THE USE OF METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES AMONG POST …

Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW 1

THE USE OF METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES AMONG POST-SECONDARY MALAYSIAN ESL LEARNERS

ABSTRACT

Learning strategies are thoughts, mental steps, behaviours or operations or techniques that

learners use to help them comprehend or learn a new language and to regulate their effort to

do so.This study was undertaken to investigate the use of Metacognitive Strategies (MS) by

post-secondary Malaysian ESL learners in their ESL learning. The objectives of the study

are: i) to find out which MS were used most and least by More Successful Learners (MSL)

and Less Successful Learners (LSL), ii) to find out how these learners perceived the

importance of MS in their ESL learning and iii) how MS ranked against other learning

strategies on SILL. A total of 400 students from four institutions responded to quantitative

questionnaires. The quantitative data were analysed and interpreted using frequency counts, t-

tests, Tukey-tests and Chi-square analyses, and compared with the data from Self-Reports for

consistency. The findings show that between the two groups of ESL learners, the MSL

exhibited a significantly higher rate of use of the elements of the MS than did the LSL.

Monitoring was used most frequently and Planning was used least frequently by MSL.

Similarly, Monitoring was used most frequently by LSL but Evaluating was used least

frequently by LSL. There was a significant difference in MS use between MSL and LSL

between four institutions. The results suggest that the learners from the Teacher Training

Institute and Polytechnic used planning, monitoring and evaluating most frequently compared

to the other two institutions. This could be due to the requirement for students to go out for

their practical session during their course, where they are trained to be self-directed, self-

reliant and independent. They have to interact with other workers and be part of the team. As

for the importance of MS, MSL strongly agreed that MS were important in their ESL learning

but not the LSL group. In terms of ranking, MSL ranked MS highest and LSL, they ranked

Social Strategies first. The results indicate that there are significant differences between MSL

and LSL in the use of specific MS in four institutions. As a conclusion, MSL are better users

of MS and they perform well in their English. The lecturers should be aware of this and

should encouraged LSL to use these strategies to enhance their ESL learning.

Keywords:

Learning strategies, Metacognitive strategies, More successful learners, Less successful

learners.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Background

The mastery of the English Language is to enhance the exploitation of new

knowledge and new scientific ideas as the English Language allows individuals to develop

skills for better communication which are essential especially when the vision is to transform

Malaysia into a centre of academic excellence in the region, hence there is a need to adapt to

Pauziah Mat Hassan

Politeknik Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah

(POLISAS)

Khadijah Tifla

Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM)

[email protected]

Nur Huslinda Che Mat

Politeknik Sultan Haji Ahmad Shah

(POLISAS)

mailto:[email protected].


changes. Datuk Seri Adnan Yaakob, the state of Pahang chief minister commented that

„competence in English is essential if one is to acquire knowledge‟. He further reiterated

that;

„the perception among certain quarters that mastering the English Language would be

at the expense of losing one‟s racial identity is obviously wrong. It would not make us

less Malay, less Chinese or less Indian, rather it is a step toward our pursuit for a

knowledgeable and progressive society‟

(The New Straits Times, Sept.18, 2002).

In the spirit of striving towards an industrialised and K-economy society, the country

hopes to create and nurture an environment which motivates life-long learning activities. The

use of computers, particularly the Internet, enhance learning and access knowledge and

information from any site. The concepts of self-directed learning, self-paced and self-

evaluation will be put into practice. This will direct students to becoming autonomous

learners in which they can take charge of their own learning so that they are able to plan,

monitor and evaluate their own learning to become independent learners especially when

learning English is concerned. As English is an international language or some people called

it a world language, the mastery of the English language will surely have an added value to

individuals‟ academic qualifications for they will have better marketability.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Learners are sometimes not successful in their learning of English because of their

low ability and this could be due to their inappropriate use of learning strategies. Conditioned

by culture and the educational system, most Malaysian learners are passive in nature and very

much teacher dependent. They like to be told what to do, and they do only what is clearly

essential to get a good grade. This needs to be changed. The learning methods of today and

of the future seem likely to be characterised by a higher degree of independent, self-

motivated learning, by tasks which call for creative thinking rather than reproduction of

facts. (Nisbet and Schucksmith, 1986). Therefore, the main concern of this study is to gain

some invaluable insights into the metacognitive learning strategies employed by more

successful ESL and less successful learners which can help raise the learners‟ awareness in

promoting autonomous learning or learning independently.

