Investigating the Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in English Writing 1

Transcription

1 HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies Vol. 14, 2010 Investigating the Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in English Writing 1 Zhang Yanyan Wuhan University Abstract Metacognitive knowledge is knowledge about learning. Recent research suggests that metacognitive knowledge plays an important function in cognitive activities concerning language use and acquisition. This paper aims to investigate the role of metacognitive knowledge in the English writing of Chinese EFL learners. The present study involves 120 non-english major freshmen in China as participants to complete an English writing task and a self-designed questionnaire on metacognitive knowledge. It is found that the learners metacognitive knowledge base is not strong, metacognitive knowledge and its three components, i.e., person knowledge, task knowledge and strategic knowledge, are all positively correlated with English writing performance, and successful employment of metacognitive knowledge helps facilitate EFL learners writing proficiency. The results demonstrate that a good command of metacognitive knowledge can empower EFL learners in their English writing and cultivate their learning autonomy in English learning. 1. Introduction Recent decades has witnessed an increasing recognition of the importance of metacognitive knowledge in cognitive activities related to language use and acquisition (e.g., Baker & Brown, 1984; Devine, 1993; Flavell, 1979; Kasper, 1997; Vandergrift, 2002; Wenden, 1998; Xu & Tang, 2007). Many studies have been carried out to examine the function of metacognitive knowledge in ESL/EFL learner s performance of receptive English skills, such as reading and listening

2 (e.g., Baker & Brown, 1984; Vandergrift, 2002; Xu & Tang, 2007; Yang & Zhang, 2002). It has been found that the learners beliefs and knowledge about learning play a critical role in those activities. However, relatively little research has been conducted to investigate the role of metacognitive knowledge in EFL learner s performance of productive English skills, particularly writing, and relevant empirical studies are especially scarce in the Chinese context (Xu & Tang, 2005). To address the lack, this paper aims to investigate the role of metacognitive knowledge in the English writing of Chinese EFL learners, in the hope of shedding some light on the teaching and learning of EFL writing skill in China. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Metacognitive Knowledge John Flavell first proposed metacognition theory in the 1970s. He defined metacognition as knowledge that focuses on or regulates any part of cognitive activity and identified two general dimensions of metacognition: knowledge and experience (Flavell, 1979). In his work Cognitive Development, Flavell (1985) further elaborated that our metacognitive knowledge base consists of what we have learned through experience about cognitive activities. From a theoretical perspective, Wenden (1998, p.517) summarizes the defining characteristics of metacognitive knowledge as follows: (1) a part of a learner s store of acquired knowledge (2) relatively stable and statable (3) early developing (4) a system of related ideas (5) an abstract representation of a learner s experience According to Flavell (1979, 1985), metacognitive knowledge involves three distinct and highly interactive knowledge variables: person knowledge, task knowledge, and strategic knowledge. Person knowledge refers to general knowledge that learners have 26

3 acquired about themselves as learners, which may facilitate or inhibit learning. Wenden (1998) suggests that person knowledge may include cognitive and affective variables such as age, language aptitude, and motivation, specific knowledge learners have acquired about how these factors may function in their experience, knowledge about their proficiency in a certain area, self-efficacy beliefs about their general ability as learners, and beliefs about their ability to achieve specific learning goals. With regard to writing in English as a foreign language, person knowledge may refer to the knowledge EFL learners have acquired about themselves as writers, such as their attitude towards and motivation in English writing, their beliefs about their writing proficiency and their perceived ability to achieve certain writing objectives. Task knowledge generally involves three aspects: learners knowledge about the task purpose and how it will meet their learning needs and goals (Breen, 1987); knowledge about the nature of a particular task identified through a classification process; information about a task s demands, such as the approach to the task and the knowledge and skills needed to complete the task (Wenden, 1998). In relation to EFL writing, task knowledge may include learners knowledge about the purpose of a certain writing task, such as to improve their writing ability, and their information about the required skills to fulfill the task, such as a good command of English vocabulary and grammar, and a skillful mastery of developing ideas clearly and logically. Strategic knowledge refers to general knowledge about the types and usefulness of strategies, and specific knowledge about their utility for learning. In second language acquisition, learners retrospection upon their language learning strategies is often taken as evidence of their stored strategic knowledge (Wenden, 1998). Of particular importance are metacognitive strategies, which are general skills through which learners manage, direct, regulate, guide their learning, i.e. planning, monitoring and evaluating (Wenden, 1998, p.519). In the case of writing in English as a foreign language, strategic knowledge often refers to EFL learners knowledge about pre-writing planning, on-writing monitoring of errors, post-writing checking and reflection 27

