European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 11, Number 4 (2009)

676
Analysis on Metacognitive Strategies in Reading and
Writing Among Malaysian ESL Learners in Four Education Institutions
Mohd Sahandri Gani Hamzah
University Putra Malaysia
Saifuddin Kumar Abdullah
Jabatan Pengajian Politeknik dan Kolej Komuniti
Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia

Abstract

This study deal with analyze of meta cognitive strategies (MS) in

reading and writing among 400 Malaysia ESL learners in polytechnic,
teacher training institute, form six and matriculation colleges. The
sample was selected based on non-random sampling and were
categorized in two categories there is more successful learners and
less successful learners.

The six types of learning strategies are memory, cognitive,

compensation, metacognitive, effective, and social strategies. Both
of MSL and LSL perform high mean score of metacognitive strategies
compare with other strategies. Result of One Way ANOVA among
four groups of Malaysian ESL learners ranking of metacognitive
strategies shows that teacher training institution and polytechnic
students view significant different and better than matriculation and
form six students. This result is proven that teachers training
institution and polytechnic practice and apply meta cognitive
strategies during their six months training. Whereas, matriculation
and form six students learn English only for the purpose of
examination.

Keywords: Metacognitive, Strategies, Reading, Writing, ESL.

1.0. Background of the Study

The title of the study Analysis of Metacognitive Strategies in reading

and writing among Malaysian ESL learners in Institutions of Higher
Learning. The venue of the study was in the East Coast region of
Peninsular Malaysia. The respondents were from four selected
Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL), namely Polytechnic, Teacher
Training Institute, Form Six and Matriculation College.

There were 400 respondents between 18 and 19 years of age.

Although these students came from various institutions, they had a
common goal which were at all pre-university levels of study and
preparing to further their studies in University where English is used
extensively in learning and teaching. All of them have to sit for the
Malaysian University English Test (MUET) before applying for
admission in university locally and TOFEL for aboard. For this
purpose, there is a need for the students to effectively learn the
English Language and to be proficient in order to pass the MUET and
TOFEL with a satisfactory grade.

This study is an attempt to address the shortcomings in ESL learning

the local context. It hopes to provide some information to the
authorities involved at the decision making and implementing levels
in Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education.

1.1. Malaysian ESL Learners in the Selected Institutions of Higher

Learning (IHL)

After having received the SPM examination results, the qualified

students may move on to study in various IHL. There are numerous
options for them at this level. They can go to university or they can
choose to enroll themselves in Form Six class, Matriculation College,
Teacher Training Institute, Polytechnic or Community College.
English is also emphasized as this level as a means of preparing
students for the MUET which is a requirement for the pre-university
students who wish to enroll in the university programmers. For
example, English is taught in the Teacher Training Institutes to
enhance students’ competency in English in a variety of context and
to facilitate them in their studies (Teacher
Education Division, Ministry of Education, 2006).

The role of English at this level is an important tool for learning

especially in dealing with terminologies in various field of studies.
English is also needed for obtaining and expanding knowledge
through the Internet, and understanding the reference materials, as
many references books are written in English (Teacher Education
Division, Ministry of Education, 2006). English is also
taught in Matriculation colleges, to help students become effective
and efficient English language user in social and academic contexts
and to prepare them for the MUET and TOFEL exam. (Ministry of
Education Malaysia, 2006).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

One of the possible reasons that the majority of the Malaysian ESL
learners are incompetent user of English because they do not learn
the language effectively. They did not know the effective learning
strategies exists as they were not taught any strategy training, that
is, on how to use the learning strategies (O’Malley & Chamot, 1989)
in language activities particularly in reading and writing tasks.

Through short interviews of local students and instructors, the

researcher discovered that neither the students nor the instructors
were aware of the use of MS. Another problem is that the majority
of Malaysian ESL learners are ‘ at risk students’ because, according
to McKeachie (1988), when they enter the high levels of education
without proper learning strategies, they are handicapped in
achieving success in mastering English and other disciplines as
well. This appear to be true when Zuridah (2008) conducted a study
of the English language proficiency of 405 students at six Malaysian
public university in 2006 and found that 54.6% of students were
under limited and very limited users of English. Surprisingly, only
1.4% were good user of English. This shows that the majority of the
students are handicapped and need help. They need to be trained on
how to use MS in their ESL learning.

