examining the effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on esl group discussions

8/12/2019 Examining the Effect of Metacognitive Strategy Instruction on Esl Group Discussions

1/23

http://ltr.sagepub.com/ Language Teaching Research

http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/13/2/129The online version of this article can be foun d at:

DOI: 10.1177/1362168809103445

2009 13: 129Language Teaching Research Wendy Y.K. Lam

discussions: A synthesis of approachesExamining the effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on ESL group

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Language Teaching Research Additional services and information for

http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/13/2/129.refs.htmlCitations:

at University of New England on September 14, 2011ltr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/13/2/129http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/13/2/129http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/13/2/129http://www.sagepublications.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/content/13/2/129.refs.htmlhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/content/13/2/129.refs.htmlhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/13/2/129.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ltr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ltr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/content/13/2/129http://ltr.sagepub.com/


2/23

Language Teaching Research 13,2 (2009); pp. 129150

The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and permissions: 10.1177/1362168809103445http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalspermissions.nav

Address for correspondence: Wendy Y.K. Lam, English Department, The Hong Kong Institute ofEducation, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, Hong Kong; email: [email protected]

Examining the effects of metacognitivestrategy instruction on ESL groupdiscussions: A synthesis of approachesWendy Y.K. Lam The Hong Kong Institute of Education

This article presents the findings of an intervention study designed to examinethe effects of metacognitive strategy instruction (MCSI) on learners performanceand on strategy use. Two classes in the secondary English oral classroom in HongKong participated in the study; one class received eight sessions of MCSI and the

other served as a comparison group. In weeks 1, 10 and 20, data were collectedfrom the learners performance in group-work discussions, from the self-reportquestionnaires, from the observations of learners strategy use, and from thestimulated recall interviews. The findings indicated that the treatment class generallyoutperformed the comparison class in the group discussion task. In addition, therewas corroborating evidence from the multi-method approach to support the view thatthe learners tended to deploy problem identification as a global planning strategyto cope with an upcoming prioritization group discussion task. The findings arediscussed with respect to awareness-raising value of the MCSI, the interaction effectbetween strategy instruction and research method, explicit and implicit learning, anda match of task type and strategy choice. Finally, the distinct advantages of using amulti-method approach to gauging the effects of MCSI are appraised.

Keywords: metacognitive strategies, strategy instruction, second languageplanning, group work discussion, multi-method approach

I Introduction

This article reports on a study that aims to achieve two purposes. The firstpurpose is to assess the effects of metacognitive strategy instruction (MCSI)on task performance and on strategy use for oral language tasks in the Englishas a second language (ESL) classroom. The other purpose is to argue for asynthesis of approaches to investigating the impact of strategy instruction.

This article begins by identifying and defining seven metacognitive stra-tegies (MCSs) targeted for teaching in the present study and by providingrationale for more MCSI research. It is then followed by an overview of theresearch design of the present study. The multi-method approach to data

collection and data analysis is delineated. Last, the findings are discussed

http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/


3/23

130 Metacognitive strategy instruction

together with pedagogical implications, limitations of the study as well assuggestions for further research.

II Metacognitive strategies (MCSs) targeted for teaching

According to OMalley and Chamot (1990), MCSs are higher order execu-tive skills that may entail planning for, monitoring, or evaluating the successof a learning activity (p. 44). Recently, Rubin (2005) considers the abilityto deploy MCSs and to access ones knowledge and beliefs to be inherentin the expert language learner, thereby reiterating the importance of MCSsin language learning and language use. The role of MCSs is to oversee thegeneral learning process by enabling the learner to think ahead of the goal and

demand of the learning task, to plan for some action to tackle the task, and toassess how well one has done the task.As such, Littles (1996) postulation of task planning comprising both the

prospective and retrospective aspects is an adept description of the role ofMCSs. The prospective aspect determines the linguistic and other require-ments of the activity in question (Little, 1996, p. 31) and the retrospectiveaspect is concerned with establishing how successfully the activity has beenperformed (Little, 1996, p. 31). On the basis of this, it is argued that MCSsthat might enable the second language (L2) speaker to do intentional planningbefore and after an oral task are likely to facilitate students in accomplishingthe task, thereby enhancing task performance. (For a detailed account of therelationship between different kinds of pre-task/within-task planning and taskperformance, see Ellis, 2005.)

Regarding prospective planning, this study proposes three MCSs thatmight be beneficial to task completion and performance for L2 oral com-munication: problem identification, planning content and planning lan-guage. Problem identification aims to facilitate the global planning of anL2 oral communication task by enabling the learner to assess, first and fore-most, the purpose and expected outcome of the task (Wenden, 1995). Next,the learners try out planning content and planning language to preparerespectively for ideas and language needed for the task. Ellis (2005) regardsplanning for content and planning for language as strategic planning believedto be beneficial to task performance. Hence, it is proposed that the learners inthe present investigation be taught to deploy the aforementioned three strate-gies for prospective planning prior to an upcoming L2 oral task or ones turnto speak. Regarding retrospective planning, evaluation is targeted for teach-ing as it may promote reflection after the L2 task is completed or ones turnto speak during the task (Rubin, 2005). Retroactive planning aims to help the

learners perform better on similar tasks in future.This study adopts Macaros (2006) strategy framework, which subsumes

social strategies and affective strategies (recognized as different categories



4/23

Wendy Y.K. Lam 131

by OMalley and Chamot, 1990) under MCSs because social strategies areclusters of cognitive and metacognitive strategies that lead to Strategic Plans(Macaro, 2006, p. 328) while affective strategies require the knowledge ofoneself as a learner through recurrent monitoring of ones learning (Macaro,2006, p. 328). (For a detailed discussion of the rationale for the classification,see Macaro, 2006.) Three social-affective strategies classified as MCSs are selected for instruction in this study: asking for help, giving help andpositive self-talk. The first two are social strategies that may benefit taskperformance if students are encouraged to cooperate with peers, to help eachother with linguistic aspects of the task, and to offer scaffolded help (Lam andWong, 2000). The third one is an affective strategy that may help studentsmaintain a favourable affective state. The three strategies taken together maybe effective in enabling the L2 speaker to develop a social or psychologi-cal environment conducive to the successful completion of a task, therebyenhancing task performance.