4 of their writing processes and products. 2.2 Metacognitive Knowledge and English Learning Research in the past few decades has demonstrated that possession of a strong metacognitive knowledge base is critical to successful learning (e.g., Baker & Brown, 1984; Devine, 1993; Flavell, 1979; Kasper, 1997; Vandergrift, 2002; Xu & Tang, 2007) and that a good learner is one who has ample metacognitive knowledge about the self as learner, about the nature of the cognitive task at hand, and about appropriate strategies for achieving cognitive goals (Devine, 1993, p.109). The recognition of the importance of metacognitive knowledge in learning has led to an increasing number of relevant studies in the field of second language acquisition. While extensive research has been carried out on the role of metacognition in listening and reading performance of ESL/EFL learners (see Baker & Brown, 1984; Devine, 1993; Yang & Zhang, 2002), corresponding research in writing has been relatively rare (Devine, 1993), especially in the Chinese context (Xu & Tang, 2005). A pioneer study on ESL writing in this vein is Devine, Railey & Boshoff (1993), which attempted to examine the influence of metacognition on second language writing by investigating cognitive models in 10 second language and 10 first language beginning writers and assessing the effects of these models on their writing performance. The results suggest a potential link between ESL learners metacognitive models and their writing performance. Another study on metacognition and writing is Zimmerman & Bandura (1994), which examined the influence of beliefs that learners hold about their ability to mobilize and direct resources for learning and to sustain this effort (i.e. self-efficacy beliefs) on their writing performance. They proposed a causal model of student self-regulation of writing achievement, which indicates a close relationship between metacognitive person knowledge and learners writing outcome. 28

5 Kasper (1997) further explored the metacognitive growth of 67 intermediate level ESL students and 53 advanced level ESL students from diverse ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. She found that ESL students metacognitive growth correlates significantly and positively with their actual writing performance, along and across the three components of metacognitive knowledge base. The above three studies suggest a positive role of metacognitive knowledge in English writing and have presented an important contribution to the field. However, all these studies involve participants of ESL students only. As English has been given a high priority in the curriculum in China, where there is a large population of EFL learners, English writing is of great importance for Chinese students and research on English writing development and instruction is therefore in urgent need. So far, the studies on metacognition and writing in the Chinese context have been rather rare, and empirical studies are especially scarce (Xu & Tang, 2005). Lu (2006) is an earliest study that explored the relationship between metacognitive strategies and English writing, but the participants of this study were senior English major students and thus cannot represent non-english majors who far outnumber English majors in China. Another more recent study of relevance is Xu & Tang (2007), which compared 5 successful and 5 unsuccessful Chinese EFL writers metacognitive knowledge by using think-aloud protocols and interviews. They found that good writers are superior to poor ones in metacognitive knowledge and attribute the good writers success to their possession of a better metacognitive knowledge base. Although insightful, Xu & Tang s study is a qualitative analysis of only a few non-english major students metacognitive knowledge and its generalizability therefore awaits further confirmation. From the review of previous studies, we notice a few research gaps in this field. First, the research on the relationship between metacognition and writing is still relatively rare, and the existing studies tend to focus on ESL contexts. Second, empirical studies of large scales are limited, especially in the Chinese context. Third, the previous studies have seldom controlled the influence of English 29

