioritize items and to give reasons; both tasks were of comparable level of interest and had been piloted to ensure that they were able to generate good interaction. (For an example, see Appendix 1.) Regarding task complexity, the piloting indicated that students found the two tasks similar in terms of their cognitive demands, confirming that the two tasks were comparable in their complexity level.

2 Strategy questionnaire
To find out whether the MCSI would alter the students self-perceived frequency of use of the target strategies, a strategy questionnaire was administered in week 1 and in week 20 to all students (i.e. 20 in each class). A sixpoint Likert-scale response ranging between 1 = very low and 6 = very high was used to gauge frequency. There were seven questions on the target strategies, with each question focusing on one strategy. In order to guard against the compliance effect in questionnaire surveys, seven questions on non-target strategies that were not taught to students in the strategy instruction were also included in the questionnaires.

3 Observation
In addition to the strategy questionnaire, observation was used. It aimed to study whether the MCSI altered observable strategic behaviour in terms of frequency. To ensure that the membership of the groups was consistent across times, the same English group work discussion involving only the two pullout groups (a total of eight students) in each class was used for qualitative analysis of observed strategy use in weeks 1, 10 and 20. Prior to the group task proper, each group was given five minutes to conduct first language (L1) pre-discussion planning. The recorded planning phase was particularly designed to generate data for deployment of the target strategies (if any) by the learners to facilitate the conduct of the upcoming English discussion task. The dataset therefore consisted of 12 recordings. Each recording consisted of five minutes of pre-discussion planning talk in L1 and 10 minutes of group discussion in English. A total of 12 recordings of L1 planning talk (translated into English) and English discussions were analysed.

4 Stimulated recall
To go beneath the surface evidence of strategic behaviour, stimulated recall interviews (SRIs) were used to investigate whether the MCSI altered students strategic thoughts in terms of frequency. Immediately after the pullout groups finished the English group discussion in weeks 1, 10 and 20, each of the four students in every group was individually interviewed in their

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

Wendy Y.K. Lam

137

L1 by the researcher. All the SRIs were audio-taped; each interview lasted about 25 minutes, including the play-back time. The dataset consisted of 48 recordings of SRIs, which were translated into English, transcribed and analysed.

VI Data analysis 1 Task rating

Four English-language teachers (one native speaker and three near native speakers) were asked to independently assess each groups English proficiency and task effectiveness in week 1 and week 20. When rating English proficiency, the raters were asked to give a single impressionistic rating roughly reflecting the groups performance in three aspects, i.e. pronunciation, content vocabulary, and grammar. When rating task effectiveness, the raters gave one impressionistic rating reflecting the groups general ability to handle the task in terms of three areas, i.e. confidence when handling the task, cooperation / mutual help in conducting the task, and general effectiveness in fulfilling the requirements of the task. The rating was done on a six-point scale for both English proficiency and task effectiveness (i.e. 1 = very weak; 2 = weak; 3 = ok; 4 = quite good; 5 = good; 6 = very good). The inter-rater reliability coefficients were .7870 for English proficiency and .8694 for task effectiveness. The KruskalWallis test (non-parametric) for small samples was conducted on the rankings of the four raters to determine if teacher had any main effect on the ratings. The results confirmed that there was no teacher effect on the ratings (p = .1566 for English proficiency and p = .9412 for task Effectiveness). So the average score of the four assessors was the rating assigned to each group.