To sum up, it is argued that the seven MCSs (problem identification,planning content, planning language, evaluation, asking for help,giving help and positive self-talk) targeted for teaching in this study mayhelp the L2 speakers to develop an executive ability to plan for task per-formance, to enhance task knowledge, to manage a task and to develop theircompetence.

III Metacognitive strategy instruction (MCSI) research

Despite the importance of MCSs to language learning and language use(Cohen, 1998; Macaro, 2006), the number of MCSI studies pertaining to thespeaking skill in the ESL context remains small. Reactions to strategy instruc-tion have, in fact, been mixed and conclusive findings about the value ofstrategy instruction are yet to be established (e.g. Chamot, 2001; Chamot andRubin, 1994; Cohen, 1998; Hassan et al. , 2005; Nunan, 1997; Rees-Miller,1993). We now visit the few MCSI studies to support the rationale for moreresearch in the ESL oral classroom.

The primary aim of the first experimental study reported in OMalleyet al. s (1985) was to determine whether metacognitive, cognitive and social/ affective strategies could be taught successfully in an ESL classroom con-text. Seventy-five high-school ESL students were involved and the treatmentgroup received the strategy instruction for two weeks. Significant differencesin oral proficiency favouring the treatment group were found for the transac-tional speaking task, in which students had to prepare a brief oral report andto present to a small group of classmates. In general, the results indicated the

usefulness of metacognitive instruction that aimed at raising students aware-ness of strategies to help them deliver meaningful messages. The effect ofsocial/affective strategies was, however, a lot less clear.

http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/http://ltr.sagepub.com/


5/23


Based on the transactional speaking component of the OMalley et al. s(1985) studies, Varela (as cited in Breen, 2001, p. 38) investigates the effectsof using metacognitive strategies, i.e. graphic organizers, selective atten-tion, self-assessment and self-talk on oral reporting in a middle schoolESL-science classroom. After two weeks of instruction, students in thestrategies group not only reported using significantly more strategies thanthe control group students, but the video-taped performance of their oralreports showed significant improvement over their performance prior to thestrategy instruction. The finding has thus cast light on both learner uptake ofstrategies and task performance.

Nakatani (2005) focuses on metacognitive awareness-raising instructionon oral communication strategy use. In the experiment, 62 Japanese femalelearners of English were involved. Over 12 weeks, the treatment group receivedmetacognitive strategy instruction whereas the comparison group received onlythe normal communication course. The effects of instruction were assessed byspeaking test scores, transcription data from the tests, and retrospective proto-col data for their task performance. The findings revealed that participants inthe treatment group improved their oral proficiency test scores but those in thecontrol group did not.

There have been even fewer empirical studies on the effects of affectivestrategies. Cohen (1998) investigated the effects of a range of speaking stra-tegies on three tasks performed by university foreign language students: a

self-description, a story retelling and a description of a favourite city. Quitea number of the strategies considered by teachers and students in the threeexperimental classes to be useful for the oral tasks were affective: deep-breathing, positive self-talk, visualization exercises, relaxation techniques,taking ones emotional temperature, self-rewards, persistence and risk-taking.Superior results in overall speaking performance shown by the experimentalgroup on the city description task were attributed to the use of strategies,some of which were affective. The effect of the affective strategy componentalone, however, could not be separated out.

Rossiter (2003) presents the findings of an intervention designed toexamine the effects of affective strategy instruction on measures of secondlanguage proficiency and of self-efficacy. The participants in this studywere 31 adult intermediate-level ESL learners registered in a full-time ESLprogram in a post-secondary institution in Canada. Two classes participatedin this study: one received 12 hours of affective strategy instruction, andthe second served as a comparison group. The data from the self-reportquestionnaires and from the transcripts of the audio-tapes were used toanalyse students perceptions of self-efficacy and their second languageperformance. The results of this study show that instruction in affectivestrategies provided no significant between-group benefit for L2 perform-ance or perceptions of self-efficacy measured in a narrative task or in anobject description task.



6/23

Wendy Y.K. Lam 133

The necessarily brief review of studies has indicated the paucity of workon investigating the impact of MCSI on task performance and strategy use inthe ESL classroom that has a focus on interactive, oral skills. This provides agood justification for more studies in the area. An apparent lack of consistentfindings across studies conducted in different contexts, resulting in the con-tinuing uncertainty about the effectiveness of strategy instruction on strategyuse and task performance provides a further general rationale. As Hassanet al. (2005) summarize, for speaking ability, instructing learners to use cer-tain strategies appears successful but the evidence is not compelling (smallnumber of studies, varied relevance, varied reliability) (p.3). Last but notleast, most of the studies reviewed did not adopt a multi-method approach toinvestigating the effects of strategy instruction on learners strategy use. It hasbeen argued that a synthesis of approaches to investigating the impact of strat-egy instruction may offer a more comprehensive and fuller picture of learnersstrategy use (Lam, 2006; Wigglesworth, 2005). Hence, the fact that previousstudies have tended to be relatively uni-dimensional in research approachprovides yet one more good justification for a multi-dimensional study.

IV Design of the study

As explained above, seven MCSs were selected for instruction in the

present study. The following two research questions formed the basis ofthe present investigation:

1) Does instruction in the use of the target strategies lead to improvedperformance (English proficiency and task effectiveness) in L2 oral tasks?

2) Does instruction in the use of the target strategies lead to greater use ofthese strategies in L2 oral tasks?