1.3 Research Questions

The study attempts to answer the following research questions:

1. Do Malaysian ESL learners use metacognative strategies of planning, monitoring,


and evaluating in their ESL learning ?

a. Which metacognitive strategies are used most and least frequently by more successful

ESL learners?

b. Which metacognitive strategies are used most and least frequently by less successful ESL

learners?

c. Are there similarities and differences in the use of Metacognitive Strategies among four

groups of ESL Learners in four IHL?

2. How did the Malaysian ESL learners perceive the importance of metacognitive

strategies in their ESL learning?

a. Are there similarities and differences in the perceptions on the importance of MS among

four groups of the Malaysian ESL Learners in Four IHL ?

3. How did metacognitive strategies rank against other learning strategies on the

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)?

a. Are there similarities and differences in the way the Malaysian ESL learners rank MS

against other language learning strategies on SILL?

1.4 Theoretical Framework

For the purpose of this study, the researcher would like to limit the terms used to refer to

metacognitive strategies based on three key elements: Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating

based on the common concept from the researchers below:

Concept of Metacognitive Strategies Researcher

Planning, monitoring, taking action and evaluating result O‟Neil (1978)

Planning, monitoring and evaluating Holec (1981)

Planning for learning, monitoring and self-evaluating for learning after a learning activity Brown and Palinscar (1982)

Planning for learning, monitoring of comprehension or production,self-evaluation of

learning after the language activity is completed

O‟Malley et.al (1985)

Setting goals and objectives, planning for a language task, seeking practice opportunities

monitoring and evaluating

Nisbet and Schucksmith

(1986)

Self-management skills to oversee and manage their learning, planning, monitoring and

evaluating

Oxford (1990)

Planning, monitoring and evaluating Rubin and Thompson

(1994)

Planning, organizing, monitoring and evaluating of learning process McDonough (1995)

1.5 Significance of the Study

The findings of this study may shed light on metacognitive strategies used by MSL

that may be regarded as a set of good language learning habits to be modeled by LSL. The

findings will contribute to a better understanding of how MSL succeed and become proficient


and competent users of the language. According to Schunk (1991), students who watch

others succeed tend to believe they too are capable, thus motivating them to attempt the tasks.

In line with the current education policy, one of the goals is to develop autonomous learners

who are self-directed (i) proficient in English, (ii) able to approach learning tasks with

confidence and select the most appropriate strategies for completing tasks, and (iii) able to

engage in independent learning in the IT domain, in which English language proficiency

plays an essential role. Therefore, this study could contribute towards realising that goal.

1.6 Definitions of Terms

1.6.1 More Successful Learners (MSL) : refer to the selected students as respondents of this

study who were in Form Six, Matriculation College, the Polytechnic, and Teacher-Training

Colleges with Distinction grades A1 or A2 in their SPM English.

1.6.2 Less Successful Learners (LSL): refer to the selected students as respondents of this

study who were in Form Six, Matriculation College, the Polytechnic, and Teacher-training

College, who achieved C3 and above in their SPM English.

1.6.3 Learning strategies (LS) : refer to thoughts, mental steps, behaviours or operations or

techniques that learners use to help them comprehend or learn a new language and to

regulate their effort to do so. There are six types, namely; Metacognitive, social, cognitive,

compensation, affective and memory strategies.

1.6.4 Metacognitive Strategies (MS): refer to as self-management strategies which are

utilised by the learners to oversee and manage their learning. With respect to this study,

metacognitive learning strategies refer to the acts of planning, monitoring and evaluating.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Metacognitive Strategies of MSL

Myers (1981) conducted a study on the use of strategies among successful learners,

and concluded that „successful ESL learners are learners with a sense that they are competent

and effective and are aware of their learning strategies and why they employ the strategies

(Myers,1981, p. 417). Ellis and Sinclair (1989) conducted a study and the finding was

consistent with that of Myers. They generalise that good language learners are „self-aware‟

and that they are aware of and understand the reasons for their attitudes and feelings towards

language learning (Ellis & Sinclair,1989, p.6). Ellis and Sinclair and Myers seem to support

Stern‟s (1983) views on the characteristics of good language learners. Stern states that „good

language learners are not necessarily those to whom a language comes very easily; but they

have persevered, have overcome frustrations, and have, after many trials and errors, achieved


a satisfactory level of achievement‟ (Stern,1983, p.380). Successful language learners are

capable of accomplishing tasks, are willing to become „gamblers‟ in the game of language

who attempt to produce and interpret language that is a bit beyond their absolute certainty