Next, problem is the lack of exposure through a brief discussion with

instructors, the researcher found that the instructors do not know
that the use of MS in reading or writing tasks is linked to motivation
and self- efficacy, and that the more students are aware of their
thinking processes as they learn to complete their tasks, the more
they can control and manage their ESL learning. This seems to be
true when Marzano, Brand, Hughes, Jones, Presseisen, Rankin,and
Suhor (1988) point out that neither the lectures nor the students
perceive that self-awareness promotes self-regulation. According to
Marzano, et.al. (1988), if the students are aware of how committed
they are to reaching goals, of how strong their disposition is to
persist, and of how focused their attention is to a thinking, reading
or writing tasks, they can regulate their commitment, disposition,
and attention (marzano,et,1988). Thus they have to become users of
MS.
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 11, Number 4 (2009)
678
1.3. Objectives of the Study

a. to compare between MSL and LSL based on learning strategies.

b. to determine the similarities and differences MSL against other
learning strategies among SML and LSL.
c. to distinguish metacognitive strategies performance among
Malaysian ESL in 4 institution.
1.4. The Concept of Metacognitive Strategies
Research such as O’Neil (1978), Oxford (1990), and Allami & Salmani-
Nadoushan (2006), define MS in different ways. However, MS may
be summarised as ‘higher order executive skills which enable
students to approach learning in a systematic, efficient and effective
way by using the elements of planning, monitoring and evaluating’.
Therefore, MS involve for example, planning for learning on reading
and writing, monitoring of own progress in reading and writing task
or self-evaluating of learning after the language activity (reading or
writing task is completed. This concept is graphically
represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1: MS in Reading and Writing Processes

Learning Processes
Planning for own learning
Monitoring of own learning
Evaluation of own learning
Learning Tasks
Reading
Writing
Lead toMetacognitive strategies

According to figure 1 there are 3 component of learning processes in

metacognitive strategies such as planning, monitoring and
evaluation in Learning English as second language. This 3 component
of learning process lead to learning tasks reading and writing
component.
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 11, Number 4 (2009)
679
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework of the Study
INPUT PROCESSES PRODUCT

ESL ability
of the learners
Use of MS in
Reading and
Writing in ESL
Learning MUET
Proficiency
in English
More Successful Learners
Less Successful Learners
Groups Planning Monitoring Evaluating Results
From Exams e.g. MUET and Other Forms of Assessment
s (MUET)

In the above framework Input refer to ability of ESL learners which

divided into two groups more successful and less successful learners.
Along the metacognitive process the strategies that involve in
writing and reading are self planning, monitoring and evaluation
among ESL learners. At
the end of the study both ESL groups performance and assessment
be refer to their metacognitive strategies.

The whole process which is mirrored in the study is based on

Bandura’s (1986) Social Learning Theory which advanced a view of
human functioning that records a central role to cognitive, various,
self-regulatory, self-reflective processes in human adaptation and
change. This is to say that the
Malaysian ESL learners may adapt to new learning strategies in order
to succeed in their ESL learning.
Bandura (1986) stresses on this theory, that is, people are viewed as
self-organizing, pro-active, self reflecting and self-regulating. For
example, how people interpret the result of their own behavior
informs and alters their environments and the personal factors they
possess which, in turn, inform and
alter subsequent behavior. In this context, the Malaysian ESL
learners are viewed as self – organizing, European Journal of Social
Sciences – Volume 11, Number 4 (2009)

pro-active, self-reflecting, and self-regulating individuals. They

should be able to plan, monitor and evaluate their own learning.

According to Nussbaum and Kardash (2005), this the foundation of

Bandura’s (1986) concept which views (a) personal factors in the
form of cognition, affect, and biological events; (b) behavior; and (c)
environmental influences which create interactions. Nussbaumn &
Kardash (2005) states that Bandura altered the label of his theory
from social learning to social ‘cognitive’ both to distance it from
prevalent social learning theories of the day and to emphasizes that
cognition plays a critical role in people’s capability to construct
reality, self-regulate, encode information, and perform behaviors.

By using social cognitive theory as a framework, the instructor can

work to improve their student’s emotional states and to correct
their faulty self-beliefs and habits of thinking (personal factors),
improve their academic skills and self regulatory practices
(behavior), and alter the school and classroom structures that may
work to undermine student success (environmental factors)
(Pajares,2002)

1.5. Research Methodology

1.5.1. Respondents
A total of 400 students, ranging in age from 18 to 19 years,
participated in this study. They were from Institution of Higher
Learning (IHL) located in East Coast region of West Malaysia. The
method of selection was based on no-random sampling or purposive
sampling. The respondents were categorized
into two categories: More Successful Learners (MSL) and Less
Successful Learners (LSL).

