Assessing EFL learners" writing metacognitive awareness

Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce yazma konusunda yürütülen üstbiliş araştırması, üstbilişsel yeteneğin ölçümü için gerekli olan geçerli bir ölçeğe bağlıdır. Yabancı dil yazım becerisinin üstbilişsel farkındalığının ölçümüne yönelik, alana özgü geçerliliği onaylanmış herhangi bir ölçek bulunmadığından, bu çalışma üstbilişsel farkındalık yazım anketini (MAWQ) geliştirmeyi ve onun geçerliliğini ölçmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Anketi oluşturabilmek için, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenen 59 kişiyle mülakat yapılmıştır. Alan yazımı ve içerik analizinden yararlanarak, yazma becerisinin üstbilişsel farkındalığıyla ilgili bir taslak oluşturulmuş ve bu taslak sayesinde varsayılan bir model elde edilmiş ve bir ön çalışma yürütülmüştür. Anketin geçerliliğini ölçmek için ise, farklı açıklayıcı faktör analizleri yapılmıştır ve , sonuç olarak, biliş bilgisi ve düzeni ile ilgili varsayılan alt ölçekler ortaya çıkmamıştır. Fakat tüm anketin EFA yoluyla yapılan analizinde, araştırmacının MAWQ"nun iki genel ölçeğine dair varsayımı, biliş bilgisi ve düzeni MAWQ"nun iki ayrı öğesi olduğu belirtilerek desteklenmiştir.

İngilizce öğrencilerinin yazma becerisi ile ilgili üstbişişsel farkındalıklarının değerlendirilmesi

Research on metacognition in English as a foreign language (EFL) writing is heavily dependent on a valid measure to assess metacognitive ability. Since there is no report of a validated domain -specific measure of metacognitive awareness of foreign language (FL) writing this study made an attempt to develop and validate a metacognitive awareness writing questionnaire (MAWQ). In order to construct the questionnaire, an interview with 59 EFL learners was conducted. Based on the content analysis as well as the literature, a framework for metacognitive awareness of writing was developed which led to a hypothesized model, as well as a preliminary inventory. To validate the questionnaire, various exploratory factor analyses were run, and as a result, no clear pattern of hypothesized subscales of knowledge and regulation of cognition emerged. However, in the analysis of the whole questionnaire through EFA, the researcher"s assumption regarding the two general scales of MAWQ was supported indicating that knowledge and regulation of cognition are two main components of MAWQ. © 2015 JLLS and the Authors - Published by JLLS.

PDF

___

Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, M. Kamil, R.
Barr & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed., Vol. III, pp. 77- 166). New York: Wiley.
Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide: For small scale research projects (4th ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Open University Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gold, D., Hobbs, C. L., & Berlin, J. A. (2012). Writing instruction in school and college English. In J. J. Murphy (Ed.), A short history of writing instruction: From ancient Greece to contemporary America (3 rd ed.). (pp.232-272). New York: Routledge
Gunstone, R. F. (1994). The importance of specific science content in the enhancement of metacognition. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. Whit (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (p.131-146). London: Flamer Press.
Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 76-88.
Hayes, J. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In L. Michael & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 225-278.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602-611.
Johns, A. M. (1990). L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2 composition.
In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 24-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, L. F. (1997). Assessing the metacognitive growth of ESL student writers. TESL EJ, 3(1), 1-20.
Khine, M. S. (2013). Application of structural equation modeling in research and education. Rotterdam: Sense Publications.
Klein, P. D. (2004). Constructing scientific explanations through writing. Instructional Science, 32, 192-231.
Maftoon, P., Birjandi, P., Farahian, M. (2014). Investigating Iranian EFL learners' writing metacognitive awareness. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 3(5), 37-52.
Mohanty, S. B. (2007). Lifelong and adult education. New Delhi: Ashish Publishing House.
Öz, H. (2005). Metacognition in foreign / second language learning and teaching. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 29,147-156.
Panaoura, A., & Phillippou, G. (2005). The measurement of young pupils' metacognitive ability in mathematics: The case of self-representation and self-evaluation. Paper presented at the Conference of European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Retrieved March 12, 2014 from http://cerme4.crm.es/Papers%20definitius/2/panaoura.philippou.pdf
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371.
Sitko, B. M. (1998). Knowing how to write: Metacognition and writing instruction. In D. J. Hacker, J.
Donlosky ,& A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 93- 115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum . Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children's knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 51-79.
Stevens, J. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Thamraksa, C. (2004). Metacognition: A key to success for EFL learners. BU Academic Review, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/epaper/jan_june2005/chutima.pdf
Victori, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: A case study of two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27, 537-555.
Wang, J., Spencer, K., & Xing, M. (2009). Metacognitive beliefs and strategies in learning Chinese as a foreign language. System, 37, 46-56.
Wenden, A. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning: Beyond the basics [Special Issue]. System, 27, 435-441.
Wenden, A. L. (2001). Meta-cognitive knowledge in SLA: The neglected variable.
In M. P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 44- 46). Harlow, Essex, United Kingdom: Pearson.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1991). The conceptual perspectives in the connections between reading and writing processes. In A. McKeough & J. L. Lupart (Eds.), Toward the practice of theory-based instruction.
Current cognitive theories (pp. 66-93). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zalewski, J. (2010). A connectionist-enactivist perspective on learning to write. In J. Arabski & Wojtaszek (Eds.), Neurolinguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives on SLA (pp. 93-106).Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845-62.