(Brown, 1994). Brown adds that the eventual success that learners attain in a task is a factor

of their belief that they indeed are fully capable of accomplishing the task. This is an

important element in second language learning. Good language learners have the ability to

reflect. This is a learned behaviour which can be cultivated by the individual over time

(Sparks-Langer & Colton, 1991). It can be concluded that successful learners use a wider

range of strategies in their ESL learning, are able to determine the appropriateness of a

strategy for a specific task, are able to describe their implicit strategies, are aware of learning

strategies that they used and why they employed those strategies, and develop MS to meet

and reflect on their performance.

MacLeod‟s (2002) study supports Sparks-Langer and Colton‟s (1991) who found that

successful learners were aware of the learning strategies they used and why they employed

them, and that their choice of strategies was influenced by a combination of certain personal

and situational factors. This finding is similar to the results of the study conducted earlier by

Myers (1981). These successful learners are learners with self-efficacy. Bandura (1986)

stresses that they are able to see themselves as competent and effective learners. This

perception is important as one of the characteristics of successful learners is that they have

the ability to shape, change and manage their learning; in other words, they are referred to as

self-directed learners by Dickinson (1987) who stresses that these learners believe in what

they can do.

2.2 Metacognitive Strategies of LSL

Vann and Abraham (1990) took the initiative to conduct another study and found that

what distinguished unsuccessful learners was their inability to choose the right strategy for

the task. Vann and Abraham point out that the unsuccessful language learners lacked certain

necessary high-order processes, the MS or self-regulatory skills. This is to say that the

unsuccessful learners were using other strategies but did not use MS in their language

learning to enable them to assess the task. Chamot and O'Malley‟s (1994) study appears to

support that of Vann and Abraham. They discovered that some of the unsuccessful learners

were found to have used strategies, although not as widely as did the most successful

learners. The difference, according to Chamot and O‟Malley was that they were not able to

match strategies appropriately and as a result, they were unsuccessful in their language

learning. Moreover, some of the unsuccessful language learners were aware of strategies, but


were less able to determine the appropriateness of a strategy for a specific task. Chamot and

O‟ Malley stress that the unsuccessful learners were found to have a narrower range of

strategies, were unaware of task demands and lacked metacognitive knowledge about

selecting strategies. Chamot and O‟Malley describe the ineffective learners as seeming to fall

back on a largely implicit approach to learning methods which are habitual or preferred

strategies without analysing the requirement of the particular task. They then further point

out that the degree to which language learners are able to retrieve and describe their

automatic strategic processes may be a function of their degree of metacognitive awareness.

According to Chamot and O'Malley, „students who are more aware of their own thinking

processes may be able to describe their implicit learner strategies more successfully than

students with a lesser degree of metacognitive knowledge‟ (Chamot and O'Malley,1994,

p.387).

Therefore, from the various views and research findings, the less successful learners

can be summarised as follows: (a) attempted to adopt the strategies used by the successful

learners but are not successful, (b) were unable to choose the right strategy for the task, (c)

have a narrower range of strategies, (d) lacked necessary high-order processes (MS), (e) used

preferred strategies without analysing the requirement of the particular task, and f) were

unable to retrieve and describe their automatic strategic processes.

2.3 The Role of Metacognitive Strategies in ESL Learning

MS play important roles in the learning of English as a second language. According

to Ormrod (1995), metacognitive knowledge is important because it involves executive

monitoring processes directed at the acquisition of information about thinking processes.

These processes, according to Ormrod, involve decisions that help learners to identify the

task on which they are currently working, to check on current progress of that work, to

evaluate that progress, and to predict what the outcome of that progress will be. MS

positively impact students who have learning problems because they provide these students

with an efficient way to acquire, store, and express information and skills (O'Malley &

Chamot, 1990). MS help to assist learners who are dependent on high levels of teacher

support to become independent learners and according to O'Malley and Chamot, when

students have been directly taught the strategy, the strategy's purpose, how to use the strategy,

and are provided with opportunities to practise using the strategy, these students possess a

powerful learning tool that builds learning independence. When these students are confronted

with a problem-solving situation, they can implement the appropriate MS when they have

difficulty, for example, remembering how to solve a particular problem. O'Malley and


Chamot further point out that one possible misconception some educators have about MS is

that they believe MS are „crutches‟ that actually make students dependent learners, because

they would depend on the strategy. However, this is merely their own views (O'Malley &

Chamot, 1990). Zimmerman (1990) also disagrees with those claims and points out that

students‟ self-regulated learning is metacognitive knowledge and it is about one's own

learning and strategic processes and about the demands of the task. Allied to this knowledge

is the control of executive processes crucial to learning, which include planning, monitoring,

and evaluating the learning task (Zimmerman, 1990) and they are not merely crutches.