6 proficiency on English writing. Fourth, both Devine et. al. s (1993) proposed link between metacognitive knowledge and writing performance and Zimmerman & Bandura s (1994) causal model on writing achievement need proofs from other studies. To address the lack, the present study undertakes an investigation of the role of metacognitive knowledge in the English writing of 120 non-english major EFL learners in Mainland China. The specific research questions are as follows: (1) What is the current situation of Chinese EFL writers metacognitive knowledge base and its three components? (2) What s the relationship between metacognitive knowledge and English writing? (3) Can the development of metacognitive knowledge help facilitate English writing? In addition, this research also intends to explore the relationship between metacognitive knowledge and English writing by controlling English proficiency so as to formulate an influence route model of metacognitive knowledge on English writing. 3. Research Design 3.1 Participants The participants of this study involve 120 freshmen from 4 intact English classes across various non-english majors, including chemistry, physics, surveying, mathematics, management, accounting, etc., in a key university in Mainland China. There are 68 males and 52 females. When the study was carried out, the students were at the beginning of their second semester in university, so all the students have been learning English for at least six years. According to the teaching syllabus of college English in China, first-year university students should be able to write an English essay of 150 to 200 words within thirty minutes. 30

7 3.2 Instruments (1) Metacognitive Knowledge Questionnaire Questionnaires have often been used in previous research on learners metacognitive knowledge in English reading, listening and writing performance, and have been proved to be an effective tool to study metacognition. Borrowing insights from theoretical discussions on the concept of metacognitive knowledge (e.g., Wenden, 1998) and previously used questionnaires (see Pajares, Hartley & Valiante (2001) for writing self-efficacy questionnaire; Lu (2006) for metacognitive strategies questionnaire), the author of the present paper designed a metacognitive knowledge questionnaire on English writing in the Chinese context. The questionnaire consists of two sections, with the first aiming to gather the participants basic information, such as the scores of their College English course 2 in the first semester, and the other intending to illicit the learners retrospection upon their stored knowledge about English writing, including person knowledge, task knowledge, and strategic knowledge. The section on metacognitive knowledge has 34 items in total, all designed on a five-point Likert scale. Each item is a statement concerning an aspect of metacognitive knowledge, accompanied with five response options ranging from five to one corresponding to from strongly agree to strongly disagree. For instance, I think my English writing is good compared with my peers. Learners were asked to judge every statement and select a choice that suits them best. Among all the items, items 1 to 14 are concerned with person knowledge, items 15 to 22 with task knowledge, and item 23 to 34 with strategic knowledge 3. The internal reliability alpha reaches 0.89 for person knowledge, 0.81 for task knowledge, and 0.87 for strategic knowledge. To ensure that the participants fully understand the items so that their answers can best represent their true ideas, two versions of the same questionnaire were designed, with the Chinese one for the students and the English one for writing this paper. 31

8 (2) English Writing To gather data on their English writing, the participants were required to write an English composition on the topic Part-time Job within thirty minutes during regular class time. The composition should be no less than 100 English words, following the writing practice of CET4 4 in China. Part-time job is a popular topic in universities in Mainland China and was thus chosen for writing so that the students would not feel too difficult and could display their English writing ability. (3) English Proficiency Test All the participants have just taken a College English test, along with the other freshmen, at the end of their first semester, which is also their first English test in university. The test consists of listening comprehension, vocabulary and grammar, reading comprehension, translation and writing, and has been graded by English teachers according to the same criteria 5. This test was therefore adopted as the English proficiency test for our research, and the students scores were collected as an indicator of their current English proficiency. 3.3 Data Collection and Analyses Procedures The research was carried out at regular English teaching hours with the help of the participants teachers. For fear that the questionnaire might affect the students writing process, the English writing task was assigned first, followed by the metacognitive questionnaire. It took about 40 minutes for all the participants to complete the writing task and fill up the questionnaire. Each English composition was scored independently by two experienced English teachers, following the same grading criteria as in CET 4, with the full mark being 15 points. The inter-rater reliability is over 0.9. The average of the two scores for each composition was adopted as its final grade. Whenever the two scores of a composition disagreed by three points or above, the two raters would examine it 32