An intervention study was conducted in Hong Kong; two intact classes ofSecondary Two ESL students (20 in each) who were between 1314 years old

and had six years of English at primary level and one year at secondary levelwere involved. The mean scores of the two classes in a three-part standard-ized English examination were 61.13 and 60.80, and the one-way analysisof variance (ANOVA) indicated that the scores showed no statistically sig-nificant differences (ANOVA, p = .1593). The two classes were randomlyassigned to the comparison class (C) and treatment class (E).

The teaching materials of both the C and E classes were designed by theresearcher, field-tested and revised in the light of the feedback from theteachers and students in a pilot study (Lam, 2004). Group discussion wasselected as the major task type in the study in the light of the findings fromFoster and Skehan (1999), which indicate that group-based, pre-task planningdoes not enhance task performance if it is unstructured. Foster and Skehan(1999) argue that unguided group planning mitigates against effective task



7/23


planning, and it will be interesting to explore, in future research, whetherinstruction for such planning may produce different results (p. 239). Groupwork oral tasks were, therefore, chosen to see whether instruction in plan-ning would result in improved task performance. During the oral lessons, allthe 20 students in each class were asked to work in five groups of four. Eachgroup was engaged in a variety of discussions involving problem-solving,ranking, information gaps and opinion-sharing.

The intervention study involved a total of eight oral lessons spread overfive months (i.e. week 1 to week 20) for each of the two classes. Each lessonlasted for 80 minutes. The two classes did very similar activities in theEnglish oral lessons. Nonetheless, the E class received additional instruc-tion in the use of the seven target strategies whereas the C class did not. Inlesson 1, students had to map a list of things on an island. To help studentsunderstand how to use problem identification strategically in order tosuccessfully complete the task, the E class was taught how to analyse thepurpose and demands of the task. In lesson 2, students had to prioritizeitems to be taken on a camping trip on the island. To help students thinkof as many ideas as possible, the E class was taught to do strategic plan-ning content by using mind mapping. In lesson 3, the students were givena list of outdoor activities and had to describe each activity for a minute.To help students conduct strategic planning language to enhance perform-ance, the E class was taught to plan for the vocabulary, pronunciation and

structures that may be needed for the description. In lesson 4, the studentshad to offer advice on how to keep fit. To help the learners to understandhow to improve in future tasks, the E class was taught how to strategicallythink back to do evaluation in identifying their strengths and weaknessesin their performances. In lessons 5 and 6, to overcome problems with lan-guage and/or ideas, the E class was taught how to ask for help and givehelp as appropriate. In lesson 7, the students took turns to give informa-tion about food items so that the group could fill out a table. To better copewith the task, the E class was asked to try positive self-talk by thinking

positively about their performance. In lesson 8, the students were asked torank important attributes of friendship. The E class was asked to freely usewhatever strategies they had learnt hitherto to do the task as a means ofconsolidating strategy use.

The instructional approach adopted for the E class was explicit strategyinstruction (Anderson, 2005). Students were informed of the rationale and thevalue of strategy instruction, given names and examples of the seven targetstrategies to model on, and provided with opportunities to use and consolidatethe target strategies. As for the C class, the teacher conducted the group tasksbased on her knowledge and skills and experience with no reference what-soever to strategy use.

The teachers of both classes possessed a bachelors degree in Englishlanguage and literature, had qualified teacher status and had taught in the



8/23

Wendy Y.K. Lam 135

school for about seven years. In the E class, the teacher had also beeninvolved in the piloting of the present study and was thoroughly inductedinto strategies-based instruction prior to the intervention. During the study,the researcher maintained close contacts with both teachers, making surethat they understood the lesson objectives, teaching materials and suggestedprocedures. In addition, for the E class, it was ensured that the thinking andrationale behind the design of the strategy materials were made transparentto the teacher.

V Data collection

As mentioned above, a multi-method approach to assessing the effects ofMCSI was advocated (Lam, 2006). It is a research tradition to assess theeffects of treatment by measuring the learning outcome. Hence, the firstapproach adopted by the present study was to rate students performances ongroup work discussions. Yet, there might be changes not amenable to observ-able changes in performance. In view of this, three other methods were used toprobe strategy use to see whether it was altered by the MCSI. A questionnairewas designed to assess students perceptions of their own strategy use overthe intervention period. While the questionnaire data were useful in yieldinginformation about students beliefs and perceptions, they did not necessarilyprovide evidence about students actual strategic behaviours when engaging

in specific tasks. It was then necessary to study observed strategy use whenstudents were engaged in a task. However, surface evidence from observa-tions did not yield insights into covert strategic thinking. Hence, stimulatedrecall as an introspective method employed to elicit data about thoughtprocesses involved in carrying-out a task or activity (Gass and Mackey, 2000)was needed to gauge students covert strategy use by tapping their underlyingthought processes. The following section presents a synopsis of each of theresearch methods.

1 Task ratingTo gauge whether the MCSI would lead to improved task performance, awhole-class group discussion task was conducted during normal class hours.Students were asked to carry out the task in groups of four and there were fivegroups in each of the C and the E classes. An audio-tape recorder was placedin each group. The performances of all the groups in the C and E classes inthe task were collected in week 1 and week 20. Apart from the whole-classtask, there was a pull-out group task designed for two randomly selectedgroups in each of the C and the E classes to do outside normal class hours.A total of 20 recordings of the whole-class task and eight recordings of thepull-out group task were collected in week 1 and week 20 for analysis. Eachrecording lasted about 10 minutes.



9/23


Both the whole-class task and the pull-out group task required thestudents to prioritize items and to give reasons; both tasks were of compa-rable level of interest and had been piloted to ensure that they were able togenerate good interaction. (For an example, see Appendix 1.) Regarding taskcomplexity, the piloting indicated that students found the two tasks similar interms of their cognitive demands, confirming that the two tasks were compa-rable in their complexity level.