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 The Respondents The study obtained data on the use of metacognitive strategies by 200

MSL and 200 LSL of ESL from four institutions in the East Coast region of West Malaysia.

3.2 Instrumentation

Quantitative and qualitative data were obtained through surveys and self-reports.

3.3 Analysis and Intepretation Data

The data analyses were accordingly performed to yield answers to the various research

questions using the SPSS. The analyses employed descriptive statistics and inferential

statistics for qualitative data. The learners‟ Self-Report were analysed sentence by sentence

to identify the different types of metacognitive strategies used by the learners.

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Metacognitive Strategies used by ESL learners (MSL and LSL)

The data from Structured Questionnaires show that the overall use of MS by MSL and LSL

fall into the 'high use‟ category even when the scores are tabulated separately for each group

as shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1. Overall means for the use of planning, monitoring and evaluating among

MSL and LSL in ESL learning

Type of

Strategy

Mean

for

MSL

Category of

Use (MSL)

Mean

for

LSL

Category of Use

(LSL)

Planning 3.67 High 3.52 High

Monitoring 3.82 High 3.54 High

Evaluating 3.76 High 3.36 Medium

Statistical analysis in Table 4.1 show that monitoring (Mean=3.82), followed by evaluating

(Mean=3.76) and planning (Mean=3.67) were highly used by MSL, whereas LSL exhibited a


different trend, that is, the element of monitoring (Mean=3.54), followed by planning

(Mean=3.52) and evaluating (Mean=3.36). However, when a t-test was conducted using the

raw scores, the results showed significant differences in the means for each element of the

MS, as shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. The t-test analysis for the overall use of planning, monitoring and evaluating

between MSL and LSL in ESL learning

Type of Metacognitive Strategy t-value Sig.p

Planning 2.92 0.001*

Monitoring 5.18 0.005*

Evaluating 5.92 0.003*

Sig p<0.05 *

The results in Table 4.2 show that for each element of MS, such as planning (t=2.92),

monitoring (t=5.18), and evaluating (t=5.95), the difference is significant at p<0.05. In

conclusion, the findings of this study show that between the two groups of ESL learners, the

MSL exhibited a significantly higher rate of use of the elements of the MS than did the LSL.

4.1.1 Metacognitive Strategies Used Most and Least by the Malaysian

ESL Learners based on Self-reports

The findings of the qualitative data from Self-reports of the study show that the element of

MS used most by the Malaysian ESL learners is monitoring, and the element used least is

evaluating. The data for these findings were obtained by looking at the mention of the

elements of MS in Self-reports and the occurrences of these elements are shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3. Percentage of use of MS in Self- reports (writing task) among the Malaysian

ESL learners

Type of Metacognitive Strategy No.of occurrences %

Planning 23 28.75

Monitoring 39 48.75

Evaluating 18 22.5

TOTAL 80 100

From the results displayed in Table 4.3, it can be seen that 28.75% of the responses from the

Malaysian ESL learners indicate the use of planning, while 48.75% indicate the use of

monitoring and 22.5% indicate the use of evaluating in their writing task. The results in

Table 4.3 show that monitoring is the most frequently used while evaluating is the least

frequently used.

4.1.2 Similarities and Differences in the Use of the Elements of Metacognitive Strategies

among Four Groups of ESL Learners in Four IHL


Table 4.4 shows the results of a One-way ANOVA among the groups based on the frequency

use of planning, monitoring and evaluating.

Table 4.4: One-way ANOVA comparison of use of MS among four

groups of the Malaysian ESL learners in four IHL

Source Sum of

Square

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Between

groups

9.596 3 3.199 14.649 .000*

Within

groups

86.465 396 .218

Total 96.059 399

*Sig p< 0.05

Table 4.4 shows that there are significant differences in the mean score in the use of planning,

monitoring and evaluating among the groups (F=14.649, df=3, 396; p<0.05). The results

indicate that there is little variation between individual learners within specific groups, but

there is greater variation between the groups. The results of Tukey test in Table 4.5 also show

that there are significant differences (p<0.005) among the four groups. The asterisks indicate

significant differences between specific groups.

