The effect of Strategy-Based Instruction on EFL writing performance and Self-Regulated Learning

Fathi, Jalil; Feizollahi, Behnam

doi:10.22051/jlr.2018.21057.1563

Document Type : Research

Authors

Jalil Fathi ¹
Behnam Feizollahi ²

¹ University of Kurdistan

² Imam Khomeini International University-Qazvin

https://doi.org/10.22051/jlr.2018.21057.1563

Abstract

In spite of the fact that the language learning strategy concept has been around for a long time, it is still appealing and vibrant as evidenced by its accumulated body of literature within the field. Research over the years has revealed that the employment of language learning strategies (LLSs) has a significant share of variance in language achievement and success and a number of studies have shown a significant positive correlation between strategy use and successful language learning. Therefore, many theorizers and practitioners in language teaching have embarked on Strategy-based instruction (SBI) approach which focuses on the training of strategic learning by incorporating the strategy instruction into the regular language curriculum. The purpose of such SBI programs is to foster the use of LLSs by the second language learners and to help learners to employ more strategies and to apply them in a more appropriate way. Although many scholars have advocated the contribution of LLSs to developing second language skills and components, the empirical evidence supporting the role of SBI programs in enhancing particular skills in particular contexts through particular methodologies has not received adequate research interest in L2 research contexts.
Self-regulation is another important variable which has been considered to be relevant to strategy use by a number of scholars (Oxford et al., 2014; Tseng et al., 2006). Educators have stressed the identification and instruction of learning strategies for self-regulation. According to Zimmerman (2000, 2008), self-regulation refers to planned self-generated thoughts, feelings, and activities resulting in the achievement of goals with the use of feedback from prior performance making the process cyclical.
Because of the importance of the LLSs, and also given the significant moderating role of the context, as discussed above, in influencing the efficacy of SBI, and finally, considering the heightened significance of self-regulation as a viable construct in English Language Teaching (ELT), this study investigated the effects of strategy-based instruction (SBI) in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing course on enhancing self-regulated learning and writing performance. In so doing, a sample of 49 Iranian EFL students were recruited. The participants were the students of two intact classes doing their BA in the field of English Language Literature. They were randomly assigned to experimental group (n=26) and control group (n=23). To ensure the homogeneity of the two groups, the Oxford Placement Test (OPT) (Allan, 2004) was administered to all the students of the two groups prior to the initiation of the treatment. In order to compare the mean scores on OPT, an independent samples T-test was run to examine the existing difference between groups. The result of the independent samples T-test indicated that the groups were not significantly different in terms of language proficiency before the experiment.
For the purpose of the current study, a sixteen-week metacognition training program was integrated into the writing course of the experimental group. The SBI framework employed in the study was CALLA framework developed by Chamot et al. (1999) which constitutes five basic stages of preparation, presentation, practice, evaluation, and expansion. The students in the control group received the regular, traditional writing instruction. The data were collected through administration of Timed-writing Essays and Self-Regulated Language Learning Questionnaire (SRLLQ). To analyze the data paired-samples t-tests and Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVA) were conducted. The findings indicated significant differences in favor of the experimental students in the writing performance and self-regulated learning. The participants of the current study became more autonomous and self-regulated after receiving instruction in metacognitive strategies. A likely justification for the improved writing performance of EFL learners in the present study might lie in the contribution of the learners’ academic self-efﬁcacy which is the embedded in the belief system of self-regulated learners (Bandura & Locke, 2003). Those with high academic self-efficacy are confident that they will succeed; as a result, this sense of success and agency increases their academic motivation, thereby enhancing their academic performance (Zimmerman, & Schunk, 2008). The results of the current study also indicated that the experimental group students, who were taught the writing metacognitive strategies outperformed the students in the control group in self-regulation. The plausible justification is the fact that metacognitive strategy training has contributed to the development of self-regulation because metacognition has been considered as the chief element of self-regulation theory (Zimmerman, 1989). In other words, there is much overlap between the underlying nature of the two constructs in a sense that Zimmerman (1989) defines students’ self-regulation as “the degree that students are metacognitively, motivationally, and behaviorally active participants in their own learning process” (p. 329).
Overall, this study provides strong empirical evidence in favor of SBI in enhancing learners’ writing ability and their self-regulation. The findings offer theoretical and pedagogical implications for both theorizers and practitioners. Given the nature of self-regulation and its contribution to language achievement, it is argued that strategy training should be more extensively integrated into the ELT curriculum. The empirical evidence obtained by this study might be an incentive for theoreticians, practitioners and teacher educators to pay more attention to SBI and take actions in explicit training of LLSs especially metacognitive ones with the aim of fostering their learners’ self-regulation.

Keywords

20.1001.1.20088833.1398.11.33.2.1

References

Allan, D. (2004). Oxford Placement Test 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, N. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning, EDO-FL-01-10CAL digest. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved from <http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0110anderson.html.>

Anderson, N. (2008). Metacognition and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 99–109). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A., & Locke, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87–99.

Bishop, G. (2001). Using quality and accuracy ratings to quantify the value added of a dictionary skills training course. Language Learning Journal, 24, 62–69.

Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: a new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7(2),11-186.

Brown, J., and C.J. White. (2010). Affect in a self-regulatory framework for language learning. System, 38, 432-443.

Chamot, A.U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P.B., & Robbins, J. (Eds.). (1999). The learning strategies handbook. New York: Longman.

Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: a school based program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 537-550.

Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language (2^nd ed.). London: Longman.

Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (2007). Language learner strategies: thirty years of research and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Conti, G. (2004). Metacognitive enhancement and error correction. (Unpublished P.hD. dissertation), University of Reading, Reading, UK.

Creswell, A. (2000). Self-monitoring in student writing: developing learner responsibility. ELT Journal, 54(3), 235-244.

doi: 10.1177/1362168815578550.

Dreyer, C., & Oxford, R. L. (1996). Learning strategies and other predictors of ESL proficiency among Afrikaans speakers in South Africa. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 61–74). Manoa, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i.

Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: theory, practice and research implications. Regional Language Centre Journal, 39, 188-213.

Goh, C., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal, 60, 222–232.

Graham, S., & Macaro, E. (2007). Designing Year 12 strategy training in listening and writing: From theory to practice. Language Learning Journal, 35, 153–173.

Green, J., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and sex. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297.

Griffiths, C. (2008). Strategies and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 83–98). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Griffiths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in successful language learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Griffiths, C., & Oxford, R. L. (2014). The twenty-first century landscape of language learning strategies: Introduction to this special issue. System, 43, 1–10.

Gu, Y. (2007). Strategy-based instruction. In T. Yashima & T. Nabei (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on English Education in Japan: Exploring New Frontiers (pp. 21–38). Osaka: Yubunsha.

Gunning, P., & Oxford, R.L. (2014). Children’s learning strategy use and the effects of strategy instruction on success in learning ESL in Canada. System, 43, 82–100.

Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Kirkpatrick, L.C., & Klein, P.D. (2009). Planning text structure as a way to improve students’ writing from sources in the compare – contrast genre. Learning and Instruction, 19, 309–321.

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kyungsim, H., & Leavell, A. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English learning context. System, 34(3), 399-415.

Lam, W. and Wong, J. (2000). The effects of strategy instruction on developing discussion skills in an ESL classroom. ELT Journal, 54(3), 245-255.

Lantolf, J. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory in second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

LoCastro, V. (1994). Learning strategies and learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 409–414.

Ma, R., & Oxford, R.L. (2014). A diary study focusing on listening and speaking: the evolving interaction of learning styles and learning strategies in a motivated, advanced ESL learner. System, 43, 101–113.

Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in foreign and second language classrooms. London: Continuum.

McDonough, S. K. (2001). Promoting self-regulation in foreign language learners. The Clearing House, 74 (6), 323.

McMullen, M. G. (2009). Using language learning strategies to improve the writing skills of Saudi EFL students: will it really work? System, 37, 418-433.

Nakata, Y. 2010. Towards a framework for self-regulated language learning. TESL Canada Journal, 27 (2), 1-10.

Nguyen, T. C. L., & Gu, Y. (2013). Strategy-based instruction: a learner-focused approach to developing learner autonomy. Language Teaching Research, 17 (1), 9-30. doi:10.1177/1362168812457528

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Oxford, R. L. (Ed.). (1996). Language learning strategies around the world: cross-cultural perspectives. Manoa, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i.

Oxford, R.L., Rubin, J., Chamot, A.U., Schramm, K., Lavine, R., Gunning, P., & Nel, C. (2014). The learning strategy prism: perspectives of learning strategy experts. System, 43, 30–49.

Porte, G. (1988). Poor language learners and their strategies for dealing with new vocabulary. ELT Journal, 42(3), 167–171.

Rahimi, M., & Noroozisiam, E. (2013). The effect of strategies-based instruction on the improvement of EFL learners’ writing quality: a sociocultural approach. Sage Open, 3, 1-8.

Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT Journal, 60, 100–106.

Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: an exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 259–291.

Sasaki, M. (2002). Building an empirically-based model of EFL learners’ writing processes. In S. Ransdell & M. Barbier (Eds.), New Directions for Research in L2 Writing (pp. 49–80). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boekaerts,P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631-649). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Seker, M. (2015). The use of self-regulation strategies by foreign language learners and its role in language achievement. Language Teaching Research, 20(5), 600–618.

Sengupta, S. (2000). An investigation into the effects of revision strategy instruction on L2 secondary school learners. System, 28, 97-113.

Takalo, F., Vahdani, F., Jafari gohar, M., Nemat Tabrizi, A. (2018). Training Iranian High school Students to Use Test-taking Strategies in a High-Stakes Test. Zabanpazhuhi, 9(25), 7-24. doi: 10.22051/jlr.2018.2440. [In Persian]

Tseng, W., Do¨rnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: the case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27, 78–102.

Wang, J., Spencer, K., & Xing, M. (2009). Metacognitive beliefs and strategies in learning Chinese as a foreign language. System, 37, 46–56.

Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning. Applied linguistics, 19(4), 515-537. doi:10.1093/applin/19.4.515

Ziegler, N. A. (2014). Fostering self-regulated learning through the European language portfolio: an embedded mixed methods study. The Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 921-936.

Zimmerman, B. (2000). Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: theory, research and practice (pp. 1-25). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Zimmerman, B.J. )2008(. Goal setting: a key proactive source of academic self-regulation. In D.H. Shunk and B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 267-295). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Zimmerman, B.J., & Schunk, D.H. (2008). Motivation. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research and Application (pp.1-30). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)

The effect of Strategy-Based Instruction on EFL writing performance and Self-Regulated Learning

References

References

Volume 11, Issue 33
February 2020
Pages 23-45

The effect of Strategy-Based Instruction on EFL writing performance and Self-Regulated Learning

References

References

Volume 11, Issue 33February 2020Pages 23-45

Volume 11, Issue 33
February 2020
Pages 23-45