2 Strategy questionnaire
Cross tabulations (CROSSTABS) were used to analyse each strategy question. CROSSTABS compares the ratings given by individual students to each strategy on a prepost basis (i.e. week 1 and week 20). The numbers of students who gave higher/lower ratings to each strategy question on a prepost basis were counted. The overall difference between the C and the E classes (expressed as a percentage) was the effect size which indicated the extent to which the MCSI might be associated with increases or decreases in self-perceived use of individual strategies. The effect size was calculated by summing up the differences between C and E (as a percentage) in the proportion of increased post scores and in the proportion of decreased post scores. These effect sizes were then subjected to the nonparametric Fisher Exact Test for small samples to see whether they were statistically significant.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

138

Metacognitive strategy instruction

3 Observation
A speakers turn in the transcript was identified as the unit of analysis. As observed strategy use was the focus of this part of the study, every turn was segmented into units in which each indication of the use of a target strategy type was categorized and coded. (Non-target strategies were also identified but not included for discussion in this article.) Two independent raters, using the software NUD*IST (QSR, 1997), identified and coded strategies in the 12 transcripts. The inter-rater reliability coefficient was .9388. Frequency counts of the observed use of individual strategies and the whole sample of strategies by each group (four students) were conducted to gauge the effects of the MCSI. To standardize comparisons, the counting of strategy use for every 10 turns (T) produced by each group was used as the standardized measure.

4 Stimulated recall
During the SRI, a video-tape of the pre-discussion group planning in L1 and discussion task in English was played back to the student. He/she was asked to pause the tape when he/she remembered what he/she had been thinking about when the task was in action (Gass and Mackey, 2000, p. 118). Every time the video was stopped and the students did the reporting constituted an episode. An episode comprised the video play-back of a related clip, the prompt (if any) by the researcher and the prompted or unprompted reporting of a student. The RECALL (segment) was the reporting of the student and identified as the unit for analysis (Green, 1998). The RECALL in each episode was segmented into unit(s) in which each mention of a strategy type was categorized and coded (Gass and Mackey, 2000). Two coders were asked to independently identify and code target strategies, non-target strategies and non-strategies in all the 48 SRIs. The inter-rater reliability coefficient was .8816. Target strategies, non-target strategies and non-strategies constituted 100% of all the coded segments. The proportional frequency of each target strategy (expressed as a percentage) was the frequency of the target strategy in relation to the total number of coded segments. (Non-target strategies and non-strategies were identified but not included for discussion in this article.).

VII Findings 1 Task ratings

Research question 1: Does instruction in the use of the target strategies lead to improved performance (English proficiency and task effectiveness) in L2 oral tasks? Table 1 sets out the ratings on English proficiency and

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

Wendy Y.K. Lam

Table 1 Ratings on group discussion tasks Week 1 Mean English proficiency ratings: Whole class task: C class Whole class task: E class Pull-out group task: C class Pull-out group task: E class Task effectiveness ratings: Whole class task: C class Whole class task: E class Pull-out group task: C class Pull-out group task: E class SD Week 20 Mean SD

139

Pre-post Difference (mean)

3.20 2.85 2.63 3.00 2.95 2.83 2.75 2.68

0.89 0.67 0.92 0.76 1.23 0.72 0.71 1.16

3.15 3.45 2.63 3.75 3.40 3.98 2.38 4.06

0.75 0.69 1.06 0.89 0.68 0.97 0.74 0.74

0.05 +0.60* 0.00 +0.75* +0.45 +1.15* 0.37 +1.38*

Notes: 1 = lowest; 6 = highest; * denotes a higher pre-post gain than that of the C class

task effectiveness. For the whole-class task, each cell represents the mean ratings of all the five groups in each class. For the pull-out group task, each cell represents the mean ratings of two groups in each class. The difference between the prepost means is preceded by a positive sign (+) if there is a gain in the post-mean and by a negative sign () if there is a loss. A clear picture emerged from a comparison of the prepost difference for each class. For the C class, there were four comparisons of prepost difference in total, only one of which was an improvement (i.e. +0.45). On the other hand, for the E class, there were improvements on all the four comparisons (i.e. +0.60, +0.75, +1.15, +1.38). These gains were higher than their corresponding values in the C class. Moreover, for the E class, both Task effectiveness ratings (i.e. +1.15, +1.38) were higher than both English proficiency ratings (i.e. +0.60, +0.75). In answering the first research question, these findings seemed to indicate that the E class which had received instruction in the use of seven target strategies generally outperformed the C class, suggesting that the strategy instruction might be associated with greater improvements in both English and task effectiveness scores, and with gains on the task effectiveness scores even higher than those on the English scores.

