Alborz Institute of Higher Education

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

A RESEARCH PROPOSAL SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN
TEACHING ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (TEFL)

ASSESSING THE USE OF METACOGNITIVE

STRATEGIES AMONG IRANIAN ENGLISH TEFL
STUDENTS IN WRITING

:Reader
S.Mohammed Alavi, PhD

By:
Valdyanpoor, Amir

Date:
February, 2010
 ,In The Name of God
The Compassionate, the Merciful

Table of Contents
Chapter I: Introduction
I.1. Statement of the Problem and purpose of the study ………………………
I.2. Research Question ………………………………………………………….
I.3. Research Hypothesis ……………………………………………………….
I.3.1. Null hypothesis…………………………………………………..
I.4. Significance of the Study …………………………………………………..
I.5. Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ………………………………..
I.6. Definition of Key Terms …………………………………………………..

Chapter 2: Review of the Related Literature

2.1. On the nature of writing ability
2.2. Metacognitive strategies
2.3. Metacognitive strategies and writing ability

Chapter 3: Method
3.1. Participants………………………………………………………………….
3.2. Materials ……………………………………………………………………
3.3. Procedure …………………………………………………………………..
3.4. Design …………………………………………………………………….

References ………………………………………………………….

Chapter 1
Introduction

According to Anderson (2002) metacognition can be defined simply as thinking about thinking.

Metacognition was originally defined as the ability to monitor one’s own learning, to evaluate it,

and to set a plan of action to solve a problem. Learners who are meta-cognitively aware know what

to do when they don't know what to do; that is they have strategies for finding out what they need to

do. The use of metacognitive strategies ignite one's thinking and can lead to more profound learning

and improved performance especially among learners who are struggling. Understanding and

controlling cognitive processes may be one of the most essential skills that classroom teachers can

help second language learners develop. It is important that they teach their students metacognitive

skills in addition to cognitive skills.

It is considered that one important factor which distinguishes high proficient writers from low

proficient ones is writing strategies (Raimes, 1985; Zamel, 1982). However, Congiun Mu (2007)

believes that, the recognition and classification of English as second language (ESL) writing

strategies are found to be vague and confusing in the field of ESL writing research (p.1).

Many researchers (Flavell, 1979; Baker& Brown, 1984; Garner, 1994) have investigated the role

of self knowledge and control over cognitive activities in different problem solving situations.

Although writing is problem solving activity but a small number of researches investigated the role

of metacognition in writing ability such as Devine, 1993; Devine, Railey, and Boshoff, 1993;

Kasper, 1997 (Cited by Angelova, M. 2002, Academic Exchange Quarterly).

The problem is that all of the above aforementioned researches investigated the metacognition in

ESL context not EFL.

1.2. Statement of the Problem and the purpose of the study

 As a language skill, writing is a complex activity and has considerable significance for EFL &

ESL learners (Trembley, 1993). It enables students to develop their cognitive and metacognitive

strategy awareness among both high and low proficient language learners. But students of all levels

have difficulty in producing all kinds of writing styles; this may be initiated from their lack

awareness of metacognitive strategies during the processes of writing or differences in the

metacognitive strategies which is applied by language learners. May be the difference in the use of

these strategies distinguish high proficient learners from low proficient ones.O'Laughlin (1998)

says," Learners who have no metacognitive awareness skills are like travelers without a road

map"(p.16).

The results gained from this study may help students and educators to understand metacognitive

strategies better and distinguish those metacognitive strategies used by high proficient students from

those used by low proficient ones.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether low proficient and high proficient language

learners use different metacognitive strategies in writing or not? In this regard the researcher is

going to assess the metacognitive strategies used by low and high proficient language learners.
 1.3. Research Question

In order to conduct this study the research question is raised as:

Is there any significant difference between high proficient and low proficient learners in

using metacognitive strategies while?

1.4. Research Hypothesis

Regarding the above-mentioned research question, I will look at the problem from three different

viewpoints, namely:

H1-.High-proficient L2 users use metacognitive strategies more during writing than low proficient

L2 ones.

H2-Low proficient students use more metacognitive strategies during writing than high proficientl2

users.

H3-Low proficient students use different metacognitive strategies than high proficient ones.