2 Strategy questionnaire

To find out whether the MCSI would alter the students self-perceivedfrequency of use of the target strategies, a strategy questionnaire was admin-istered in week 1 and in week 20 to all students (i.e. 20 in each class). A six-point Likert-scale response ranging between 1 = very low and 6 = veryhigh was used to gauge frequency. There were seven questions on the targetstrategies, with each question focusing on one strategy. In order to guardagainst the compliance effect in questionnaire surveys, seven questions onnon-target strategies that were not taught to students in the strategy instruc-tion were also included in the questionnaires.

3 Observation

In addition to the strategy questionnaire, observation was used. It aimed tostudy whether the MCSI altered observable strategic behaviour in terms offrequency. To ensure that the membership of the groups was consistent acrosstimes, the same English group work discussion involving only the two pull-out groups (a total of eight students) in each class was used for qualitativeanalysis of observed strategy use in weeks 1, 10 and 20. Prior to the grouptask proper, each group was given five minutes to conduct first language(L1) pre-discussion planning. The recorded planning phase was particularlydesigned to generate data for deployment of the target strategies (if any) by

the learners to facilitate the conduct of the upcoming English discussion task.The dataset therefore consisted of 12 recordings. Each recording consisted offive minutes of pre-discussion planning talk in L1 and 10 minutes of groupdiscussion in English. A total of 12 recordings of L1 planning talk (translatedinto English) and English discussions were analysed.

4 Stimulated recall

To go beneath the surface evidence of strategic behaviour, stimulated recall

interviews (SRIs) were used to investigate whether the MCSI altered stu-dents strategic thoughts in terms of frequency. Immediately after the pull-out groups finished the English group discussion in weeks 1, 10 and 20,each of the four students in every group was individually interviewed in their



10/23

Wendy Y.K. Lam 137

L1 by the researcher. All the SRIs were audio-taped; each interview lastedabout 25 minutes, including the play-back time. The dataset consisted of48 recordings of SRIs, which were translated into English, transcribed andanalysed.

VI Data analysis

1 Task rating

Four English-language teachers (one native speaker and three near nativespeakers) were asked to independently assess each groups English profi-ciency and task effectiveness in week 1 and week 20. When rating Englishproficiency, the raters were asked to give a single impressionistic ratingroughly reflecting the groups performance in three aspects, i.e. pronun ciation,content vocabulary, and grammar. When rating task effectiveness, theraters gave one impressionistic rating reflecting the groups general ability tohandle the task in terms of three areas, i.e. confidence when handling the task,cooperation / mutual help in conducting the task, and general effectiveness infulfilling the requirements of the task. The rating was done on a six-point scalefor both English proficiency and task effectiveness (i.e. 1 = very weak;2 = weak; 3 = ok; 4 = quite good; 5 = good; 6 = very good).

The inter-rater reliability coefficients were .7870 for English proficiency

and .8694 for task effectiveness. The KruskalWallis test (non-parametric)for small samples was conducted on the rankings of the four raters to deter-mine if teacher had any main effect on the ratings. The results confirmedthat there was no teacher effect on the ratings ( p = .1566 for English profi-ciency and p = .9412 for task Effectiveness). So the average score of thefour assessors was the rating assigned to each group.

2 Strategy questionnaire

Cross tabulations (CROSSTABS) were used to analyse each strategy ques-tion. CROSSTABS compares the ratings given by individual students toeach strategy on a prepost basis (i.e. week 1 and week 20). The numbersof students who gave higher/lower ratings to each strategy question on aprepost basis were counted. The overall difference between the C andthe E classes (expressed as a percentage) was the effect size which indi-cated the extent to which the MCSI might be associated with increases ordecreases in self-perceived use of individual strategies. The effect size wascalculated by summing up the differences between C and E (as a percent-

age) in the proportion of increased post scores and in the proportion ofdecreased post scores. These effect sizes were then subjected to the non-parametric Fisher Exact Test for small samples to see whether they werestatistically significant.



11/23


3 Observation

A speakers turn in the transcript was identified as the unit of analysis. Asobserved strategy use was the focus of this part of the study, every turn was

segmented into units in which each indication of the use of a target strategytype was categorized and coded. (Non-target strategies were also identifiedbut not included for discussion in this article.) Two independent raters, usingthe software NUD*IST (QSR, 1997), identified and coded strategies in the12 transcripts. The inter-rater reliability coefficient was .9388.

Frequency counts of the observed use of individual strategies and thewhole sample of strategies by each group (four students) were conducted togauge the effects of the MCSI. To standardize comparisons, the counting ofstrategy use for every 10 turns (T) produced by each group was used as the

standardized measure.

4 Stimulated recall

During the SRI, a video-tape of the pre-discussion group planning in L1 anddiscussion task in English was played back to the student. He/she was askedto pause the tape when he/she remembered what he/she had been thinkingabout when the task was in action (Gass and Mackey, 2000, p. 118). Everytime the video was stopped and the students did the reporting constitutedan episode. An episode comprised the video play-back of a related clip, theprompt (if any) by the researcher and the prompted or unprompted report-ing of a student. The RECALL (segment) was the reporting of the studentand identified as the unit for analysis (Green, 1998). The RECALL in eachepisode was segmented into unit(s) in which each mention of a strategy typewas categorized and coded (Gass and Mackey, 2000).

Two coders were asked to independently identify and code target stra-tegies, non-target strategies and non-strategies in all the 48 SRIs. Theinter-rater reliability coefficient was .8816. Target strategies, non-targetstrategies and non-strategies constituted 100% of all the coded segments.

The proportional frequency of each target strategy (expressed as a percent-age) was the frequency of the target strategy in relation to the total number ofcoded segments. (Non-target strategies and non-strategies were identified butnot included for discussion in this article.).