2 Self-perceived strategy use

Research question 2: Does instruction in the use of the target strategies lead to greater use of these strategies in L2 oral tasks? The impact of the MCSI on the E class as compared with the C class on students self-perceived strategy use

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

140

Metacognitive strategy instruction

Table 2 Relative effects of the MCSI on the E class as compared with the C class on self-perceived strategy use Name of strategy Asking for help (T) Problem identification (T) Encouraging others to use available resources for help (NT) Giving help (T) Letting others speak more to reduce pressure (NT) Planning content (T) Accepting performance outcome (NT) Relying on oneself for help (NT) Thinking about the conduct of the task (NT) Evaluation (T) Planning language (T) Taking risks with language (NT) Taking risks with content (NT) Positive self-talk (T) Note: * denotes that the effect size is significant at .05 level Effect size (%) +76* (p = .0017) +50* (p = .0041) +26 +21 +21 +20 +20 +14 +13 +10 +5 +4 0 2

was assessed in terms of effect size. The values of the effect size (expressed as percentages) are presented in decreasing order of magnitude in Table 2. The findings in Table 2 indicate that there were overall gains in effect size in favour of E over C in six out of seven target strategies (T). Moreover, asking for help and problem identification had a statistically significant gain of +76% (p = .0017) and +50% (p = .0041) respectively. As for nontarget strategies (NT), there were gains in effect size in favour of E over C in six out of the seven non-target strategies. However, none of these were statistically significant. The aforementioned findings show that the strategy instruction appeared to be associated with statistically significant increases in the self-perceived use of asking for help and problem identification.

3 Observed strategy use

Table 3 presents descriptive statistics to compare Cs and Es standardized frequencies (per 10 turns) of observed strategy use across weeks 1, 10 and 20. Each cell represents the combined frequencies of the two pull-out groups in each class. T represents the total number of turns produced by two groups of students and N represents the raw frequency counts of all the seven target strategies. Table 3 indicates that there was a clearly upward trend in the use of problem identification by the E groups (0.5, 1.3, 2.3) in weeks 1, 10 and 20 respectively. Considering that the majority of the values were below 1.0, the rise from 0.5 in week 1 to 2.3 in week 20 was dramatic. In contrast, the C groups did not show such a consistent upward trend. It should be noted that

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

Wendy Y.K. Lam

141

Table 3 Standardized frequencies (per 10 turns) of the observed use of individual and the whole sample of target strategies Strategy C Class E Class

Week 1 Week 10 Week 20 Week 1 Week 10 Week 20 (T = 148; (T = 214; (T = 197; (T = 201; (T = 164; (T = 158; n = 73) n = 92) n = 100) n = 70) n = 84) n = 54) 1) Problem identification 2) Planning content 3) Planning language 4) Evaluation 5) Asking for help 6) Giving help 7) Positive self-talk Aggregated frequency of use Aggregated type of use 0.8 3.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 4.9 5.0 0.2 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 4.3 4.0 0.1 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 5.1 4.0 0.5 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 3.5 5.0 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.1 5.1 7.0 2.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 3.4 6.0

regarding the aggregated frequencies of the whole sample of target strategies, there was not any clear pattern of increase for the E groups (i.e. 3.5, 5.1, 3.4) as compared with the C groups (4.9, 4.3, 5.1). These findings seem to lend some evidence that the MCSI might be related to a clear and strong upward trend in the students uptake of problem identification. Nonetheless, the effect was not apparent with the whole sample of target strategies. In addition, there was a slight reduction in the number of types of strategies used by the C class (i.e. 5, 4, 4). There was a high use of planning content by the C class, which accounted for a large proportion of their strategy use. In contrast, there was a general increase in the variety of strategy use by the E class (i.e. 5, 7, 6) across weeks 1, 10 and 20. This appears to support the view that strategy instruction might have raised students awareness of the necessity to explore a range of strategies instead of focusing on a small number.