9 again and reach a final agreement after consideration. As all the metacognitive knowledge items are on a five-point Likert scale, with the options ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, the options were given values from 5 to 1 accordingly. The criteria for judging the average metacognitive knowledge level are shown in the following Table 1. Table 1: Grading criteria of metacognitive knowledge level Metacognitive knowledge level Mean Options Strongly agree High Agree Medium Uncertain Disagree Low Strongly disagree All the data, including those of the writing performance, metacognitive knowledge and English proficiency, were typed into computer. SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) programme was then run to undertake statistical analyses. To serve the purposes of the present study, the following analyses were carried out step by step: (1) descriptive analyses of each of the variables concerning metacognitive knowledge; (2) correlation analyses between the participants metacognitive knowledge and their English writing performance; (3) an independent-samples t-test of the English writing performance between students with different metacognitive knowledge statuses as well as an independent-samples t-test of the metacognitive knowledge status between students with different writing performance; (4) regression analyses for a close examination of the influence of metacognitive knowledge on English writing by controlling the English proficiency variable. 4. Results 4.1 Descriptive Analyses Table 2 presents the average score (Mean) and the standard deviation 33

10 (Std. Deviation) of each intended aspect concerning metacognitive knowledge together with its corresponding item number in the questionnaire. Table 2: Descriptive statistics of each metacognitive knowledge variable Person Knowledge N Mean Std. Deviation 1. Positive attitudes towards English writing Beliefs on English writing proficiency Beliefs on English writing achievement Beliefs on overcoming writing difficulties English writing motivation Self-efficacy of ability in word spelling Self-efficacy of ability in using punctuations Self-efficacy of ability in using word class Self-efficacy of ability in using English grammar Self-efficacy of ability in writing topic sentences Self-efficacy of ability in writing supporting details Self-efficacy of ability in writing endings Self-efficacy of ability in thesis organization Self-efficacy of ability in expressing ideas Task Knowledge N Mean Std. Deviation 15. Familiarity with the writing topic English writing task purpose Demands for a large vocabulary Demands for proficient grammar Demands for clear expression Demands for good organization Demands for rich contents Demands for originality Strategic Knowledge N Mean Std. Deviation 23. Knowledge on pre-writing planning Thinking from readers' perspective Knowledge on on-writing monitoring Using avoidance strategies in writing exams Seeking help in times of difficulty Knowledge on post-writing checking Checking spelling Checking grammar Checking expression Checking organization Checking content Knowledge on after-writing reflection Table 3 summarizes the results of the three components of metacognitive knowledge and the overall metacognitive knowledge 34

11 status of the participants. Table 3: Descriptive statistics of metacognitive knowledge Knowledge N Mean Std. Deviation Person knowledge Task knowledge Strategic knowledge Metacognitive knowledge Table 4 presents the results of the writing performance and the English proficiency. Table 4: Descriptive statistics of writing performance and English proficiency N Mean Std. Deviation English Writing English Proficiency Correlation Analyses The results of correlation analyses between metacognitive knowledge and English writing are shown in Table 5. Table 5: Correlation analyses between metacognitive knowledge and English writing English Writing Person Knowledge Task Knowledge Strategic Knowledge Metacognitive Knowledge English Writing 1.485(**).242(**).239(**).378(**) Person Knowledge 1.379(**).233(*).529(**) Task Knowledge (**) Strategic Knowledge 1.898(**) Metacognitive Knowledge 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 6 presents the results of correlation analyses between three factors: metacognitive knowledge, English writing, and English proficiency. It is found that metacognitive knowledge positively correlates not only with English writing (r=.378, p<.01), but also with English proficiency (r=.361, p<.01). Moreover, English writing is also positively correlated with English proficiency (r=.640, p<.01). 35