VII Findings

1 Task ratings

Research question 1: Does instruction in the use of the target strategieslead to improved performance (English proficiency and task effectiveness)in L2 oral tasks? Table 1 sets out the ratings on English proficiency and



12/23

Wendy Y.K. Lam 139

task effectiveness. For the whole-class task, each cell represents themean ratings of all the five groups in each class. For the pull-out grouptask, each cell represents the mean ratings of two groups in each class. Thedifference between the prepost means is preceded by a positive sign (+)if there is a gain in the post-mean and by a negative sign () if there is aloss.

A clear picture emerged from a comparison of the prepost differencefor each class. For the C class, there were four comparisons of prepostdifference in total, only one of which was an improvement (i.e. +0.45).On the other hand, for the E class, there were improvements on all the fourcomparisons (i.e. +0.60, +0.75, +1.15, +1.38). These gains were higher thantheir corresponding values in the C class. Moreover, for the E class, bothTask effectiveness ratings (i.e. +1.15, +1.38) were higher than both Englishproficiency ratings (i.e. +0.60, +0.75).

In answering the first research question, these findings seemed to indicatethat the E class which had received instruction in the use of seven targetstrategies generally outperformed the C class, suggesting that the strategyinstruction might be associated with greater improvements in both Englishand task effectiveness scores, and with gains on the task effectivenessscores even higher than those on the English scores.

2 Self-perceived strategy use

Research question 2: Does instruction in the use of the target strategies lead togreater use of these strategies in L2 oral tasks? The impact of the MCSI on theE class as compared with the C class on students self-perceived strategy use

Table 1 Ratings on group discussion tasks Week 1 Week 20 Pre-post

Difference (mean)Mean SD Mean SD

English proficiency ratings :Whole class task: C class 3.20 0.89 3.15 0.75 0.05Whole class task: E class 2.85 0.67 3.45 0.69 +0.60*Pull-out group task: C class 2.63 0.92 2.63 1.06 0.00Pull-out group task: E class 3.00 0.76 3.75 0.89 +0.75*

Task effectiveness ratings :Whole class task: C class 2.95 1.23 3.40 0.68 +0.45Whole class task: E class 2.83 0.72 3.98 0.97 +1.15*Pull-out group task: C class 2.75 0.71 2.38 0.74 0.37Pull-out group task: E class 2.68 1.16 4.06 0.74 +1.38*

Notes : 1 = lowest; 6 = highest; * denotes a higher pre-post gain than that of the C class



13/23


was assessed in terms of effect size. The values of the effect size (expressedas percentages) are presented in decreasing order of magnitude in Table 2.

The findings in Table 2 indicate that there were overall gains in effectsize in favour of E over C in six out of seven target strategies (T). Moreover,asking for help and problem identification had a statistically significantgain of +76% ( p = .0017) and +50% ( p = .0041) respectively. As for non-target strategies (NT), there were gains in effect size in favour of E over Cin six out of the seven non-target strategies. However, none of these werestatistically significant. The aforementioned findings show that the strategyinstruction appeared to be associated with statistically significant increases inthe self-perceived use of asking for help and problem identification.

3 Observed strategy use

Table 3 presents descriptive statistics to compare Cs and Es standardizedfrequencies (per 10 turns) of observed strategy use across weeks 1, 10 and 20.Each cell represents the combined frequencies of the two pull-out groupsin each class. T represents the total number of turns produced by twogroups of students and N represents the raw frequency counts of all the seventarget strategies.

Table 3 indicates that there was a clearly upward trend in the use of

problem identification by the E groups (0.5, 1.3, 2.3) in weeks 1, 10 and20 respectively. Considering that the majority of the values were below 1.0,the rise from 0.5 in week 1 to 2.3 in week 20 was dramatic. In contrast, theC groups did not show such a consistent upward trend. It should be noted that

Table 2 Relative effects of the MCSI on the E class as compared with the C class onself-perceived strategy use

Name of strategy Effect size (%)

Asking for help (T) +76* ( p = .0017)Problem identification (T) +50* ( p = .0041)Encouraging others to use available resources for help (NT) +26Giving help (T) +21Letting others speak more to reduce pressure (NT) +21Planning content (T) +20Accepting performance outcome (NT) +20Relying on oneself for help (NT) +14Thinking about the conduct of the task (NT) +13Evaluation (T) +10Planning language (T) +5

Taking risks with language (NT) +4Taking risks with content (NT) 0Positive self-talk (T) 2

Note : * denotes that the effect size is significant at .05 level



14/23

Wendy Y.K. Lam 141

regarding the aggregated frequencies of the whole sample of target strategies,there was not any clear pattern of increase for the E groups (i.e. 3.5, 5.1, 3.4)as compared with the C groups (4.9, 4.3, 5.1). These findings seem to lend

some evidence that the MCSI might be related to a clear and strong upwardtrend in the students uptake of problem identification. Nonetheless, theeffect was not apparent with the whole sample of target strategies. In addi-tion, there was a slight reduction in the number of types of strategies used bythe C class (i.e. 5, 4, 4). There was a high use of planning content by theC class, which accounted for a large proportion of their strategy use. In con-trast, there was a general increase in the variety of strategy use by the E class(i.e. 5, 7, 6) across weeks 1, 10 and 20. This appears to support the view thatstrategy instruction might have raised students awareness of the necessity to

explore a range of strategies instead of focusing on a small number.

4 Reported strategy use

Results of the target strategies are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Each cellrepresents the combined frequencies of the two pull-out groups, i.e. eightstudents in each class. The frequency counts were fairly representative in thatthe results were mostly from five to six students; two to three students wererather reticent to speak.