1.4.1. Null hypothesis

In order to investigate the above-mentioned research question, the null hypothesis is formulated as:

H0: there is no difference between high proficient and low proficient learners in using

metacognitive strategies in writing

1.5. Significance of the Study

As Ellis (2008) states within the field of education over the last few decades, a gradual but marked

shift has taken place, resulting in less emphasis on teachers and teaching but greater stress on

learners and learning. In a word, language teaching has become more learner-focused and

interactive. Thus, there has been more emphasis on helping students assume more responsibility in
their language study. A consensus has been reached that learning will be facilitated and students

will become more autonomous if students are explicitly trained to become more aware of and

proficient in the use of language learning strategies. Metacognitive strategies, which have an

executive function by means of planning, monitoring and evaluating the whole learning process, are

essentially important.

Abundant studies have demonstrated the great effect exerted by metacognitive strategies both in

reading (Baker & Brown, 1984; Carrel et al, 1989; Talbot, 1995) and listening (Schwartz, 1992;

Yang, 2004). However, there is little research available to scrutinize the relationship between

metacognitive strategies and writing ability though; writing is an important tool for communication.

Existing differences regarding EFL students' performance in writing all styles of writing namely

narrative and informative types (high proficient learners vs. low proficient ones) and lack of

noticeable research on the EFL context make it important to investigate what strategies they use in

writing. This research will assist educators in gaining better understanding of metacognitive

strategies which is usually taken into account by high proficient and low proficient EFL learners in

writing.

1.6. Limitations and Delimitations of the Study

Some limitations for the researcher might make the job hard to carry on in this study:

 Compared with availability of researches exploring the metacognitive strategies used by

high and low proficient learners, there is relatively less research that investigates

metacognitive strategies in realm of writing ability, even though both writing and reading

are regarded as the cognitive enterprise that demands metacognitive knowledge.

 Because of the small sample size of selected groups, the finding cannot be generalized to

wider populations.
 To make the applicable the researcher limits students' writings to just one style of writing

namely informative type. And it is going to suppose that the subjects are already aware of

metacognitive strategy because of the writing courses they have already passed.

1.7. Definition of Key Terms

Metacognition: metacognition refers to a knowing of one's awareness, monitoring, and regulation

about one's cognitive activities in process of performing a task (Baker& Brown, 1984).

Cognitive strategies: cognitive strategies are skills or steps that involve direct analysis,

transformation, or synthesis of target language such as formal practice with sounds or structures,

functional practice in natural interactions, reasoning, translating, analyzing, and note-taking,

etc(Oxford, R. 1990, p.8)

Metacognitive strategy: metacognitive strategies are steps that learners take to manage or

regulate their learning, such as planning and arranging for learning tasks, setting goals and

objectives, monitoring the learning process for errors, and evaluating progress (Oxford, R. 1990,

p.9)

Self regulation: self regulation refers to the ability to monitor one's learning and make changes to

the strategies that one employs (Ellis 2008, p.687).

Writing process: writing process are strategies, procedures and decision-making employed by

writers as they write. Writing is viewed as the result of complex processes of planning, drafting,

reviewing and revising and some approaches to the teaching of first and second language writing

teach students to use these processes (Chastain, 1988, p.251).

 CHAPTER 2
REVIEW of LITERATURE:
2.1. On the nature of writing ability
There is no doubt that writing is the most difficult skill for L2 learners to master. The difficulty

lies not only in generating and organizing ideas, but also in translating these ideas in to readable

text. The skills involved in writing are highly complex. L2 writers have to pay attention to higher

level skills of planning and organizing as well as lower level skills of spelling, punctuation, word

choice, and so on. The difficulty becomes even more pronounced if their language proficiency is

weak (Richards & Renandya, 2002, p.303).

In his research on "self regulation in academic writing", Hammann (2005) explains that writing is

an essential part of thinking and learning in school context, particularly in light of 21century

demands, and writing tasks are a 'critical tool for intellectual and social development". So students'

ability to present information and idea through writing has significant importance.

2.1.1. Writing as a product or process

Nunan (1999) explains that one of the most controversial aspects of pedagogy has been the

tension between process and product approaches to the teaching of writing. Product oriented

approaches focus on the final product, the coherent, error free text. Process approaches, on the other

hand, focus on the steps involved in drafting and redrafting a piece of work. proponents of process

writing recognize and accept the reality that there will never be the perfect text, but that one can get

closer to perfection through producing, reflecting on, discussing, and reworking successive drafts of

a text.

Raimes deals with this issue by saying:

… Writing for learning (with prewriting, drafts, revision, and editing) and writing for display (i.e.,

examination writing). Our students are aware of the different purposes and different strategies.