12 Table 6: Correlation analyses between English writing, metacognitive knowledge and English proficiency English Writing Metacognitive Knowledge English Proficiency English Writing 1.378(**).640(**) Metacognitive Knowledge 1.361(**) English Proficiency 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 4.3 T-test Analyses To testify the influence of metacognitive knowledge on English writing, an independent-samples t-test of the English writing performance between students with different metacognitive knowledge base was carried out. To ensure that the numbers of students representing different metacognitive knowledge levels are balanced, the mean value 3.25 was chosen as the cut point for metacognitive knowledge status. The results are demonstrated in Table 7. Among 120 participants, 59 students whose metacognitive knowledge status is above or equal to 3.25 have a mean writing score of while the other 61 students whose metacognitive knowledge status is below 3.25 have a mean writing score of The difference between the writing scores of the two groups reaches a statistical significance (p=.001). This result indicates that students with different metacognitive knowledge statuses perform significantly differently in the writing task; students with a higher metacognitive knowledge base also do better in their English writing. Table 7: t-test of English writing with different metacognitive knowledge statuses Group N Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed) >= English Writing < Table 8 presents the t-test results of the metacognitive knowledge of students at different English writing levels. The participants were divided into two groups by adopting their average English writing grade (Mean=9.45) as the cut point. Among 120 participants, 58 students whose writing is above or equal to the average have a mean metacognitive knowledge value of 3.31 while the other 62 students whose writing is below the average have a mean metacognitive knowledge value of The difference between the metacognitive 36

13 knowledge statuses of the two groups also reaches a statistical significance (p=.000). The t-test result indicates that students with a higher English writing proficiency often have a stronger metacognitive knowledge base. Table 8: t-test of metacognitive knowledge with different English writing levels Group N Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed) >= English Writing < Regression Analyses The results of correlation analyses above have shown that metacognitive knowledge, English proficiency, and writing performance are all positively correlated with each other. To further examine the relationships between the three variables, regression analyses were carried out by taking English writing as the dependent variable and metacognitive knowledge and English proficiency as the independent variables. This is to investigate how metacognitive knowledge and English proficiency may influence English writing. The results are presented in Table 9. Table 9: Regression analysis of metacognitive knowledge, English proficiency, and English writing Standardized Model Coefficients t Sig. Beta Metacognitive Knowledge English Proficiency From the above table, we can draw a standard regression equation as follows: English Writing = * English Proficiency * Metacognitive Knowledge The correlation analyses also indicate that metacognitive knowledge influences English proficiency. So a second regression analysis was carried out by taking English proficiency as the dependent variable and metacognitive knowledge as the independent variable. This is to 37

14 investigate to what extent metacognitive knowledge exerts influence on English proficiency. The result is presented in Table 10. Table 10: Regression analysis of metacognitive knowledge and English proficiency Standardized Model Coefficients t Sig. Beta Metacognitive Knowledge From Table 10, we can write another equation as follows: English Proficiency = * Metacognitive Knowledge The above two equations demonstrate to us in accurate figures that metacognitive knowledge influences both English writing and English proficiency directly. Moreover, metacognitive knowledge also exerts its influence on English writing indirectly by influencing English proficiency. We therefore can draw the following route chart to show these influences. Chart 1: Influence route chart of metacognitive knowledge on English writing Metacognitive Knowledge English Writing English Proficiency Discussion 5.1 Metacognitive Knowledge Status of Chinese EFL Learners The descriptive statistics results of the participants metacognitive knowledge variables as reported in Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate that the students metacognitive knowledge status, on the whole, is far from being satisfactory (Mean=3.25), belonging to the medium level. Among the three components of metacognitive knowledge, task knowledge ranks the highest (Mean= 3.44), person knowledge ranks the second (Mean=3.31) and strategic knowledge falls behind, merely above 3 (Mean=3.01). These findings suggest that although the 38