4 Reported strategy use

Results of the target strategies are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Each cell represents the combined frequencies of the two pull-out groups, i.e. eight students in each class. The frequency counts were fairly representative in that the results were mostly from five to six students; two to three students were rather reticent to speak. The figures in Table 4 (raw frequency) and Table 5 (proportional frequency) support the view that, for the E class, there was a rather consistent and strong tendency to report more of problem identification i.e. 2 (3%), 7 (8%), 12 (23%) over time as compared with the C class but there was no

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

142

Metacognitive strategy instruction

Table 4 Raw frequency counts (n) of the reported use of individual and the whole sample of target strategies in SRIs Strategy Week 1 1) Problem identification 2) Planning content 3) Planning language 4) Evaluation 5) Asking for help 6) Giving help 7) Positive self-talk Aggregated frequency of use Total number of recall segments 2 4 2 0 2 2 0 12 54 C Class E Class

Week 10 Week 20 Week 1 Week 10 Week 20 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 8 56 0 10 6 0 0 0 0 16 48 2 1 5 0 3 1 0 12 77 7 3 7 9 6 1 2 35 89 12 1 1 2 0 1 1 18 51

Table 5 Proportional frequencies (%) of the reported use of individual and the whole sample of target strategies in SRIs Strategy C Class E Class

Week 1 Week 10 Week 20 Week 1 Week 10 Week 20 1) Problem identification 2) Planning content 3) Planning language 4) Evaluation 5) Asking for help 6) Giving help 7) Positive self-talk Aggregated proportional frequency of use 4 7 4 0 4 3 0 22 0 7 0 4 0 3 0 14 0 21 12 0 0 0 0 33 3 1 7 0 4 1 0 16 8 3 8 10 7 1 2 39 23 2 2 4 0 2 2 35

evidence of such a strong and sustained trend for the reporting of other target strategies. The MCSI might, therefore, appear to be related to a noticeable impact on the reporting of problem identification only. However, it should also be noted that the E class displayed a rather consistent and substantial increase in the aggregated frequency of reported use of the target strategies in weeks 1, 10 and 20 i.e. 12 (16%), 35 (39%), 18 (35%) despite a slight drop in proportional frequency in week 20. In comparison, the C group appeared to change its focus from time to time with no predictable patterns, i.e. 12 (22%), 8 (14%), 16 (33%). The finding, therefore, seems to suggest that the MCSI might also have an impact on the overall reported use of the whole sample of target strategies of the E class over time.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

Wendy Y.K. Lam

143

Addressing the second research question from the multi-method approach, the results showed that strategy instruction appeared to be associated with: the statistically significant increase in the self-perceived use of asking for help and problem identification in the strategy questionnaire; a clear and strong upward trend in the students uptake of problem identification in observed strategy use; and the overall increase in reported use of the whole sample of target strategies and of problem identification in the stimulated recall interview.

VII Discussion
Let us recapitulate the findings from the multi-method approach to the two research questions. Regarding task performance, the MCSI might be associated with improvements in both English proficiency scores and task effectiveness scores and with higher gains in the latter scores than the former. As for strategy use, there was evidence that the MCSI appeared to have an impact on the self-perceived use and reported use though not the observed use of the whole sample of target strategies. Moreover, the MCSI might be related to the learner uptake and reporting of problem identification. Regarding the effects of the MCSI on task performance, the study has provided some evidence to support the value of MCSI. Moreover, there was evidence to indicate that the treatment class made greater improvements in task effectiveness than English. This could be explained by the MCSI that aimed to help the learners develop a strategic ability to plan for and handle a task. This would seem to support a case for guided group-based planning proposed by Foster and Skehan (1999) and for enhancing the benefits of planning for task performance (Ellis, 2005). In addition, this study complements positive findings in Cohens (1998), OMalley et al.s (1985), and Varelas (as cited in Breen, 2001) studies in that previous research used non-participatory, oral reporting tasks, whereas the present study employed participatory group discussion tasks. Regarding the effects of the MCSI on the whole sample of target strategies, the findings appear to be connected with an increasing reporting of strategy use in the SRIs over time. These findings indicate that the explicit focusing of strategies in the MCSI may have a pervasive impact on students strategic awareness or noticing of strategies (Schmidt, 1990), thereby enabling students to identify and report the use of strategies in the interviews. This is consistent with findings in recent studies about the value of raising L2 learners strategic awareness in conducting oral communication tasks (Nakatani, 2005). The correlation between the MCSI and the reporting could also have been the result of interaction between the teaching and the research instrument, i.e. stimulated recall. The instruction might have brought out the latent effect caused by the repetition of SRIs in weeks 10 and 20. By repeating the