Table 4.5. Tukey test on differences in the use of planning, monitoring and evaluating

among four groups of ESL learners in four IHL

Source Matriculation

College

Form Six Teacher Training

Institute

Polytechnic

N

Mean

SD

100

3.394

.475

100

3.547

.453

100

3.791

.423

100

3.722

.511

Matriculation

College

* *

Form Six

*

Teacher Training

Institute

* *

Polytechnic

*

The results suggest that the learners from the Teacher Training Institute and Polytechnic used

planning, monitoring and evaluating most frequently compared to the other groups. The

students in the Teacher Training Institute appear to employ MS the most. This could be

because their syllabus specification for English specifically targets at producing reflective

teachers as emphasised in objective (iii) reflect critically on personal learning experiences as

a means of self-improvement. Another plausible reason could be due to the nature of their


programme under Teacher Education Division where student teachers have to go out to

schools for their practicum or School Based Experience (SBE). The learners in a way are

trained to be self-directed, self-reliant and independent. As teachers they have to present

themselves with confidence and to be resourceful and are self-regulated (Bandura, 1986).

The students in the Polytechnic appear to frequently employ planning, monitoring and

evaluating as well. This could be due to their syllabus specification for English which

specifically targets at producing independent learners for life-long learning as emphasised in

the objectives (iv) develop effective study skills for continuous learning, and (v) develop

independent learning amongst students. Another possible reason could be the requirement

for students to go out to the work place for their industrial training during their course, where

they are trained to be self-directed, self-reliant and independent. They have to interact with

other workers and be part of a team.

4.2 Perceptions on the Importance of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating among

MSL and LSL

Table 4.6 shows how MSL and LSL differ in their perceptions of the importance of planning,

monitoring and evaluating.

Table 4.6. MSLs’ and LSLs’ perceptions on the importance of planning, monitoring

and evaluating

Learner

Category N

Planning Monitoring Evaluating

Mean Corresponding

Level of Agreement Mean

Corresponding

Level of

Agreement

Mean

Corresponding

Level of

Agreement

MSL

(t value)

200

4.12

(3.45)*

Agreed

4.17

(3.57)*

Agreed

4.06

(4.24)*

Agreed

LSL 200 3.94 Neither Agreed nor

Disagreed 3.81

Neither Agreed

nor Disagreed 3.82

Neither agreed nor

disagreed

*Sig p<0.05

Statistical analysis in Table 4.6 shows the mean score for the MSL in terms of how important

they perceive planning to be 4.12. The analysis indicates that they agree it is very important

for them to use planning in their ESL learning. The mean score for the LSL is, however,

3.94, which indicates a comparative uncertainty about the importance of planning. A t-test

analysis for the two groups, that is, MSL and LSL shows a significant difference between

them in their perceptions (t-value of 3.45, significant at p< 0.05). A similar difference is

shown between these two groups for two elements of MS, that is, monitoring and evaluating.


The mean scores for monitoring (4.17 for the MSL and 3.81 for the LSL) and evaluating

(4.06 for the MSL and 3.82 for the LSL) which indicate that the MSL consistently see the

importance of those elements more than do the LSL. In relation to that, t-test values (3.57)

for monitoring and (4.24) for evaluating show a significant difference between MSL and LSL

at p< 0.05.

In conclusion, the results of the statistical analysis indicate that the MSL and the LSL

differ in the way they perceive the importance of MS in their ESL learning.

4.2.1 Similarities and Differences in The Perceptions on the Importance of Planning,

Monitoring and Evaluating among Four Groups of the Malaysian ESL Learners

in Four IHL

Table 4.7 shows the results of One way ANOVA among four groups of the Malaysian ESL

learners in different IHL based on the perceptions of the importance of MS.

Table 4.7. One-way ANOVA comparison of the perceptions on the importance of

planning monitoring and evaluating among the four groups of the Malaysian ESL

learners in four IHL

Source Sum of

Square

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Between

groups

9.469 3 3.156 14.542 .000*

Within

groups

85.954 396 .217

Total 95.423 399

*Sig p< 0.05

One-way ANOVA in Table 4.7 shows that there are significant differences in the mean

scores of use in planning, monitoring and evaluating among four groups of learners in IHL

(F=14.542, df=3, 396; p<0.05). The results indicate 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 4.8 also show that there are significant differences

(p<0.05) among the four groups. The asterisks indicate significant differences between

specific groups.

