Metacognition: An Expanded View on the Cognitive Abilities of L2 Learners

Review Metacognition: An Expanded View

on the Cognitive Abilities of L2 Learners

My mind is always open to accept information about the language . . . I always concentrate because I have to learn . . . I just don’t take it as it comes. I change it in my mind. There’s always movement.

The views of an adult second-language learner, shown above, provide a glimpse into what he thinks about the process of learning a second language, one that points to the need for active cognitive involvement. What this can mean has been specified, in part, by research that has focused on cognitive communication strategies: on those steps, routines, procedures (some observable and others not) learners use to acquire and retain knowledge about the linguistic and sociolinguistic codes and to use this knowledge to communicate in a second language (cf for example, Rubin 1975, 1981; Cohen & Apek, 1980, 1981; Faerch & Kasper 1983; and Fzrch 1984). Less research has been done to determine how L2 learners select and evaluate these strategies in the course of a learning enterprise or what they actually know about their learning process. The cognitive developmental literature refers to these two dimensions of a learner’s cognitive abilities as metacognition.

Generally described as a complex of associated phenomenon related to knowledge about and the regulation of the domain of cognition, metacognition is considered by some writers as central to learning - the process that underlies the efficient use of strategies and the essence of intelli- gent activity (Brown 1978; Brown et al. 1982).1 In the literature, the phenomenon it encompasses has been referred to as metacomprehension, metalearning, meta-attention, metacommunication, and metalinguistics. The purpose of this review of selected literature is to provide readers with an overview of what is intended by the terms metacognition. A taxonomy of metacognitive knowledge and skills will be described and illustrated with references to some of the related second-language learning research.2 Then, the utility of bringing this framework to bear on theoretical and educational endeavors in the domain of second-language

513

5 74 Language Learning Vol. 37, No. 4

learning, especially on learner-oriented process research, will be argued.3

METACOGNITIVE KNOWLEDGE

Knowledge about cognition, metacognitive knowledge or the learners’ naive psychology of learning, refers to the set of facts learners acquire about their own cognitive processes as they are applied and used to gain knowledge and acquire skills in varied situations. Flavell, 1979, describes it as “. . . that segment of your (a child’s, an adult’s) stored world knowledge that has to do with people as cognitive creatures and with their diverse cognitive tasks, goals, actions and experiences.” (P. 906). According to Brown et al. (1982), this knowledge is stable. The facts we know are a permanent part of our store of knowledge and, Flavell assumes, not fundamentally different from other knowledge stored in long-term memory. This knowledge is statable. It is available to awareness, activated either as a result of a deliberate search or unintentionally and automatically by retrieval cues in the learning environment - although it may also influence the course of a cognitive enterprise without entering consciousness (Flavell 1979:907-8). This form of knowledge can also be fallible because what is known is not always empirically supportable and so, may not always be perfectly accurate.

Finally, metacognitive knowledge is interactive. According to Flavell (1979, 1981b) it is one of four components that interact to influence the outcome of a cognitive enterprise. The other three are metacognitive experience (the transient conscious knowledge or awareness of one’s learning that may occur in the course of a learning task), a learning task or goal, and cognitive actions or strategies.4

Flavell (1979; 1981a; 1981b) distinguishes three main categories of metacognitive knowledge: knowledge about person, task, and strategy.

Person

Knowledge about person refers to everything that one could come to believe about oneself and others as learners or cognitive processors. In his discussion of metamemory (Flavell & Wellman 1977) and cognitive monitoring (1979; 1981a) Flavell lists two main dimensions of this variable - intra and interindividual differences and universals of cognition.

Review 5 75

Intraindividual and interindividual differences. This dimension refers to one’s self-concept as learner - the constellation of beliefs about one’s personal attributes and states, temporary or permanent, that are relevant to learning. First, learners may know what and how they learn best. Thus, (Flavell says) one learner may know he is only fair at remembering places and dates, but quite good at remembering people or that he can learn most things better by listening than by reading. Besides knowledge about how one learns, one’s self-concept as a learner may be further extended to include knowledge of what one does or does not know and what one can or cannot do in the area in which the learning skills are applied. Finally, according to Flavell, this dimension of the person variable includes knowledge learners have as to how they compare with other learners.