They recognize that these are distinct … in real questions, the speaker want to know the answer; in

exam questions, the speaker wants to know if the hearer knows. Similar distinctions can be made
with writing. In a writing class, students need to be taught both how to use the process to their

advantage as language learners and writers, and also how to produce an acceptable product on

demand. A shortcoming of the debate around these issues is that process and product have been

seen as either /or rather than both/and entities. However, while students certainly need to learn

how to pass exams, they also need to perceive writing as a tool for learning, a tool that can be

useful to them throughout their professional and personal lives (1993, p.245).

Various writing specialists have proposed a distinction between the process of writing and written

product. Their contention is that if the teacher wants to improve the product, she must assist the

students in ways that will enable them to improve the process they go through to produce that

product (Chastain 1988). Murray (1980) makes this point quite graphically by saying," the process

of making meaning with written language cannot be understood by looking backward from a

finished page. Process cannot be inferred from product any more than a pig can be inferred from a

sausage. It is possible, however, for us to follow the process forward from blank page to final draft

and learn something of what happens."

One of the clearest and most practical introductions to process writing is by White and Arndt

(1991). They view writing as a complex, cognitive process that requires sustained intellectual effort

over a considerable period of time. They suggest that producing involves six recursive procedures

(recursive because they are nonlinear).

Figure1. A model of process writing (White & Arndt, 1991, p.4)

According to Hedge (2008), process view of writing sees it as thinking, as discovery. Writing is

the result of employing strategies to manage the composing process, which is one of gradually

developing a text. It involves a number of activities: setting goals, generating ideas, organizing

information, selecting appropriate language, making a draft, reading a rewriting it, then revising and

editing. It is a complex process which is neither easy nor spontaneous for many second language

writers.

It was in the 1970s that interests developed in what second language writers actually do as they

write, motivated largely by a belief that if we wish to influence and improve the outcomes of

writing for our learners, then we need to understand how a piece of writing comes into being. In fact

a piece of writing is the outcome of a set of complicated cognitive operations. A major concern of

researchers in to second language writing has been to identify these mental operations, and a

number of research methods have been used to do this: interviews, observation, audio and video

recording, and making protocols as writers' think aloud 'during composing (Hedge,T.2008,p.303).

Zamel (1983), (cited by Hedge, T. 2008, p.303) made a study of the composing process of six

advanced ESL students, participants in her own optional college writing class. She observed them

as they prepared formal papers requiring expository writing. In setting out her research questions,

she places in a tradition of process-centered studies with similar aims:

 How do writers write? How do their ideas seem to get generated? What happens to these

ideas after they are recorded/ to what extent do these writers attend to the development and

clarification of these ideas? To what extent and what point during the process do they deal with

more mechanical matters? (Zamel 1983, p.169)

According to Hedge (2008) the emerged findings from this study showed that:

 Planning was not just a single phase but a thinking activity to which writers returned again

and again during composing.

 Every writer had his/her own strategy for getting into 'writing'.

 Writing had recursive and generative process, with students re-reading their work, assessing

it, reacting, and moving on. There was an interesting distinction between the poorer writers

who seemed to focus on re-reading only smaller chunks of discourse and better writers who

sometimes re-read whole paragraphs.

 Revising took place throughout the process and generally involved considerable changes.

 All of the writers paid attention to surface-level features but the better writers dealt with

these at the end of process. It was the poorer writers who spent time throughout the process

changing words and phrases.

In a similar study Raimes (1985) (cited by Hedge, 2008, p.304) supported Zamel's

observations. She suggested that with students who exhibit lack of competence in writing, poor

composing competence can be a greater factor in this than poor language competence. She used

think-aloud protocols to investigate the writing process and made the following comment on

experienced writers:

They consider purpose and audience. They consult their own background knowledge. They let

idea incubate. They plan. As they write, they read back over what they have written. Contrary to

what many textbooks advice, writers do not follow a neat sequence of planning, organizing, writing
and then revising. For while a writer's product- the finished essay, story or novel- is presented in

lines, the process that produces it is not linear at all (Raimes 1985, 229).

2.2. Metacognition and metacognitive strategies

Oxford (1990, p.8) states that “learning strategies are specific actions taken by the learner to

make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more

transferable to new situations.” It is clear that learning strategies are conducive to language

learning. Learning strategies enable learners to respond to the learning situation and manage their

learning in an appropriate way and allow learners to take more responsibility for their own learning

and become an autonomous language learner.