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

144

Metacognitive strategy instruction

interviews over time, students in general could have become better able to reflect on strategy use. That is, repeated participations in SRIs could have a latent effect on what students were reporting. In short, it is plausible that the latent effect from repeated SRIs is only effective when it is coupled with the teaching (M. Bygate, personal communication, May 13, 2003). To sum up, the repeated SRI condition might have amplified the teaching effect, thus reinforcing the effects of strategy instruction. All in all, it is possible that the resultant effect is not caused by the MCSI or the SRIs alone but by an interaction between focused teaching and the research instrument. The findings have also indicated that while the MCSI was associated with consistent increases in reported strategy use, it did not bring about corresponding increases in the observed use of the target strategies over time. In other words, the MCSI might have brought about explicit knowledge of strategy use, which is not yet observable in performance data. It could be argued that the MCSI appears to have a positive impact on students declarative knowledge about strategy use or explicit learning (DeKeyser, 2003); the MCSI is yet to have a strong effect on the speakers procedural knowledge of how to implement strategy use. It is through repeated practice that declarative knowledge of strategy use may be automatized to become observable, procedural knowledge of strategy use. This argument is in line with Johnsons process of proceduralizing declarative knowledge through practice (Johnson, 1994, p. 125). Hence, while the instruction effect may not yet be observable, the value of strategy instruction may lie in explicit learning, which may be the first step to proceduralization on the learning continuum (DeKeyser, 2003). Overall, the effects of the MCSI on learning manifest in ways that may or may not be observable. As for the effects of the MCSI on the use of individual target strategies, there is corroborating evidence from the synthesis of approaches using questionnaire, observation and stimulated recall to support the conclusion that the MCSI might be correlated to the consistent increases in the selfperceived use (questionnaire), in the observed use (observation) and in the reported use (stimulated recall) of one target strategy, i.e. problem identification. This global planning strategy enables the learners to find out prior to the discussion task the purpose and requirements of the task. The finding is consistent with the hypothesis that the learner needs to develop executive control over the task by acquiring some kind of task knowledge encompassing task purpose and task demand (Wenden, 1995). According to Flavell (1979), to develop executive control over a learning task, the learner needs not only task knowledge, but also understandings of the nature and role of strategies that might be conducive to effective achievement of learning goals leading to successful task completion. The finding about problem identification may suggest that metacognitive strategies for handling speaking tasks that have high learner uptake are likely to be those

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

Wendy Y.K. Lam

145

that facilitate students understanding of the task purpose and requirements. One proviso should, however, be noted. Not all strategies are equal and some are more beneficial to others depending on task type (Oxford et al., 2004). That is, the type of oral task chosen (i.e. prioritization) could have favoured the use of problem identification, rendering it more amenable to use particularly when the learners are provided with time and space to do so during the pre-task planning phase. Regarding the research methodology in strategy instruction studies, I wish to argue that a synthesis of approaches helps complement the strengths and weaknesses inherent in every research method. Learners performances in group-work discussions reflect the effects of strategy instruction on task performance, but they do not give information about strategy use. Whereas questionnaire findings do provide such information, they do not necessarily reflect actual behaviours. While observations do reflect behavioural learning outcomes, they cannot tap learners (strategic) thought processes the way the stimulated recall methodology does. As learning may or may not be observable, it is desirable to employ research instruments that can gauge both observable and unobservable changes in order to get a full picture of the impact of strategy intervention (Lam, 2006; Wigglesworth, 2005). As each method makes a distinct contribution to our understanding of the impact of MCSI, findings from the multi-method approach provide us with information about: changes in ratings of students task performance (via recording data); changes in underlying self-perceptions (via questionnaire data); changes in observable strategy use (via observational data); and changes in underlying strategic thinking (via stimulated recall data).