The figures in Table 4 (raw frequency) and Table 5 (proportionalfrequency) support the view that, for the E class, there was a rather consistentand strong tendency to report more of problem identification i.e. 2 (3%),7 (8%), 12 (23%) over time as compared with the C class but there was no

Table 3 Standardized frequencies (per 10 turns) of the observed use of individualand the whole sample of target strategies

Strategy C Class E Class

Week 1(T = 148;n = 73)

Week 10(T = 214;n = 92)

Week 20(T = 197;n = 100)

Week 1(T = 201;n = 70)

Week 10(T = 164;n = 84)

Week 20(T = 158;n = 54)

1) Problemidentification

0.8 0.2 0.1 0.5 1.3 2.3

2) Planning content 3.0 3.4 4.6 1.9 0.9 0.23) Planning language 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.24) Evaluation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.05) Asking for help 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.16) Giving help 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.57) Positive self-talk 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1Aggregated

frequency of use4.9 4.3 5.1 3.5 5.1 3.4

Aggregated typeof use

5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 7.0 6.0



15/23


evidence of such a strong and sustained trend for the reporting of other targetstrategies. The MCSI might, therefore, appear to be related to a noticeableimpact on the reporting of problem identification only. However, it shouldalso be noted that the E class displayed a rather consistent and substantialincrease in the aggregated frequency of reported use of the target strategiesin weeks 1, 10 and 20 i.e. 12 (16%), 35 (39%), 18 (35%) despite a slightdrop in proportional frequency in week 20. In comparison, the C group

appeared to change its focus from time to time with no predictable patterns,i.e. 12 (22%), 8 (14%), 16 (33%). The finding, therefore, seems to suggestthat the MCSI might also have an impact on the overall reported use of thewhole sample of target strategies of the E class over time.

Table 4 Raw frequency counts ( n ) of the reported use of individual and the wholesample of target strategies in SRIs


Week 1 Week 10 Week 20 Week 1 Week 10 Week 20

1) Problem identification 2 0 0 2 7 122) Planning content 4 4 10 1 3 13) Planning language 2 0 6 5 7 14) Evaluation 0 2 0 0 9 25) Asking for help 2 0 0 3 6 06) Giving help 2 2 0 1 1 17) Positive self-talk 0 0 0 0 2 1Aggregated frequency

of use12 8 16 12 35 18

Total number ofrecall segments

54 56 48 77 89 51

Table 5 Proportional frequencies (%) of the reported use of individual and thewhole sample of target strategies in SRIs


Week 1 Week 10 Week 20 Week 1 Week 10 Week 20

1) Problem identification 4 0 0 3 8 232) Planning content 7 7 21 1 3 23) Planning language 4 0 12 7 8 24) Evaluation 0 4 0 0 10 45) Asking for help 4 0 0 4 7 06) Giving help 3 3 0 1 1 27) Positive self-talk 0 0 0 0 2 2Aggregated proportional

frequency of use22 14 33 16 39 35



16/23

Wendy Y.K. Lam 143

Addressing the second research question from the multi-method approach,the results showed that strategy instruction appeared to be associated with:

the statistically significant increase in the self-perceived use of asking

for help and problem identification in the strategy questionnaire;a clear and strong upward trend in the students uptake of problemidentification in observed strategy use; andthe overall increase in reported use of the whole sample of target strate-gies and of problem identification in the stimulated recall interview.

VII Discussion

Let us recapitulate the findings from the multi-method approach to the tworesearch questions. Regarding task performance, the MCSI might be asso-ciated with improvements in both English proficiency scores and taskeffectiveness scores and with higher gains in the latter scores than the former.As for strategy use, there was evidence that the MCSI appeared to have animpact on the self-perceived use and reported use though not the observeduse of the whole sample of target strategies. Moreover, the MCSI might berelated to the learner uptake and reporting of problem identification.

Regarding the effects of the MCSI on task performance, the study hasprovided some evidence to support the value of MCSI. Moreover, there was

evidence to indicate that the treatment class made greater improvements intask effectiveness than English. This could be explained by the MCSIthat aimed to help the learners develop a strategic ability to plan for andhandle a task. This would seem to support a case for guided group-basedplanning proposed by Foster and Skehan (1999) and for enhancing the ben-efits of planning for task performance (Ellis, 2005). In addition, this studycomplements positive findings in Cohens (1998), OMalley et al. s (1985),and Varelas (as cited in Breen, 2001) studies in that previous research usednon- participatory, oral reporting tasks, whereas the present study employed

participatory group discussion tasks.Regarding the effects of the MCSI on the whole sample of target strategies,the findings appear to be connected with an increasing reporting of strategyuse in the SRIs over time. These findings indicate that the explicit focusingof strategies in the MCSI may have a pervasive impact on students strategicawareness or noticing of strategies (Schmidt, 1990), thereby enabling studentsto identify and report the use of strategies in the interviews. This is consistentwith findings in recent studies about the value of raising L2 learners strategicawareness in conducting oral communication tasks (Nakatani, 2005).

The correlation between the MCSI and the reporting could also have beenthe result of interaction between the teaching and the research instrument,i.e. stimulated recall. The instruction might have brought out the latenteffect caused by the repetition of SRIs in weeks 10 and 20. By repeating the



17/23


interviews over time, students in general could have become better able toreflect on strategy use. That is, repeated participations in SRIs could havea latent effect on what students were reporting. In short, it is plausible that thelatent effect from repeated SRIs is only effective when it is coupled withthe teaching (M. Bygate, personal communication, May 13, 2003). To sumup, the repeated SRI condition might have amplified the teaching effect, thusreinforcing the effects of strategy instruction. All in all, it is possible that theresultant effect is not caused by the MCSI or the SRIs alone but by an inter-action between focused teaching and the research instrument.