Table 4.8. Tukey test on perceptions of the importance of planning, monitoring and

evaluating among four groups of the Malaysian ESL learners in four IHL

Source Matriculation

College

Form Six Teacher Training Institute Polytechnic

N

Mean

100

3.89

100

3.79

100

4.09

100

4.18


SD .495 .519 .418 .421

Matriculation

College

*

Form Six

*

Teacher Training

Institute

*

Polytechnic

* *

Tukey test in Table 4.8 shows that there are significant differences in the perceptions on the

importance of planning, monitoring and evaluating (p<0.05) among the four groups of the

Malaysian ESL learners in four IHL. The results suggest that the learners from the Teacher

Training Institute and Polytechnic „most‟ perceived the importance of planning, monitoring

and evaluating compared to the other groups from Matriculation and Form Six. They appear

to most perceive the importance of MS. This could be due to the same reasons as in the

previous section where their syllabus specifications for English. Another contributing factor

could again be the nature of their programme under the Teacher Education Division in which

student teachers are required to go to schools for practicum or school based experience

(SBE). Thus the learners are trained to be self-directed, self-reliant and independent. As for

the students from the other two institutions, they differ in the way they perceived the

importance of MS and a possible reason could be that they do not have the opportunity to go

out for practical sessions.

4.3 The Ranking of Metacognitive Strategies against Other Learning Strategies on

SILL Based on Frequency of Use among MSL and LSL

Table 4.9 compares the number of the MSL and the LSL who rated the various learning

strategies in terms of frequency of use.

Table4.9. The ranking of Metacognitive Strategies against other strategies on SILL in

terms of their use among MSL and LSL

Types of

Learning

Strategy

Mean

Score

MSL

Category of

Use MSL

Mean

Score

MSL

Category

of Use

MSL

Metacognitive

Strategies

3.69 HIGH 3.18

MEDIUM

Social

Strategies

3.63 HIGH 3.31

MEDIUM

Cognitive 3.47 MEDIUM 3.09 MEDIUM


Strategies

Compensation

Strategies

3.35 MEDIUM 3.07

MEDIUM

Affective

Strategies

2.96 MEDIUM 2.90

MEDIUM

Memory

Strategies

2.96 MEDIUM 2.84

MEDIUM

Statistical analysis in Table 4.9 shows that the three highest-ranked learning strategies used in

ESL learning are not similar for MSL and the LSL. Thus, MSL in general, used MS more

than other learning strategies on SILL. On the other hand, the LSL ranked social strategies

highest. The results from Table 4.41 also show that memory strategies ranked lowest for both

groups of the Malaysian ESL learners. This suggests that the Malaysian ESL learners in

general do not rely much on memorisation in their ESL learning. The differences in the

ranking can also be 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 the MSL, while social strategies

(Mean=3.31) was highest ranked for the LSL. This data indicate that among the Malaysian

ESL learners, the MSL utilised more of the MS such as planning, monitoring and evaluating

in their own ESL learning and performance. LSL placed more importance on Social

strategies, for example, asking questions such as asking for clarification or verification and

asking for correction, cooperating with others such as cooperating with peers and cooperating

with proficient users of the new language or empathising with others such as becoming aware

of others‟ thoughts and feelings (Oxford, 1990) to help them cope with their learning. In

addition, the MSL indicated a „high use‟ rate for 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 suggests that, on the whole, the MSL seem to utilise strategies more,

particularly Metacognitive and Social strategies. The t-tests 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 results are presented in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10. T-test analysis for differences in strategy use between MSL and LSL based

on the SILL

Type of Learning

Strategies

t value Sig (2-tailed)

Metacognitive Strategies 7.67 0.003 *(sig)


p<0.05

Social Strategies 4.58 0.012 *(sig)

p<0.05

Cognitive Strategies 6.92 0.023 *(sig)

p<0.05

Compensation Strategies 4.52 0.005 *(sig)

p<0.05

Affective Strategies 0.78 0.120

Memory Strategies 1.89 0.091

*Sig p<0.05

The results in Table 4.10 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 results 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.

4.3.1 The Similarities and Differences in the Way the Malaysian ESL Learners Rank

MS against Other Language Learning Strategies on SILL

Table 4.11 shows the results of One-way ANOVA among four groups of the Malaysian ESL

learners in four IHL based on the way these learners ranked MS.