15 students have had some awareness to employ metacognitive knowledge in English writing process, their metacognitive knowledge base is, however, not very strong. In general, our learners haven t taken the role of a writer in their English writing process and don t have much self-efficacy in their writing performance. To be specific, on average, they don t like English writing very much (Mean=3.14), and don t have much confidence in their English writing proficiency (Mean=2.85). Their self-efficacy of the ability in the correct use of word spelling, word class and English grammar are all toward the lower end of medium level (Mean=2.68, 2.82, 2.95, respectively). Nevertheless, it is a comforting discovery that our learners have a strong positive belief of their English writing achievement (Mean=4.05) and their ability to overcome writing difficulties (Mean=3.55) in the long run. The results of task knowledge indicate that our learners are quite familiar with the writing topic (Mean=3.38) and are highly clear about the purpose of English writing (Mean=4.15). Moreover, our participants have a fairly good knowledge of the demands for an excellent piece of English writing in terms of clarity (Mean=3.95), organization (Mean=3.75), and content (Mean=3.60). In contrast, the learners are less concerned about vocabulary (Mean=2.82), grammar (Mean=3.20) and originality of their writing (Mean=3.20). On the whole, the learners have a relatively high command of task knowledge in the writing process. The learners strategic knowledge is the poorest among the three components of metacognitive knowledge. The descriptive results show that our learner writers seldom consider from readers perspective (Mean=2.21) and rarely check their writing concerning clarity (Mean=2.15), organization (Mean=2.56) and content (2.75). In times of difficulty, they tend to use avoidance strategies, especially during exams (Mean=3.99) and are reluctant to seek help from others or dictionaries (Mean=2.07). In addition, they seldom reflect upon their English writing once it is finished (Mean=2.21). All these factors have contributed to the low level of our learners strategic knowledge. 39

16 In order to explore the causes for the students poor metacognitive knowledge in English writing, we undertook an informal interview with a few participants afterwards, in which some learners confess that, (1) I have a lot of difficulties in expressing myself, so I don t like writing in English ; (2) I feel my English writing is so poor that I don t have a sense of achievement after writing ; (3) I have no confidence in myself and have become disinterested ; (4) I have nothing to write about ; (5) I don t feel that English writing is important and so I don t want to spend time on it. The above retrospections are consistent with our quantitative findings that learners have low self-efficacy in English writing. Their negative beliefs of their ability in using English and their frequent monitoring of errors concerning spelling and grammar found in this study suggest that poor English proficiency may be a strong cause for our learners poor metacognitive knowledge, particularly person knowledge. Moreover, English compositions are often assigned by teachers as homework in China, which students are required to write irrespective of their attitude towards and interest in English writing. Some students may not be interested in writing activities at all; some may start with high spirits, but their interest and motivation gradually lose with constant frustrations in trying to express themselves due to the lack of vocabulary, grammar and effective strategies. 5.2 Correlation of Metacognitive Knowledge and English Writing The results of correlation analyses demonstrate that there is a positive and significant correlation between metacognitive knowledge and English writing performance (r=.378, p<.01). Among the three components of metacognitive knowledge, person knowledge has the highest correlation value with English writing (r=.485), task knowledge the second (r=.242) and strategic knowledge the third 40

17 (r=.239), and all the three correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The findings of the present study corroborate those of the previous research (Devine et. al., 1993; Kasper, 1997). Thus, the answer to our second research question is metacognitive knowledge correlates positively and significantly with EFL learners English writing. The highly positive and significant correlation between learners person knowledge and their English writing performance suggests that higher self-efficacy may lead to more efforts and better performance. This inference, to some extent, testifies the causal model of student self-regulation of writing achievement proposed by Zimmerman & Bandura (1994). Learners who believe they can regulate their writing and maintain their efforts to do so (self-efficacy beliefs) will be inclined to believe they can learn to write (achievement beliefs) and set stringent evaluative criteria for themselves. This, in turn, leads them to aim for high grades. Learning outcomes (their final grades), according to the model, are directly related to these last three factors, i.e. their achievement beliefs, evaluation criteria, learning goals, and indirectly related to their beliefs about self-efficacy (Wenden, 1998, p.521). Given this correlation, the learners unsatisfactory person knowledge in writing (Mean=3.31) calls our attention to the improvement of person knowledge. The correlation between task knowledge and English writing performance is also positive and significant. The participants in this study show a relatively high task knowledge base. This is certainly good news for our teachers of English in China, but we should not ignore the fact that some aspects of task knowledge are rather weak and need to be further enriched, such as knowledge on the demands for originality in successful English writing. The correlation between strategic knowledge and writing performance is again positive and significant. However, the average level of our students strategic knowledge is only 3.01, suggesting that our students, on the whole, have a relative poor knowledge about the use of writing strategies. Although they have a fairly good awareness to 41