The findings have also indicated that while the MCSI was associated withconsistent increases in reported strategy use, it did not bring about correspond-ing increases in the observed use of the target strategies over time. In otherwords, the MCSI might have brought about explicit knowledge of strategyuse, which is not yet observable in performance data. It could be argued thatthe MCSI appears to have a positive impact on students declarative know-ledge about strategy use or explicit learning (DeKeyser, 2003); the MCSI isyet to have a strong effect on the speakers procedural knowledge of how toimplement strategy use. It is through repeated practice that declarative know-ledge of strategy use may be automatized to become observable, proceduralknowledge of strategy use. This argument is in line with Johnsons processof proceduralizing declarative knowledge through practice (Johnson, 1994,p. 125). Hence, while the instruction effect may not yet be observable, the

value of strategy instruction may lie in explicit learning, which may be thefirst step to proceduralization on the learning continuum (DeKeyser, 2003).Overall, the effects of the MCSI on learning manifest in ways that may ormay not be observable.

As for the effects of the MCSI on the use of individual target strategies,there is corroborating evidence from the synthesis of approaches usingquestionnaire, observation and stimulated recall to support the conclusionthat the MCSI might be correlated to the consistent increases in the self-perceived use (questionnaire), in the observed use (observation) and in the

reported use (stimulated recall) of one target strategy, i.e. problem identifica-tion. This global planning strategy enables the learners to find out prior tothe discussion task the purpose and requirements of the task.

The finding is consistent with the hypothesis that the learner needs todevelop executive control over the task by acquiring some kind of taskknowledge encompassing task purpose and task demand (Wenden, 1995).According to Flavell (1979), to develop executive control over a learningtask, the learner needs not only task knowledge, but also understandings ofthe nature and role of strategies that might be conducive to effective achieve-ment of learning goals leading to successful task completion. The findingabout problem identification may suggest that metacognitive strategies forhandling speaking tasks that have high learner uptake are likely to be those



18/23

Wendy Y.K. Lam 145

that facilitate students understanding of the task purpose and requirements.One proviso should, however, be noted. Not all strategies are equal and someare more beneficial to others depending on task type (Oxford et al. , 2004).That is, the type of oral task chosen (i.e. prioritization) could have favouredthe use of problem identification, rendering it more amenable to use par-ticularly when the learners are provided with time and space to do so duringthe pre-task planning phase.

Regarding the research methodology in strategy instruction studies, I wishto argue that a synthesis of approaches helps complement the strengths andweaknesses inherent in every research method. Learners performances ingroup-work discussions reflect the effects of strategy instruction on taskperformance, but they do not give information about strategy use. Whereasquestionnaire findings do provide such information, they do not necessarilyreflect actual behaviours. While observations do reflect behavioural learn-ing outcomes, they cannot tap learners (strategic) thought processes theway the stimulated recall methodology does. As learning may or may notbe observable, it is desirable to employ research instruments that can gaugeboth observable and unobservable changes in order to get a full picture of theimpact of strategy intervention (Lam, 2006; Wigglesworth, 2005).

As each method makes a distinct contribution to our understanding of theimpact of MCSI, findings from the multi-method approach provide us withinformation about:

changes in ratings of students task performance (via recording data);changes in underlying self-perceptions (via questionnaire data);changes in observable strategy use (via observational data); andchanges in underlying strategic thinking (via stimulated recall data).

These findings from the multi-method approach are consistent with thosefrom previous strategy research in that the impact of strategy instruction mayshow up in different measures (Dansereau, 1985).

VIII Pedagogical implications

Given that strategy instruction seems to have an impact on the desirablenoticing (Schmidt, 1990) of strategy use in terms of awareness-raising, itmay be worth implementing MCSI to help L2 speakers to cope with ESL oraltasks, thereby providing a means to help students improve in language andfacilitate task completion. It may also be desirable to incorporate planningtime and space into strategy instruction with a view to promoting the effec-tive use of MCSs in the language classroom. The provision of time and spacefor students to practise MCSs prior to the English discussions may enhanceperformance in the task proper. As for MCSI, it may be useful to match



19/23


strategy use with task types (e.g. individual presentations, pair discussions,group discussions).

IX Limitations of the study

Regarding the research design, while the use of intact groups was desirable(Brown and Perry, 1991) and the English standards of the two classes werecontrolled for, the two classes were probably different in terms of cognitivestyles, initial strategy use, personality, motivation, etc. In addition, in orderto expose students to a spectrum of strategies and to comply with the timeconstraints of the school, only one session could be allocated to the teachingand learning of each strategy. So while the conscious effort on the part of the

teacher to help students consolidate previously-learnt strategies could raisestudents general strategic awareness, this was probably not adequate to bringabout their sustained use because of limited practice time given to individualstrategies.

Regarding data collection and analysis, the small sample size did notpermit the use of inferential statistics, providing no information on statisticalsignificance about gain scores and increase in strategy use. In addition, thecoding of strategy use and the rating of the group task were carried out ona group rather than individual basis, thus rendering it difficult to assess howwell group performance was due to individual members or the majority of thegroup members. Also, other means of establishing improvement in languageproduction might have been more appropriate as the English proficiencyand task effectiveness scales may not be comparable in nature.

X Suggestions for further research

Clearly, more work is needed to investigate the influence of individualdifferences and learner uptake of strategy use (Drnyei and Skehan, 2003).

In addition, the present study aims to investigate the teaching effects of seventarget strategies. To facilitate the proceduralization of strategy use, repeatedexploration and practice over an extended period of time is necessary(Macaro, 2006; Cotterall, 2007). Hence, in order to yield optimal results, itmay be desirable to incorporate strategy-based instruction into the normalcurriculum on a longer term basis (as compared with 20 weeks of instruc-tion in the present study). Last, the target strategies taught to the learnersneed to be rigorously investigated beyond the Hong Kong context in orderto build a picture of how they might interact with learners in other culturesgiven that cultural preferences probably affect strategy use (Wharton, 2000).Notwithstanding the aforementioned limitations of the present study, I wishto support Flavells (1979) proposition to implement systematic instruction inmetacognitive knowledge and monitoring skills.