In light of cognitive theory, O’Malley and Chamot (2001) classified learning strategies into three

major types: metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies and social/affective strategies.

Metacognitive strategies deploy use of knowledge about cognitive processes and consist of attempts

to manipulate language learning by virtue of planning, monitoring, or evaluating. They serve an

executive function. Cognitive strategies mean the steps or operations employed in solving problems

that need direct analysis, transformation or synthesis of incoming information. They are directly

related to the performance of certain learning tasks. Cognitive strategies play an operative or

cognitive processing function. Social/affective strategies display a broad collection that concerns

either interaction with another person or ideational control over affect (cited by Yang, Chunmei,

2009, CCSE).

Wenden (1987) states that among these three major types of learning strategies, metacognitive

strategies lie at a different level. Metacognition is the process that underlies the efficient use of

strategies and the essence of intelligent activity.

2.2.1Early ideas about metacognition

Although the word metacognition did not come into common use until the early 1970s when it

was introduced by psychologist John Flavell, the notion of reflecting about one's thinking can be
found in writings dating back to Plato, who emphasized the importance of reflecting through

dialogue (Darling-Hammond .L; Austin .K; Cheung .M; and Martin .D 2008 Stanford University

of education).

John Dewey often considered the father of progressive education, viewed reflection as a central part

of active learning. Dewey observed:

Dewey (1993) explains that as long as our activity glides smoothly along from one thing to

another ... there is no call for reflection. Difficulty or obstruction in the way of reaching a belief

brings us, however, to a pause. In the suspense of uncertainty, we metaphorically climb a tree; we

try to find some standpoint from which we may survey additional facts and, getting a more

commanding view of the situation, decide how the facts stand related to one another (adopted from

Darling-Hammond .L; Austin .K; Cheung .M; and Martin .D 2008 Stanford University of

education).

Both Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky described the role of metacognition in cognitive

development. In his research with seven- to eleven-year-olds, Piaget demonstrated children’s ability

to verbalize the process they used in completing a task and the ways in which they were aware of

their thinking. He called this awareness “consciousness of cognizance,” which maps closely to our

notion of metacognition. Vygotsky further explored these ideas in his research about the child’s

“inner voice,” or the process of verbalizing internal thoughts as a way to make sense of something.

Articulating internal thoughts out loud not only helps a student learn, but can demonstrate an

awareness of the learning process—both important aspects of metacognition as we define it today.

2.2.2 Thinking about thinking

Metacognition is most commonly broken down into two distinct but interrelated areas. John

Flavell, one of the first researchers in metacognition and memory, defined these two areas as

metacognitive knowledge—awareness of one’s thinking—and metacognitive regulation—the ability

to manage one’s own thinking processes. These two components are used together to inform
learning theory (Darling-Hammond .L; Austin .K; Cheung .M; and Martin .D 2008 Stanford

University of education).

Students have thoughts, notions, and intuitions about their own knowledge and thinking. Flavell

(1979) describes three kinds of metacognitive knowledge:

 Awareness of knowledge—understanding what one knows what one does not know, and

what one wants to know. (“I know that I understand that plants need sunlight but I do not

know why.”) This category may also include an awareness of others’ knowledge. (“I know

that Sarah understands long division, so I’ll ask her to explain this problem to me.”)

 Awareness of thinking—understanding cognitive tasks and the nature of what is required to

complete them. (“I know that reading this newspaper article will be easier for me than

reading my textbook.”)

 Awareness of thinking strategies—understanding approaches to directing learning. (“I am

having difficulty reading this article. I should summarize what I just read before going on.”).

(Cited by Darling-Hammond .L; Austin .K; Cheung .M; and Martin .D 2008 Stanford

University of education).

We know that children are not initially very accurate or efficient at describing what they know,

but as they get older their skills improve, especially if they have been taught and have had practice

in how to think about and discuss their own thinking (Brown et al., 1983). According to Brown

(1983) Children can be guided to develop an understanding of what they know and do not know.

Teachers can also help students develop an appreciation for what learning tasks might demand, as

well as an awareness of the particular knowledge and strategies they can bring to these tasks. In

Students can also be prompted to ask more general questions about a task or problem that help them

become aware of their existing resources and needs. Reflective questions can help students become

aware of what they can do and make connections to the tasks at hand. A student might reflect on her
work and conclude, “I understand what I want to say in my essay, but I’m having trouble figuring

out how to get into it,” or “I have lots of ideas about ways to test my hypothesis, but I don’t know

how I’ll know if I’ve proved or disproved it.” Identifying the challenging aspects of complex

cognitive tasks can help students narrow down what they need as they seek assistance. Similarly,

identifying their own knowledge can help students become a source of assistance for others. This

process of being aware of one’s own knowledge state is called self-monitoring.