Table 4.11. One way ANOVA comparison of MS ranking among four groups of the

Malaysian ESL learners in four IHL

Source Sum of

Square

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Between

groups

9.477 3 3.159 12.609 .000

Within

groups

99.205 396 .251

Total 108.682 399

*Sig p< 0.05

One-way ANOVA in Table 4.11 shows that there are significant differences in the mean

scores of the four groups of the Malaysian ESL learners in IHL ranking MS (F=12.609, df=3,

396; p<0.05). Consequently, the results in Table 4.12 show the different ranking among

different groups of Malaysian ESL learners in IHL. The results show 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 4.44 also show that there are


significant differences (p<0.05) among the four groups. The asterisks indicate significant

differences between specific groups.

Table 4.12 Tukey test of metacognive strategies ranking among four groups of the

Malaysian ESL learners in four IHL

ource Matriculation

College

Form Six Teacher Training

Institute

PolyteSchnic

N

Mean

SD

100

3.04

.458

100

3.08

.478

100

3.41

.551

100

3.30

.509

Matriculation

College

* *

Form Six

* *

Teacher Training

Institute

* *

Polytechnic * *

The results from Table 4.12 were ranked from the highest to the lowest in terms of the four

groups of the Malaysian ESL learners‟ ranking MS. The results suggest that out of four

groups of learners in four IHL, the learners from the 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.

Pedagogical Implications of the Study

From the findings of this study, it is clear that metacognitive strategies helped to self-regulate

learners‟ learning process. Ideally, the application of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating

implicitly or explicitly in ESL classroom may give positive effects to ESL learners in this

country. Therefore pedagogically, there is a need to look into ESL syllabi at post-secondary

levels to infuse the elements of metacognitive strategies. The strategy training is important to

help students raise their awareness in metacognitive strategy use which in turn would help

them achieve the required competency level in ESL in order to function well in other

academic subjects as they move on from one level to the other until they reach tertiary

education.


REFERENCES

Abraham, R.G. and Vann, R.J. (1990). Metacognition in the cloze performance of nine

Lebanese ESL learners. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American

Association for Applied Linguistics, Baltimore.

Abraham, R. and Vann, R. (1987). Strategies of two language learners: a case study. In

A.Wenden and J.Rubin (eds.), Learner strategies in language learning,

London: Prentice Hall International.

Bahagian Pengurusan Politeknik, Jabatan Pendidikan Teknikal.Kementerian

Pendidikan Malaysia, Garis panduan pengambilan pelahar. Kuala Lumpur: Politeknik

Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. 2003.

Bandura, A. ( 1986). Self foundation of thought and action. A social cognitive

theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Chamot, A. and O‟Malley, J.M. (1994). Implementing the cognitive academic

language learning approach ( CALLA). In R.Oxford (Ed.), Language learning

strategies around the world: Cross Cultural acquisition in bilingual pre-school

programs. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 401-419.

Chow Kum Hor. (2002, October 20). Science, Maths: Secondary schools only.

MCA says no to Dr. M on English. New Straits Times, pp. 1.

Chung Shan Meng. (2002, August 30). English a practical tool. New Straits

Times, pp.11.

Ellis,G. and Sinclair,B. (1989). Learning to learn English. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Gill, S.K. (2002) English language challenges for Malaysia: International

communication, Serdang. Universiti Putra Malaysia.

Hng Huang Yong (1998). CEO Malaysia: Strategy in nation-building. Kuala

Lumpur: Pelanduk Publication.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford:

Pergamon. (First published [1979], Strasbourg: Council of Europe.)

Isarji,H.S.,Ainol Madziah,Z., Mohamed Sahari,N. and Mohd. Azmi,O. (2008). The

English language proficiency of Malaysian Public University students 40-65: In

Enhancing the Quality of Higher Education Through Research: Shaping Future

Policy. Kuala Lumpur: The Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia.

Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia ( 2006). Kursus Persediaan: Sukatan Pelajaran English

Language Proficiency (Teras). Kuala Lumpur: Bahagian Pendidikan Guru.

Littlewood, W. (1997). "Autonomy”: an anatomy and a framework. System, 24/4, 427-

435.

Livingstone, J. (1997). Metacognition: An Overview. Buffalo: State University of New

York.

Low Tan B.B. (2002, August 27). Mastery of additional language always an asset. New

Straits Times, pp. 11.