20/23

Wendy Y.K. Lam 147

XI References

Anderson, N.J. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch in second language teaching and learning (pp. 757771). Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Breen, M.P. (Ed.) (2001). Learner contributions to language learning: New directions

in research . Harlow: Longman.Brown, T.S. and Perry, F.L. (1991). A comparison of three learning strategies for ESL

vocabulary acquisition. TESOL Quarterly , 25 (4), 655670.Chamot, A.U. (2001). The role of learning strategies in second language acquisi-

tion. In M.P. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: Newdirections in research (pp. 2543). Harlow: Longman.

Chamot, A.U. and Rubin, J. (1994). Comments on Janie Rees-Millers A critical

appraisal of learner instruction: theoretical bases and teaching implications.TESOL Quarterly , 28 (4), 771781.Cohen, A.D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language . Harlow:

Longman.Cotterall, S. (2007). Promoting strategic awareness and control. Plenary address

delivered at the 42nd RELC (Regional Language Centre) InternationalSeminar, Singapore.

Dansereau, D.F. (1985). Learning strategy research. In J.W. Segal, S.F. Chipman andR. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills, vol. 1: Relating instruction toresearch (pp. 6783). Hillsdale, MJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C.J. Doughty and M.H. Long(Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313348). Oxford:Blackwell.

Drnyei, Z. and Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learn-ing. In C.J. Doughty and M.H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second languageacquisition (pp. 589630). Oxford: Blackwell.

Ellis, R. (Ed.). (2005). Planning and task performance in a second language . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area ofcognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist , 34 (10), 906911.

Foster, P. and Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focusof planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research , 3(3),215247.

Gass, S.M. and Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second lan-guage research . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Green, A. (1998). Verbal protocol analysis in language testing research: A hand-book . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hassan, X., Macaro, E., Mason, D., Nye, G., Smith, P. and Vanderplank, R. (2005).

Strategy instruction in language learning: a systematic review of avail-able research. In Research evidence in education library . London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of



21/23


London. Available online at http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=297andlanguage=en-US/ (February 2009).

Johnson, K. (1994). Teaching declarative and procedural knowledge. In M. Bygate,A. Tonkyn and E. Williams (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher(pp. 121131). Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International.

Lam, W. (2004). Teaching strategy use for oral communication tasks to ESL learners.Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Education, University of Leeds, UK.

Lam, W. (2006). Gauging the effects of ESL oral communication strategy teaching:A multi-method approach. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching , 3(2), 142157. Available online at http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v3n22006/lam.htm(February 2009).

Lam, W. and Wong, J. (2000). The effects of strategy instruction on developing dis-cussion skills in an ESL classroom. ELT Journal , 54 (3), 245255.

Little, D. (1996). Strategic competence considered in relation to strategic control ofthe language learning process. In H. Holec, D. Little and R. Richterich (Eds.),Strategies in language learning and use: Studies towards a common European

framework of reference for language learning and teaching (pp. 1134). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revisingthe theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal , 90 (3), 320337.

Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising instruction on oral communica-tion strategy use. The Modern Language Journal , 89 (1), 7691.

Nunan, D. (1997). Strategy instruction in the language classroom: An empiricalinvestigation. RELC (Regional Language Centre) Journal , 28 (2), 5682.

OMalley, J.M. and Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OMalley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. and Kupper, L.(1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a secondlanguage. TESOL Quarterly , 19 (3), 285296.

Oxford, R., Cho, Y., Leung, S. and Kim, H-J. (2004). Effect of the presence and dif-ficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. International Review of

Applied Linguistics , 42 (1), 147.QSR (Qualitative Solutions and Research Pty Ltd) (1997). Non-numerical unstruc-tured data indexing searching and theorizing . London: Sage.

Rees-Miller, J. (1993). A critical appraisal of learner instruction: theoretical bases andteaching implications. TESOL Quarterly , 27 (4), 679689.

Rossiter, M.J. (2003). The effects of affective strategy instruction in the ESLclassroom. TESL-EJ , 7 (2). Available online at http://tesl-ej.org/ej26/a2.html(February 2009).

Rubin, J. (2005). The expert language learner: A review of good language learnerstudies and learner strategies. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in second lan-guage learning and teaching (pp. 3764.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics , 11 (2), 129158.



22/23

Wendy Y.K. Lam 149

Wenden, A. (1995). Learner-instruction in context: a knowledge-based approach.System , 23 (2), 183194.

Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual language learners inSingapore. Language Learning , 50 (2), 203243.

Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Current approaches to researching second language learnerprocesses. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 25 , 98111.



23/23


Appendix 1 Group discussion task Buying body parts!

You are in the year 3000. You can now buy new parts for your body. Thenew parts are:

1) super skin that does not change2) super nose that can smell danger3) super-smart brain that works better than a computer4) pretty or handsome face that lasts forever5) powerful legs that can walk as fast as a car6) x-ray eyes7) super hair that does not fall out8) powerful ears that can hear what other people think 9) super strong heart that lasts forever10) high-power muscles

But you do not have enough money to buy all the new parts. As a group,decide which parts are more important and which are less important. Put theten body parts in order from 1 to 10. 1 is the most important; 10 is the leastimportant. You must give reasons for your choice.The following questions may help you think of ideas:

1) Why do you want the new parts?2) How can they help you?

3) How can they change your life?4) How are you going to use them?

The following ideas may help you:

protect myself make me strongrun away from dangerother people will like mewill be beautiful forever

may live a very long lifecan see through dangermay look like a robotmany people will be jealous of memay know many unhappy thingsmay hurt others easilymay see horrible things

examining the effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on esl group discussions

Documents