One common approach to developing metacognitive skills involves teaching study strategies that

ask students to think about the way they learn best. Students must learn to become aware of their

capabilities, strengths, and weakness as learners in order to develop as learners. Questions that

explicitly help students think about, “How do I study best?” or “What kinds of tools help me learn?”

all engage metacognitive knowledge. This can range from information that helps students assess

their own abilities and intelligences to reflections on specific learning processes students tend to use

in different situations. With such awareness, a student might say, “I am having trouble

understanding what this textbook is saying, but I know I understand things better when I make flow

charts. Let me see if I can chart the process of photosynthesis for myself.” This awareness involves

metacognitive skills (Richards & Renandya, 2002).

When a student has information about her thinking (metacognitive knowledge), she is able to use

this information to direct or regulate her learning. This kind of metacognition is also referred to as

“executive control.” Just as a business executive manages and oversees activities in a company,

executive control can be thought of as managing and overseeing one’s own thinking. Metacognitive

regulation involves the ability to think strategically and to problem-solve, plan, set goals, organize

ideas, and evaluate what is known and not known. It also involves the ability to teach to others and

make the thinking process visible (Brown et al 1983).

According to Bransford et al (2000), teachers can help students to become better at selecting

strategies. They can help students ask and answer questions such as “How can I keep track of what I

know?”Or “How do I decide which paths to go down?”And “How long should I try this
approach?”“When should I switch to another strategy?” or “What should I try next?” All of these

questions help students explore new subject areas, and assist them in transferring what they know

from one problem to the next.

According to Bereiter & Scardamalia (1989) Good metacognitive thinkers are also good intentional

learners. That is, they are able to direct their learning in the proper ways to build understanding.

They know when to use strategies and how to use them. They are able to redirect the normal

frustration that occurs when things are confusing or are not initially productive into further learning

and research strategies.

2.2.3 Metacognition and three types of knowledge

If students want to increase their metacognitive abilities, they need to be aware of three kinds of

content knowledge: declarative, procedural, and conditional. Declarative knowledge is the factual

information that one knows; it can be declared—spoken or written. An example is knowing the

formula for calculating momentum in a physics class (momentum = mass times velocity).

Procedural knowledge is knowledge of how to do something, of how to perform the steps in a

process; for example, knowing the mass of an object and its rate of speed and how to do the

calculation. Conditional knowledge is knowledge about when to use a procedure, skill, or strategy

and when not to use it; why a procedure works and under what conditions; and why one procedure

is better than another. For example, students need to recognize that an exam word problem requires

the calculation of momentum as part of its solution (Chastain 1988).

This notion of three kinds of knowledge applies to learning strategies as well as course content.

When they study, students need the declarative knowledge that (1) all reading assignments are not

alike; for example, that a history textbook chapter with factual information differs from a primary

historical document, which is different from an article interpreting or analyzing that document.

They need to know that stories and novels differ from arguments. Furthermore they need to know

that there are different kinds of note taking strategies useful for annotating these different types of

texts. And (2) students need to know how to actually write different kinds of notes (procedural

knowledge), and (3) they need to know when to apply these kinds of notes when they study
(conditional knowledge). Knowledge of study strategies is among the kinds of metacognitive

knowledge, and it too requires awareness of all three kinds of knowledge (Pierce, William 2003).

Paris et al. (1983) argued that strategies are deliberate actions, and they can often be difficult to

learn and employ. Their value lies in their social nature, in that students and teachers can “publicly”

share, evaluate, and understand the functions and the value of the strategies. This public nature of

strategy understanding and application is especially important for beginning and low-achieving

readers, because they are not aware of how to employ strategies or what purpose or function they

serve.

To accept and use strategies, beginning and low-achieving readers must understand the purpose of

the reading task and the different actions they can take to achieve their reading goals. Students must

have the knowledge about strategies to choose to use them. A major contribution of the Paris et al.

(1983) work was the researchers’ addition to our understanding of the knowledge readers must have

to become strategic readers. In addition to declarative and procedural knowledge, the authors added

the idea of conditional knowledge. Declarative knowledge is the knowledge about what strategies

are, and can “help in setting goals and adjusting actions to changing task conditions”, and

procedural knowledge is knowledge about how to employ strategies (p.303).