In the field of second language learning, the work of Reid (1987) and Wenden (1986) provide some initial documentation on L2 learners’ metacognitive knowledge of their intra and inter individual differences. Reid (1987) reports on the outcome of a questionnaire survey which required L2 learners to identify their preferred modality of learning - visual, tac- tile, auditory, kinesthetic, with groups or individually. Wenden (1 986) outlines a preliminary classification of L2 learners’ metacognitive knowledge derived from a content analysis of semi-structured interview data. One of these categories refers to learners’ knowledge about their proficiency in the language, what they did or did not know about it and how well they could use it. The following statements are examples of this kind of knowledge: “my comprehension is not perfect . . . I’m slow to respond” . . . Or “When I first came (to the U.S.) I knew grammar and could read. At first, I couldn’t speak.” And, in the same vein, “When I arrived I had learned basic English, but I didn’t have the opportunity to learn a conversation.”s

Moreover, other than knowledge about their present level of proficiency, these second language learners also noted how their abilities/ knowledge improved over time. They had knowledge of the progress they made or were making - a dimension of the person variable not explicitly referred to by Flavell. In comparing their present abilities with a former state, they said, for example, that (1) they were now able to identify words they didn’t understand (whereas earlier they knew only that they did not understand) (2) sentences no longer appeared so long (3) they were more aware of how to construct sentences. They further noted that


they made fewer mistakes or that words came to mind spontaneously when they wished to express themselves.

These language learners also compared themselves with other learners, (“Western people may say something wrong but they say it with confidence. When I speak, I speak correctly but without confidence . . . then they think I’m not speaking correctly,” or (referring to how well students understood their language lab assignments) “Europeans could understand quickly; Japanese were slow and precise . . .”)

The dimensions of the person variable, illustrated by Flavell, are all cognitive in nature. However, a second category in Wenden’s classification points to affective “attributes and states” which are felt to facilitate or inhibit learning.6 For example, learners referred to the feelings evoked by particular events in their language learning history (“I became angry . . . I felt depressed . . .” or “I was very embarrassed”); to their personality (“I don’t have the courage to speak or have the confidence. I don’t know why. Maybe it’s my personality.”) Moreover, other comments revealed learners’ knowledge of how the process of learning English seemed to influence their personality. Said a Japanese woman journalist, “In English, it’s quite different . . . I become very aggressive . . .” Or a young Brazilian housewife, “I speak louder . . . this is not my character. I don’t like it, but I have to do it.” This knowledge may also be considered as another dimension of the person variable.’

Universals of cognition. This subcategory of the person variable refers to what learners know about the permanent attributes of humans as learners. In other words, what is learned about oneself in a single instance or over a period of time in a series of instances can be generalized to yield insights and beliefs on the “laws of human learning.” In his discussion of cognitive monitoring, Flavell (1 979) lists insights learners may acquire about understanding, (1) that there are various degrees and kinds of understanding; (2) that there are different reasons for not understanding someone; (3) that one’s present degree of understanding may not be an accurate predictor of how well one may understand later. And in their review of metamemory, Flavell and Wellman (1977) describe what persons can come to know about the human memory system:

“The growing person could discover that immediate memory is of small span and limited duration, and that additional processing may be needed to optimize subsequent retrieval. He could also induce from experience the related, sad fact that one cannot always count on retrieving later what was stored earlier, plus the happy fact

Review 5 77

that what cannot be remembered right now will often be remembered eventually . . .”(p. 11)

Thus far, research on L2 learners’ metacognitive knowledge has not revealed any general views they may have on the particular workings of the human learning system. However, Horwitz’s (1987, inventory of L2 learners beliefs does point to one factor considered to influence the workings of the human learning system in the process of acquiring a second language, i.e. foreign language aptitude. Developed through the use of free recall tasks and focus group discussions with second language learners and teachers, the inventory of 34 Likert-scale items includes nine that refer to foreign language aptitude. The analysis currently being undertaken of responses from a large sample of students (about 300) will examine how particular cultural groups feel about this particular factor and how it may influence their ability to learn a second language.

Task

Flavell’s illustrations of this variable suggest three aspects of any learning task of which learners may have knowledge. First, they must know whether or not a task calls for deliberate learning. In other words, they must be sensitive to when a situation will require special effort on their part.