18 plan their writing beforehand and monitor their writing process, they have little knowledge of thinking from readers perspectives and reflecting upon their writing afterwards. The students rare reflection of their writing after the task is finished can be attributed to their lack of interest and motivation in writing, especially among those who write English compositions not out of interest, but as a demand from teachers. From Table 5, we notice that among the three components of metacognitive knowledge, strategic knowledge correlates the most highly with the overall metacognitive knowledge (r=.898), and person knowledge (r=.529) ranks the second. However, our students are weak at both strategic knowledge and person knowledge. It is thus important that our teachers should raise students self-awareness of person and strategic knowledge in English writing, find ways to help enrich their knowledge as a writer and strategy user, and eventually help to improve their English writing ability. 5.3 The Influence of Metacognitive Knowledge on English Writing The results of the two independent-samples t-tests indicate that students with a higher English writing proficiency often have a stronger metacognitive knowledge base and that students with a better metacognitive knowledge status often have a higher English writing proficiency. These findings suggest that students metacognitive knowledge exerts positive influences on their English writing performance, consistent with previous research (e.g., Xu & Tang, 2007). Through a qualitative analysis, Xu and Tang (2007) found that successful writers are superior to unsuccessful ones in the three components of and the overall metacognitive knowledge. The present study further testifies the important role of metacognitive knowledge in English writing. The results of correlation and regression analyses demonstrate that metacognitive knowledge exerts positive influences not only on English writing, but also on English proficiency. More specifically, the influence route chart obtained in the present study clearly 42

19 indicates that metacognitive knowledge exerts an indirect positive influence through English proficiency as well as a direct positive influence, on English writing performance. It should be emphasized that metacognitive knowledge also plays an important role in English learning. This finding is in line with earlier studies that metacognitive knowledge helps facilitate English learning in general. We therefore conclude that developing students metacognitive knowledge can help increase their English proficiency, including English writing skills. It is well known that developing English writing competence presents a great challenge to ESL/EFL learners and falling behind required levels for writing proficiency may hinder them from normal study (Kasper, 1997). English writing has also been a notoriously difficult skill for Chinese learners of English. Therefore, the facilitating effects of metacognitive knowledge on writing can be fully exploited to help ESL/EFL students. Educators should include the instruction of metacognitive knowledge as a component of teaching programs (e.g., Chamot & O Malley, 1994; Cohen, 1998; Holec, 1994). Specifically, teachers of English can design activities to help increase students motivation and self-efficacy in writing, namely, to improve their person knowledge. Teachers can also provide instruction in the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies to strengthen students strategic knowledge and skills for autonomous learning. Moreover, it is important to raise students awareness of the specific strategies that can be employed in the writing process, such as to think from readers perspectives, to reflect upon their writing, and to revise their compositions for improvement. 6. Conclusion This paper explored the role of metacognitive knowledge in the English writing of Chinese EFL learners. By analyzing the data collected from an English writing task and self-designed questionnaires on metacognitive knowledge, this study has obtained the following major findings: 43