Conditional knowledge adds the critical elements of “knowing when and why to apply various

actions“. Different strategies can be useful in different circumstances; not all strategies are useful all

the time. Strategies must be used flexibly since different strategies are most effectively used in

specific situations. By providing reasons to apply specific strategies in certain situations,

conditional knowledge also gives value to these strategies (p.303).

2.2.4 Metacognitive strategies

Researchers such as O’Neil (1978), Oxford (1990), define metacognitive strategy in different

ways. However, metacognitive strategy 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’ (Brown, 2000, p.124). Therefore, metacognitive

strategy 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 2. (Cited in

Gani Hamzah, M.H 2009; European Journal of Social Sciences).

Figure2. Metacognitive strategy in reading and writing

Metacognitive strategies

Learning process

Planning
Evaluation
foroflearning
own
learning
Monitoring of your own
learning

Lead to
Reading

Learning task Learning task

Writing

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. These 3

components of learning process lead to learning tasks reading and writing components.

In Rebecca Oxford's (1990a) practical guide for teachers, she outlined a host of learning and

communication strategies that have been successful among learners. Her taxonomy is both

comprehensive and practical. Her mentioned metacognitive strategies are shown in figure 3.
 Meta-
cognitive
strategies

Arranging
Centering and Evaluating
your planning your
learning your learning
learning

Overview
and
Finding out Identifying Seeking
linkage Delaying Setting Planning for
Paying about the purpose practice Self Self-
with speech Organizing goals and a language
attention production
language of a language
task opportunit monitoring evaluating
already learning objectives task ies
known
material

In a research on investigating learning strategies used by students at different proficiency levels,

Wu, Ya-Ling (2008) found that higher proficiency EFL students use language learning strategies

more often than lower proficiency EFL students. Also compared to lower proficiency students,

higher proficiency EFL students use metacognitive strategies more often. O'Malley et al., (1985)

and Chamot et al., (1987) found that metacognitive strategy use rose as the foreign language course

level increased.

2.3. Metacognitive strategies and writing ability

In relation to the quality of students writings and their abilities in writing all of the researches

emphasized on the explicitly teaching of writing strategies. Researchers like Bereiter &Scardamalia

(1987), Langer (2001) recommended on teaching writing strategies. According to Bereiter

 &Scardamalia (1987) students' knowledge of writing strategies may affect how they plan their

writing and their ability and their quality of writings. Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) believe

that students who considered as low proficient, this is not because of their lack of knowledge in

language but because of their lack of ability in using strategies.

An undertaken research by Devine et al. (1993) suggested that there is a potential link between

students' metacognitive models and their actual writing performance. The existence of linkage

between metacognition and writing performance has particularly important implications foe ESL

writing instruction. In her essay, "The Role of Metacognition in Second Language Reading and

Writing," Devine (1993) points out that there are now data that suggest that metacognitive strategies

play an even more important role than linguistic competence in successful second language writing

(p.116). He continues that ESL learners often have the problem of a "limited metacognitive

knowledge base," so that they are unable to determine their progress in writing tasks (p.117).

In a research Englert (2001) confirmed that a related area of difficulty is limited metacognitive

knowledge and control. Learners may lack awareness of appropriate strategies, or have difficulty

exercising control over implementing and monitoring them as a result this has contributed to

evolving trends in the teaching of writing.

2.4. Assessing metacognitive strategies:

Performance assessment is by nature a process that requires extended engagement by students in

order to demonstrate their proficiency. They may conduct multistep experiments, write well-

documented research papers, organize and supervise group problem solving, or present a description of

previously developed work. Although the exact nature of these tasks may differ in terms of subject

matter, time for performance, flexibility or choice of topics, and the amount of external support for the
student, they share the common characteristic of requiring that students plan, organize and execute

complex tasks (O'Neil& Abedi 1996).

From the undertaken researches there appears to be a potential link between writing performance

and the metacognitive knowledge base which is, in turn, impacted by and composed of three

theoretically interactive, but separate variables- personal, task, and strategy(Kasper, 1997).

In his article "Assessing Metacognitive Growth of ESL Student Writers", Kasper (1997) notes that

students' metacognitive models were assessed through their pre- and post- course responses to (a)

writing autobiographies and (b) cognitive style questionnaires.