These findings from the multi-method approach are consistent with those from previous strategy research in that the impact of strategy instruction may show up in different measures (Dansereau, 1985).

VIII Pedagogical implications

Given that strategy instruction seems to have an impact on the desirable noticing (Schmidt, 1990) of strategy use in terms of awareness-raising, it may be worth implementing MCSI to help L2 speakers to cope with ESL oral tasks, thereby providing a means to help students improve in language and facilitate task completion. It may also be desirable to incorporate planning time and space into strategy instruction with a view to promoting the effective use of MCSs in the language classroom. The provision of time and space for students to practise MCSs prior to the English discussions may enhance performance in the task proper. As for MCSI, it may be useful to match

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

146

Metacognitive strategy instruction

strategy use with task types (e.g. individual presentations, pair discussions, group discussions).

IX Limitations of the study

Regarding the research design, while the use of intact groups was desirable (Brown and Perry, 1991) and the English standards of the two classes were controlled for, the two classes were probably different in terms of cognitive styles, initial strategy use, personality, motivation, etc. In addition, in order to expose students to a spectrum of strategies and to comply with the time constraints of the school, only one session could be allocated to the teaching and learning of each strategy. So while the conscious effort on the part of the teacher to help students consolidate previously-learnt strategies could raise students general strategic awareness, this was probably not adequate to bring about their sustained use because of limited practice time given to individual strategies. Regarding data collection and analysis, the small sample size did not permit the use of inferential statistics, providing no information on statistical significance about gain scores and increase in strategy use. In addition, the coding of strategy use and the rating of the group task were carried out on a group rather than individual basis, thus rendering it difficult to assess how well group performance was due to individual members or the majority of the group members. Also, other means of establishing improvement in language production might have been more appropriate as the English proficiency and task effectiveness scales may not be comparable in nature.

X Suggestions for further research

Clearly, more work is needed to investigate the influence of individual differences and learner uptake of strategy use (Drnyei and Skehan, 2003). In addition, the present study aims to investigate the teaching effects of seven target strategies. To facilitate the proceduralization of strategy use, repeated exploration and practice over an extended period of time is necessary (Macaro, 2006; Cotterall, 2007). Hence, in order to yield optimal results, it may be desirable to incorporate strategy-based instruction into the normal curriculum on a longer term basis (as compared with 20 weeks of instruction in the present study). Last, the target strategies taught to the learners need to be rigorously investigated beyond the Hong Kong context in order to build a picture of how they might interact with learners in other cultures given that cultural preferences probably affect strategy use (Wharton, 2000). Notwithstanding the aforementioned limitations of the present study, I wish to support Flavells (1979) proposition to implement systematic instruction in metacognitive knowledge and monitoring skills.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