MacLeod, P. (2001). A case study of the learning strategies of two successful

learners of English as a second language with instrumental motivation. Journal of

Language and Linguistics. Vol.1 No.2, 2002. ISSN 1475-8989.

McKeachie, 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.

McDonough, S.H. (1995). Strategy and skill in learning a foreign language.


London: Edward Arnold.

McDonough, S.H. (1999). Learner strategies: state of the art article. Language Teaching,

32/1, 1-18.

Ministry of Education Malaysia, (2001). Education in Malaysia: A Journey To

Excellence. Kuala Lumpur : Educational Planning and Research Division.

Ministry of Higher Education (2007). National Higher Education Plan 2007-2010.

Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (2005). Department of Polytechnic and

Community College Education Strategic Plan 2005-2010.

Ministry of Education Malaysia (2002). Syllabus and syllabus specifications

English Language WB 013 and WB 023. Kuala Lumpur: Matriculation Division.

Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (2004). Syllabus for English for Technical

and Commercial Purposes. Kuala Lumpur: Technical Education Department.

Ministry of Education Malaysia (2002). Syllabus and syllabus specifications for

the Teaching of English as a Second Language TESL (Major). Kuala Lumpur:

Teacher Training Division.

Morshidi, Ambigapathy, Balakrishnan, Fazal, Harshita, Hazita, Muhammad and Ratna

Roshida. (2008). The university curriculum and the employment of graduates 136-

159: In Enhancing the Quality of Higher Education Through Research: Shaping

Future Policy. The Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia.

Myers, P.J. (1981). Learning strategies: An overview. In Weistein, C.E. Goetz &

P. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies : Issues in Assessment ,

instruction, and evaluation. New York: Academic Press.

Nik Suryani Nik Yusuf (2003). The Use of Metacognitive Strategies in an

EAP/ESP Lesson. PhD Thesis. Kuala Lumpur: Fakulti Pendidikan, Universiti Malaya.

Nisbet, J. and Schucksmith, J. (1986). Learning Strategies. Boston, Mass.:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.

O‟Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., and Walker,C. (1987). Some applications of

cognitive theory to second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 9287-306.

O‟Malley,J.M., Chamot,A.U., Stewner-Manzanares,G., Kupper,L., and

Russo,R.P. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL

students. Language Learning, 35, 21-46. et al,1985a.

O‟Malley,J.M., Chamot,A.U., Stewner-Manzanares,G., Kupper,L.,and Russo,R.P.

(1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language.

TESOL Quarterly, 19, 557-546.

O‟Malley, J.M. and Chamot, A.U.(1990). Learning strategies in second language

acquisition. New York:Cambridge University Press.

O‟ Neill,H.F.Jr. (1978). Learning strategies. New York : Academic Press.

Ormrod, J.E. (1995). Human learning.Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey.

Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Newbury House.Oxford, R.L. and Nyikos, M. (1987).

Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The

Modern Language Journal, 73/3, 291-300.

Pierce, W.(2003) Metacognition: study strategies, monitoring, and motivation . Paper

presented at workshop November 17, 2004, at Prince George's Community

College.

Rubin,J. and Thompson I.(1994). How to be a more successful language learner. 2nd edn.

Boston: Heinle and Heinle.


Schunk,D.H. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York:

Merrill/MacMillan.

Sheerin, S. 1997. An exploration of the relationship between self-access and independent

learning learning. In Benson,P. and Voller,p.(eds.).1997. Autonomy and Independence

in Language Learning. London: Longman.

Skehan, P. (1992). Strategies in second language acquisition. Thames Valley University

Working Papers in English Language Teaching. No. 1.

Stern, H.H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Vann, R. and Abraham,R. (1990). Strategies of successful language learners. TESOL

Quarterly 24, 2: 177-198

Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy: Planning and implementing

training for language learners. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice – Hall.

Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Hemel Hempstead:

Prentice Hall.

Wiles,W. (1997) The effects of a metacognitive strategies program on academic

performance, perceived success and control for adults returning to school for

academic upgrading. Ph.D Thesis, University of Alberta, Canada.

Wong Siew Hong. (2002, October 28). There is no alternative to learning English. New

Straits Times, pp.11.

Zimmerman, B.J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement : An overview.

Educational Psychologist, 25 (1), 3-7.

Zimmerman B.J. and Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated

learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use. Journal

of Vann and Abraham (1990)

Documents

THE USE OF METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES AMONG POST …