Researches such as Sandman (1993) and Devin, Railer & Boshoff (1993), used these tools to

investigate students' awareness in applying strategies.

2.4.1 The writing Autobiography:

Sandman et al. used pre- and post- course writing autobiographies in their basic writing classes to

explain students' attitudes toward writing. The writing autobiography asks students to describe and

evaluate both positive and negative aspects of their English language writing experience, thereby

increasing awareness. By increasing students' awareness of their own writing experience and

knowledge, the writing autobiography reflect self-knowledge and can therefore be used to help

students define the personal component of metacognitive model of writing. The pre-course writing

autobiography provides instructors with metacognitive "baselines" for each student. The post-course

writing autobiography helps students to monitor their own development as writers and assist students

in developing sound criteria for assessing their own writing performance (Sandman, 1993).

2.4.2. The cognitive style questionnaire:

Students' metacognitive models also can be assessed by using cognitive style questionnaires.

According to Kasper (1997) cognitive style questionnaires directs students' attention to the goals they

set and the strategies they use when writing. This instrument clarifies tasks and strategy knowledge by

asking students to define good writing, to describe what they do when they have trouble writing, and

finally to rank, in order of importance both to their writing teachers and to themselves, criteria such as

clarity, fluency, grammar, originality, content, organization, and explanation (Kasper, 1997).
The tow most famous questionnaire to assess metacognitive strategies are those which invented by

Gregory Schraw and Rayne Sperling Dennison, it is an easily administered metacognitive inventory

which is suitable for adolescents and adults. It is consist of 52-item self-report instrument that

included multiple items within each of the eight component process subsumed under knowledge

and regulation of cognition.

In an experiment (1994) they investigate the convergent validity of instrument by comparing the

relationship between knowledge and regulation of cognition with measures of pre-test monitoring

ability, test performance, and the ability to monitor one's test performance accurately. They

predicted that estimates of monitoring ability, normatively high test performance, and accurate

monitoring would be associated with higher scores on the 52-item instrument.

In this instrument the knowledge of cognition measures an awareness of one's strengths and

weakness, knowledge about strategies and why and when to use those strategies. Regulation of

cognition measures knowledge about planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating strategy

use. The internal consistency of this instrument is excellent, ranging from .93 to .88(Schraw&

Dennison 1994).

The second one is State Metacognitive Inventory designed by O'Neil and Abedi. The alpha

reliability estimates and factor analysis of this instrument indicated that their metacognitive

subscales are reliable (alpha above .70) and unidimensional (one factor per subscale) (O'Neil

&Abedi 1996). Because its subscales have only 5 items each, the construct validity of SMI is

acceptable (O'Neil & Abedi 1996).

Their framework for test development in metacognition is domain-independent assessment.

Domain-independence is independent of domain (task, subject matter) but tied to either a type of

learning (e.g., metacognitive) or affect (e.g., anxiety). However, a domain-independent measure

must be instantiated in a context (e.g., assessment, learning task).

 There are many assumed advantages of alternative assessments, for example, that such

assessments should result in more effort expended and perhaps less anxiety. Further, such

assessments should engage students in higher level thinking or metacognitive skills. We believe

there is a need to measure such assumed advantages directly and explicitly. Unfortunately, few

standardized or commercially available measures of effort, anxiety or metacognitive skills exist

(O'Neil & Abedi 1996, p.4).

The following items are examples of state metacognitive items. Planning: I tried to understand the

task before I attempted to solve it; Self-checking: I checked my work while I was doing it;

Cognitive strategy: I used multiple thinking techniques or strategies to solve the task; Awareness: I

was aware of my ongoing thinking processes(O'Neil & Abedi 1996).

The techniques for measuring metacognition in empirical studies may be categorized into two

kinds: domain-dependent and domain-independent. One of the major domain-dependent

methodologies is think-aloud protocol analysis. In this technique, a subject is asked to vocalize his

or her thinking processes while he or she is working on a problem. The data as a protocol are then

coded according to a specified model for psychological analysis, which provides insights into

elements, patterns, and sequencing of underlying thought processes. An excellent review of mainly

domain-dependent metacognitive assessment techniques including protocol analysis is provided by

Royer, Cisero, and Carlo (1993). Another interesting domain-dependent technique in reading is

provided by Everson et al. (1994) (adopted from O'Neil & Abedi 1996, p.6).