The Think aloud Protocols were conducted one month after Stage 2.
The respondents were briefed on how the Think-aloud session
would be conducted. Each respondent verbalized the process and
the English language teacher, instructor or lecture recoded it using a
tape recorder. The teacher or lecture prompted the respondent if it
was necessary. The whole procedure took a total of two weeks to
complete.

1.5.2. Analyses and Interpretation of Data

The data analyses were accordingly performed to yield answers to

the various research question using the Statistical Package of Social
Science (SPSS) programmers. The analyses employed descriptive
statistics and inferential statistics for qualitative data as described
below:
The six types of learning strategies on Strategy Inventory For
Language Learning (SILL) are memory strategies, cognitive strategies,
compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective
strategies and social strategies (Oxford, 1990).

1.5.3. The ranking of Metacogntive Strategies against Other Learning

Strategies on SILL Based on Frequency of Use among MSL and LSL.

Table 1: Compares the number of the MSL and LSL who rated the
various learning strategies in terms of frequency of use.
Types of Learning Mean score MSL Category of use Mean score LSL
Category of Use Metacognitive strategies 3.69 High 3.18 Medium
Social strategies 3.63 High 3.31 Medium
Cognitive strategies 3.47 Medium 3.09 Medium
Compensation strategies 3.35 Medium 3.07 Medium
Affective strategies 2.96 Medium 2.90 Medium
Memory strategies 2.96 Medium 2.84 Medium
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 11, Number 4 (2009)
681

Statistical analysis in Table 1 shows that the three highest-ranked

learning strategies used in ESL learning are not similar for MSL and
LSL. Thus, MSL in general, used MS (mean = 3.69) more than other
learning strategies on SILL. On the other hand, the LSL ranked social
strategies highest (mean = 3.31).
The result from table 1 also show that memory strategies (mean =
2.96, mean = 2.84) ranked lowest for both groups of Malaysian ESL
learners. This suggest that the Malaysian ESL learners in general do
not rely much on memorization in their ESL learning. The differences
in the ranking can also observed among the two groups of learners.
First, it can be seen that MS (Mean = 3.69) was the
highest – ranked type of strategy for MSL, while social strategies
(Mean = 3.31) was highest for the LSL.

This data indicate that among the Malaysian ESL learners, the MSL
utilized more of the MS such as planning, monitoring and evaluating
in their own ESL learning and performance. The result indicate that
the LSL placed more importance on Social Strategies, for example,
asking question such as asking for clarification or verification and
asking for correction, cooperating with others such as
cooperating with peers and cooperating with the proficient users of
the new language or empathizing with others such as becoming
aware of others’ thoughts and feelings (Oxford, 1990) to help them
to cope with their learning. In addition, the MSL indicated a ‘high
use’ rate of metacognitive and social
strategies while the other four learning strategies on SILL, that is,
cognitive, compensation, affective and memory strategies were
rated ‘medium use’. In contrast, the LSL indicated a ‘medium use’
rating for all six types of learning strategies, including the highest –
ranked social strategies. This difference
suggest that, on the whole, the MSL seem to utilize strategies more,
particularly metacognitive and social strategies.

The t- test were used to find significant differences between the MSL
and the LSL in their use of the various learning strategies in their ESL
learning. The result are presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Result of t- test analysis for differences in strategies use
between MSL and LSL on SILL
Type of Learning Strategies t value Sig.p (2 tailed)
MS 7.67 0.003*
Social Strategies 4.58 0.012*
Cognitive Strategies 6.92 0.023*
Compensation Strategies 4.52 0.005*
Affective Strategies 0.78 0120
Memory Strategies 1.89 0.091
*Sig p<0.05
The result in Table 2 show that out of six different types of learning
strategies on SILL, there are significant differences between the
learner groups in the rating for four of the strategies:

metacognitive (t = 7.67), social (t = 4.58). cognitive (t = 6.92) and

compensation (t = 4.52) at p<0.05.

These result reflect that the Malaysian ESL learners benefit from
instruction or guidance in the use of at least these four learning
strategies, that is, metacognitive, social, cognitive and compensation
strategies.