20 (1) Chinese EFL learners metacognitive knowledge of English writing, on average, is not satisfactory. (2) There is a positive and significant correlation between metacognitive knowledge and English writing. (3) Metacognitive knowledge influences students English writing; developing students metacognitive knowledge helps increase their writing proficiency. The present study has several important pedagogical implications. As Chinese EFL learners, on the whole, don t have a high metacognitive knowledge status, there is an urgent need to raise the learners metacognitive awareness to facilitate their English writing skill. Since metacognitive knowledge correlates significantly and positively with English writing, it is necessary for teachers to provide instructions to cultivate learners metacognitive knowledge in English class. Metacognitive knowledge has been found to exert positive influences not only on English writing, but also on English proficiency. Therefore, offering metacognitive knowledge instruction, especially strategic knowledge, can also help to increase EFL learners overall English proficiency. This study suffers from several drawbacks. First, metacognitive knowledge may increase with appropriate instruction; therefore, longitudinal as well as cross-sectional studies need to be carried out to investigate the metacognitive growth of EFL learners. Second, the major instrument for collecting metacognitive knowledge data was questionnaire in this research. Other methods, such as Think-aloud, can be adopted to gather learners introspective as well as retrospective data. Third, the participants of the present study are exclusively Chinese learners of English. EFL learners from other first language backgrounds should also be examined to test the generalizability of the positive correlation between metacognitive knowledge and English writing found in this study. In conclusion, a better command of metacognitive knowledge can empower learners in English writing and cultivate their autonomous 44

21 English learning. The limitations of the present study suggest the direction for further research in future. Notes 1. The study has been supported by National Funds for Social Science ( Study of the Development of Chinese Students Genre Competence, Project No.:10BYY088), by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Post-70s Young Scholar Research Funds at Wuhan University) and Doctor Research Funds of Wuhan University (Project No.: ). 2. Non-English major students in Mainland China are usually offered one English course, called College English, in the first two years at university. 3. Interested readers may refer to Table 2 for the detailed information on the intended aspects of metacognitive knowledge and their corresponding item numbers in the questionnaire. 4. CET4, namely, College English Test, Band 4, is a national English proficiency test for non-english major students in Mainland China. Its reliability and validity has long been established by researchers, and this test has been widely used in research as a benchmark test. 5. The teachers are said to have marked the test papers together and each was responsible for certain items. 6. The full mark for the English proficiency test is 100. References Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp ). New York: Longman. Breen, M. P. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. N. Candlin, & D. Murphy, (Ed.), Language learning tasks: Lancaster practical papers in English language education. London, UK: Prentice Hall International. Chamot, A., & O Malley, J. M. (1994). Language learner and learning strategies. In N. C. Ellis, (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London: Academic Press. Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman. Devine, J. (1993). The role of metacognition in second language reading and writing. In J. G. Carson, & I. Leki, (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp ). Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Devine, J., Railey, K., & Boshoff, P. (1993). The implications of cognitive models in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, (2),

22 Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive development (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Holec, H. (1994). Self-directed learning: An alternative form of training. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Cooperation, Council of Europe. Kasper, L. F. (1997). Assessing the metacognitive growth of ESL student writers. TESL EJ, 3(1), Lu, W. J. (2006). Relationship between metacognitive strategies and English writing. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, (9), Pajares, F., Hartley, J. & Valiante, G. (2001). Response format in writing self-efficacy assessment: Greater discrimination increases prediction. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, Vandergrift, L. (2002). It is nice to see that our predictions were right: Developing metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), Xu, J. F. & Tang F. (2005). Review of previous research on English writing metacognition in China and abroad. Foreign Language World, (5), Xu, J. F. & Tang F. (2007). A study of differences in the metacognitive knowledge of good and poor English writers. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 30(6), Yang X. H. & Zhang, W. P. (2002). The correlation between metacognition and EFL reading comprehension of Chinese college students. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 34(3), Zimmerman, B. J. & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, About the author Zhang Yanyan is currently an associate professor at the School of Foreign Languages and Literature at Wuhan University in P. R. China. Her research interests mainly include second language acquisition, applied linguistics, corpus linguistics and world Englishes. lucyzhangyy@163.com 46