Wendy Y.K. Lam

147

XI References
Anderson, N.J. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 757771). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Breen, M.P. (Ed.) (2001). Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research. Harlow: Longman. Brown, T.S. and Perry, F.L. (1991). A comparison of three learning strategies for ESL vocabulary acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 655670. Chamot, A.U. (2001). The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition. In M.P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 2543). Harlow: Longman. Chamot, A.U. and Rubin, J. (1994). Comments on Janie Rees-Millers A critical appraisal of learner instruction: theoretical bases and teaching implications. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 771781. Cohen, A.D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Harlow: Longman. Cotterall, S. (2007). Promoting strategic awareness and control. Plenary address delivered at the 42nd RELC (Regional Language Centre) International Seminar, Singapore. Dansereau, D.F. (1985). Learning strategy research. In J.W. Segal, S.F. Chipman and R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills, vol. 1: Relating instruction to research (pp. 6783). Hillsdale, MJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C.J. Doughty and M.H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313348). Oxford: Blackwell. Drnyei, Z. and Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C.J. Doughty and M.H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589630). Oxford: Blackwell. Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906911. Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215247. Gass, S.M. and Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Green, A. (1998). Verbal protocol analysis in language testing research: A handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hassan, X., Macaro, E., Mason, D., Nye, G., Smith, P. and Vanderplank, R. (2005). Strategy instruction in language learning: a systematic review of available research. In Research evidence in education library. London: EPPICentre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

148

Metacognitive strategy instruction

London. Available online at http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid= 297andlanguage=en-US/ (February 2009). Johnson, K. (1994). Teaching declarative and procedural knowledge. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn and E. Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 121131). Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International. Lam, W. (2004). Teaching strategy use for oral communication tasks to ESL learners. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Education, University of Leeds, UK. Lam, W. (2006). Gauging the effects of ESL oral communication strategy teaching: A multi-method approach. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(2), 142157. Available online at http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v3n22006/lam.htm (February 2009). Lam, W. and Wong, J. (2000). The effects of strategy instruction on developing discussion skills in an ESL classroom. ELT Journal, 54(3), 245255. Little, D. (1996). Strategic competence considered in relation to strategic control of the language learning process. In H. Holec, D. Little and R. Richterich (Eds.), Strategies in language learning and use: Studies towards a common European framework of reference for language learning and teaching (pp. 1134). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 320337. Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising instruction on oral communication strategy use. The Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 7691. Nunan, D. (1997). Strategy instruction in the language classroom: An empirical investigation. RELC (Regional Language Centre) Journal, 28(2), 5682. OMalley, J.M. and Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. OMalley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. and Kupper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 285296. Oxford, R., Cho, Y., Leung, S. and Kim, H-J. (2004). Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 147. QSR (Qualitative Solutions and Research Pty Ltd) (1997). Non-numerical unstructured data indexing searching and theorizing. London: Sage. Rees-Miller, J. (1993). A critical appraisal of learner instruction: theoretical bases and teaching implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 679689. Rossiter, M.J. (2003). The effects of affective strategy instruction in the ESL classroom. TESL-EJ, 7(2). Available online at http://tesl-ej.org/ej26/a2.html (February 2009). Rubin, J. (2005). The expert language learner: A review of good language learner studies and learner strategies. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in second language learning and teaching (pp. 3764.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129158.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

Wendy Y.K. Lam

149

Wenden, A. (1995). Learner-instruction in context: a knowledge-based approach. System, 23(2), 183194. Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual language learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), 203243. Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Current approaches to researching second language learner processes. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 98111.

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011

150

Metacognitive strategy instruction

Appendix 1 Group discussion task Buying body parts!

You are in the year 3000. You can now buy new parts for your body. The new parts are: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) super skin that does not change super nose that can smell danger super-smart brain that works better than a computer pretty or handsome face that lasts forever powerful legs that can walk as fast as a car x-ray eyes super hair that does not fall out powerful ears that can hear what other people think super strong heart that lasts forever high-power muscles

But you do not have enough money to buy all the new parts. As a group, decide which parts are more important and which are less important. Put the ten body parts in order from 1 to 10. 1 is the most important; 10 is the least important. You must give reasons for your choice. The following questions may help you think of ideas: 1) 2) 3) 4) Why do you want the new parts? How can they help you? How can they change your life? How are you going to use them?

The following ideas may help you: protect myself make me strong run away from danger other people will like me will be beautiful forever may live a very long life can see through danger may look like a robot many people will be jealous of me may know many unhappy things may hurt others easily may see horrible things

Downloaded from ltr.sagepub.com at University of New England on September 14, 2011