Table 3: The Ranking of MS among Four Groups of the Malaysian ESL

Learners in Four IHL

Table 3 shows that results of One-Way ANOVA among four groups of

the Malaysian ESL learners in Four IHL based on the way these
learners ranked MS
Source Sum of Square df Mean Square F Sig.p
Between Groups 9.477 3 3.159 12.609 .000*
Within Groups 99.205 396 .251
Total 108.682 399
*Sig p<0.05
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 11, Number 4 (2009)

One way ANOVA in table 3 shows that there are significant

differences in the mean scores of the four groups of the Malaysian
ESL learners IHL ranking MS F=12.609, df = 3, 396; p<0.05.
Consequently, the result in Table 3 show the different groups of
Malaysian ESL learners in IHL. The result shows that there is little
variation between individual learners within specific groups, but
there is
greater variation between the groups. The results of the Tukey test
in table 4 also show that there are significant differences between
specific groups.
Table 4: Tukey test of metacognitive strategies ranking among four
groups of Malaysian ESL learners in four IHL

Source Matriculation College Form Six Teacher Training Institute

Polytechnic
N 100 100 100 100
Mean 3.04 3.08 3.41 3.30
SD .458 .478 .551 .509
Matriculation College * *
Form Six * *
Teacher Training Institute * *
Polytechnic * *

The result from Table 4 were ranked from the highest to the lowest
in terms of the four groups of the Malaysian ESL learners’ ranking
MS. The result suggest that out of four groups of learners in four IHL,
the learners from the teacher training Teacher Training Institute and
Polytechnic ranked MS highest.

The students in the Teacher Training Institute and Polytechnic again

appear to most perceive MS as important and thus ranked them
highest. This consistency is reflected in the previous sections. It
could be due to the different approach in their syllabus specification
which are not emphasized explicitly in the other two groups of
learners. Another possible reason could again be the nature of their
programmed in these two institutions in which the focus is on both
components, that is, the theoretical aspect and also the practical
aspect of the course.

Thus, this reflects that the students from Teacher Training Institute
and the Polytechnic differ from the other two groups in the way they
perceived the importance of MS and ranked them highest.

1.6. Summary

‫وقع الفصل‬In this research every Malaysian student has given an equal
opportunity to learn English Language in school and at Higher
Learning Institution such as Polytechnics, Teacher Training
Institution, Form Six and Matriculation Colleges. However, some
students seem to learn rather easily, while some other
students apparently find learning English fraught with difficulty and
are not competent in the language even after many years of
learning. Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) for
metacognitive is important in ESL learning because they are the
higher order executive skills that may entail
planning, monitoring, and evaluating the successes of learning
activities. In this study analysis of metacognitive strategy in reading
were more focused on categories that mention above. In higher
learning institution as shown in the conceptual framework.

In general, the use of metacognitive among MSL (mean 3.69) and LSL
(mean 3.18) compare with other strategies. Furthermore, the result
shows that significant between four groups of ESL learners. The
differences in meta cognitive among teacher trainee institution and
matriculation, teachers trainee institution and form six students,
polytechnic and matriculation and form six with matriculation. In the
other word, we can conclude that teachers trainee institution and
polytechnic shows that highest performance in meta cognitive
strategies in English. The reason these two institutions have higher
percentage is because the students have to apply their meta
cognitive strategies in teaching practice for six months at the school.
Whereas, polytechnic ESL students go for industrial training six
months and apply the metacognitive strategies in the working
environment. In addition to that, different types of metacognitive
strategies as been implemented by students in both institutions such
as over viewing, paying attention, delivering speech production, find
out about language learning, organizing, setting goals and objectives,
identifying the purpose of the language task, planning and seeking
the opportunity as well as self monitoring and self evaluating which
the students make use of in learning during their teaching practice
and industrial training.

References
[1] Allami, H., Salmani-Nadoushan, M.A. (2006). Cognitive
Orientation in Teaching Writing.
http:www3.telus. net/linguistic issues. Karen’s Linguistic Issue, T.A.
(2009)

[2] Bandura, A. (1986). Self foundation of thought and action. A

social cognitive theory. Englewood Clffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

[3] Marzano, R.J., Brandth, R. S., Hughes, C.S., Jones, B.Z., Rankin,
S.C., & Suhor, C.(1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for
curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

[4] Mc. Keachie, W.J. (1988). The need for study strategy training. In
C.E. Weinstein, E.T. Goetz, & P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and
study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation
(pp. 3-9) New York: Academic Press

[5] Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, Teacher Training Division

(2006). Syllabus and syllabus specifications English Language WB 013
and WB 023. Malaysia.

[6] Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, Teacher Training Division

(2006). Syllabus for English for Technical Purposes. Technical
Education Department Malaysia.

[7] Nussbaum, E.M. and Kardash, C.M. (2005). The Effects of Goal
Instructions and Text on the Generation of Counterarguments During
Writing. Journal of Educational Psychology., 97: 157- 169.
[8] O’Malley, J.M and Chamot, A.U. (1989). Learning Strategies in
second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

[9] O’Neill,H.F.Jr. (1978). Learning strategies. New York: Academic

Press.
[10] Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What
EveryTeacher Should Know.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Newbury House.