Second, they must have knowledge of task demands. This means knowing that some cognitive enterprises can be more demanding and difficult than others and why (Flavell & Wellman 1977). It also means knowing the purpose for which a task is to be accomplished (Flavell 1981a). Examples from Flavell’s discussion of metamemory (Flavell & Wellman 1977) specify the nature of this metacognitive knowledge in the area of memory tasks. Learners may know that it is easier to memorize isolated items if they are meaningful or familiar, and easier still, if there is some meaningful relation among them. They can also know that the number of items affects the ease with which the task may be accomplished. As regards recall or the retrieval of items, they may know that (1) it is easier to recognize what has been learned than to remember it without external stimulus; (2) the existence of similar items in one’s memory can make recall more difficult and confusing; (3) the longer the span of time between storage and retrieval, the more effort and time one needs to put into learning it.

The third aspect of the task variable discussed by Flavell has to do with


knowledge about the information involved in a cognitive enterprise -is it abundant or meager, familiar or unfamiliar, well or poorly organized - and what this portends for how the task should be best navigated and how successful one may be at it.

The studies of both Horwitz and Wenden provide some evidence of L2 learners’ metacognitive knowledge of task demands. Six of the items included in Horwitz’s inventory refer to learners’ perceptions about the difficulty of learning another language (It is easier to speak than to understand a foreign language. It is easier to read and write English than to speak and understand it.) When viewed in terms of Flavell’s taxonomy, some of the statements classified as learner knowledge of proficiency by Wenden may be considered to illustrate more precisely learner knowledge of task demands. Examples include learners’ references to the fact that (1) speaking about everyday topics with Americans was easier than speaking about more abstract topics; (2) prepositions and articles were hard to use; (3) formal writing was not easy; and (4) talking with one American friend was “an easy situation” but that it was “too difficult” to participate in a larger group.

As regards the third aspect of task knowledge, i.e. “knowledge about the information involved in a cognitive enterprise,” if one interprets Flavell’s explanation broadly, as referring to knowledge of the nature of the material or content that is to be learned, then learner statements about language, i.e. their metalinguistic knowledge, a third category in Wenden’s classification system, may also be considered as knowledge of task content, i.e. as metacognitive. For example, a learner who says, “. . . there are words in American English with many meanings. . . .,” shows some knowledge about how words work. This should cause him to be careful about indiscriminately using the first translation he encounters in his dictionary. At the same time, it also demonstrates his growing knowledge of task content and should also affect his approach to learning. It will suggest the need to determine these many meanings and to choose strategies that will enable him or her to do so. Or in the case of a learner who says, “When I see a foreign movie, I see how the word is written and, there, only the main ideas are expressed, so the word must be common,” illustrates what she knows about kinds of words and where they are likely to be used. One may expect that the word will be incorporated into her active vocabulary-to be used. At the same time, this knowledge should also provide her with one resource for expanding her

Review 5 79

vocabulary of common words and going to movies with English captions may become a practice strategy.

To restate, L2 learners’ statements referring to language are a source of evidence of learners’ acquired body of linguistic and sociolinguistic knowledge and should influence their usage (though, of course, it may not). At the same time, these metalinguistic statements may have implications for how learners will (or should) go about learning the language, “navigate the task.” In such cases, the knowledge may also be considered metacognitive knowledge of task content - the third aspect of the task variable included in Flavell’s taxonomy.

Strategy

Flavell’s description of this variable is brief. He acknowledges that there is a great deal to be known about the nature and utility of strategies, specifically which strategies can be used effectively in the accomplishment of certain cognitive tasks.

As will have been noted, empirical data on L2 learners’ knowledge of the task and person variables is quite sparse. On the other hand, a growing body of data on learning strategies, based on retrospective accounts (as opposed to observation or online reporting of what they are actually doing to complete a learning task) has provided us with an empirical basis for L2 learners’ strategy knowledge. The work of Naiman, Frohlich and Stern (1975) Wesche (1979) and more recently of Huang (1984), O’Malley, Chamot et al. (1985), and Politzer & Mcgroarty (1985) are examples of such research.

The above studies have indicated what strategies learners reported using for certain language learning tasks. In Wenden (1986) learners’ evaluations of the outcome of using particular strategies and/or engag- ing in certain activities were also noted. These statements, which constitute a fourth category in her classification of learner knowledge, indicate learners’ perceptions of the utility of particular strategies. That is, they either acknowledged that a particular strategy or activity was useful or good, or that they had learned and specified the change in terms of improved proficiency, (“I learned to understand the language; I saw how they spoke and I started to learn technical words I would need.”)