There are several interesting domain-independent measures of cognitive and affective processes

(for example, Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Weinstein, Palmer, & Schultz, 1987) to measure

metacognition. These investigators use rating scales to measure metacognition. This type of

measurement involves asking participants to answer or self-report on statements about cognitive or

affective processes. For example, to measure learning strategies, a commercially available self-

rating inventory is The Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) (Weinstein et al., 1987).

This self-report inventory measures learning and study strategies, for example, (a) attitude and

interest; (b) use of time management principles for academic tasks; (c) anxiety and worry about

school performance; (d) information processing, acquiring knowledge, and reasoning, and (e) test

strategies and preparing for tests. However, this inventory was conceptualized and developed

before much of the current research on metacognition and reflects an eclectic view of both cognitive

and affective processes. According to our definition of metacognition, The LASSI does not

measure metacognition. Another interesting self-rating scale on motivational beliefs and self-

regulated learning, the Motivational Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich &

DeGroot, 1990), does not explicitly address either the state-trait distinction or specific

metacognitive constructs (e.g., planning), which we believe are critical in the measurement of

metacognition(O'Neil& Abedi 1996,p.6).

 Chapter III
Method

Introduction
Yu-ling YOU (2006) claims that writing is a complex cognitive activity knowledge and strategies

for writing, and metacognitive knowledge and strategies that regulate one's cognitive writing

process and actions. The cognitive activity of writing can be more complex for the EFL writers

when they write in English.

This study is intending to investigate metacognitive strategies employed by high and low proficient

writers In EFL context (nonnative English students)

3.1. Participants
I will conduct the current study on 100 undergraduate fourth-year male and female students

studying English language at the University of Urmia, and Azad university of Urmia, West

Azerbaijan, Iran and are mostly above 19. Fourth -year students will be chosen because the

researcher wants to choose those subjects which have already passed writing courses. The total

population will be 100 among which I will choose low proficient and high proficient students as my

two groups.

3.2. Materials (Instrumentation)

In order to achieve different groups regarding proficiency among the participants, they will be

administered a proficiency test which is a Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency test and

based on the achieved scores I will divide the participants into two groups, namely high and low

proficient groups. Along with proficiency test I'll ask the participants to write essays in the form of

narrative and argumentative styles.

3.2.1Schraw and Dennison’s Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (1993) is going to measure

metacognition. The test is composed of 52 items, 17 of them assess knowledge of cognition and 35

assess regulation of cognition. The knowledge of cognition part measures the degree of awareness

of one's own knowledge and ways of monitoring.

3.2.2. O’ Neil and Abedi’s State Metacognitive Inventory (1996)

The state metacognitive inventory operationally defines students' metacognition as a construct

consisting of the following behaviors: a) planning, b) monitoring, c) cognitive strategy, and d)

awareness. The advantage of this instrument is that because the relationship between the scores of

subscales of this instrument can be investigated and the results provide preliminary evidence for the

construct validity of this instrument, thereby metacognition can be directly and explicitly measured

in context of alternative assessments.

It consist of 20 items in which 5 items measure Awareness, 5 items measure cognitive strategy, 5

items measure planning, and 5ones measure self-checking.

3.2.3. Students writing tasks

3.3 Procedure
After administration of the proficiency test, I'll administer O’ Neil and Abedi’s State

Metacognitive Inventory (1996) to make students aware about metacognition, the usage this

questionnaire here is to remark them the strategies they have learned during their writing courses

which they have passed. After administering this questionnaire, I will assign participants to write an

informative and narrative writings. Then I will administer Schraw and Dennison’s Metacognitive

Awareness Inventory (1993) which is measures students' metacognitive strategy use while writing.

Then I will check the metacognitive strategies used by each group members in order to determine

what metacognitive strategies are used mostly by which group members and in which group the use

of the metacognitive strategies is more widespread.

3.4. Design
 The research is a cross-sectional survey study in that it considers groups of people as cross section

of possible behaviors. This researcher will explore the use of the metacognitive strategies in Iranian

EFL students' writing performance, based on the theories of metacognitive strategies. 100 university

students will be selected to be subjects. Schraw and Dennison’s Metacognitive Awareness

Inventory (1993), O’ Neil and Abedi’s State Metacognitive Inventory (1996) Questionnaires before

and after writing, will be used to measure students’ metacognitive strategies.

In the present study there will be two nominal groups of proficiency, namely, high and low. Thus

it will be logical to use Chi square (x 2) in order to analyze the data. In case a cell in the data table

is less than 5 or 0, I will use Fisher's exact test.