L2 learners’ stated beliefs about how best to approach the task of second language learning, a fifth category in Wenden’s classification of learner knowledge, are another source of data on the strategic knowledge

580 Language Learning Vol. 37, No. 4

of second language learners. Wenden (1986) identifies and illustrates two general beliefs learners she interviewed held on how to approach the task of second language learning. Some felt that the best way to learn a second language is to use it (“Practice. That’s the secret.” “I did not think about the language. I was trying to learn the natural way.”) Others said that success depends on learning about the language. (“Grammar background is important to learn. Without grammar background you can’t improve.” “It is a good way to learn from those mistakes. . . .”) Unlike statements which refer to learners’ knowledge of particular strategies they use and/or how effective they may be or have been, these illustrate general principles that should determine the strategies chosen to learn. Horwitz’s inventory includes six items about the nature of language learning and eight about strategies which are very similar to the above statements8

REGULATORY SKILLS

According to Brown et al. (1982), one of the theoretical roots of the regulatory dimension of metacognition is the concept of executive control put forth by information-processing models of human cognition. This notion, that there is a central processor or executive system to which one attributes a variety of planning and regulatory functions, is an off- spring of the computer revolution, especially developments in the use of computers to simulate human thought and central to information- processing models of human cognition.

The planning models elaborated by theorists and researchers (cf Brown et al. 1982:105 ff) roughly distinguish the decisions or regulatory skills of the executive system as either preplanning or planning-in-action. Pre-planning involves the formulation of general methods of procedure prior to the actual onset of action, predicting and planning. Planning-in- action, according to Brown (1 982), involves monitoring, evaluating and revising. The following decisions based on Brown’s (1978) review of problem solving suggest what could be involved in the exercise of these regulatory skills.9

According to Brown (1982)’ in predicting learners must make decisions about future performance. These include determining:

-whether they can perform the task -how much of the given task they can expect to complete

Review 581

-which parts of the task will be the easiest and why -which will be the most difficult and why

Learners must, then, plan ahead regarding the resources or strategies they will use. Planning decisions include determining:

-whether or not it is necessary to engage in deliberate learning -which will be the most efficient strategies for completing the task

Monitoring allows one to determine the state of one’s own ignorance and enlightenment. The research described suggests that exercise of this skill would require making decisions about the following:

-whether one understands or not -what one does not understand -why one does not understand -what one can infer from what one knows -whether one’s state of knowledge is adequate for performing a

-whether this is something one has previously learned given task

In evaluating or checking outcomes, decisions are made about the product of strategic activity. Learners must decide:

-whether the product of their learning is contradictory to/ consistent with other parts of a text or available information (ability to see similarities and differences and appreciate what it means)

-whether it is consistent with reality/common sense (understanding of the relationship with learning and reality, i.e. the purpose of learning. .)

-whether they have been able to apply the rules they know and how well.

Brown does not refer to how these decisions may lead to revising plans and what this would involve. Holec’s (1987) preliminary report on research being conducted at the University of Nancy (France) on how L2 learners self-direct their learning is, to my knowedge, the only study that has explicitly set out to observe how L2 learners’ actually use metacognitive strategies to regulate an L2 learning enterprise.1° The report is based on an analysis of taped interviews between L2 learners and a

582 Language Learning Vof. 37, No. 4

counselor/teacher. In the self-directed learning system, as it is organized at the University of Nancy, teachers function as resource persons. During the interview sessions, they provide learners with information on methods and materials available for helping them achieve their chosen linguistic objectives. They also facilitate, in a nondirective fashion, the planning and evaluative decisions learners make to regulate their learning. Therefore, the taped interviews provided a means to observe and study the regulatory skills as learners used them. The preliminary analysis of some of the case studies indicates the quality of skill learners bring to the task of choosing materials and methods, determining objectives, assessing their entering proficiency, and evaluating the utility of their materials and methods. The report also includes tentative evidence of how these skills improve over time.

Table 1 summarizes the two-dimensional taxonomy. Starred items indicate modifications and/or expansions based on data from the second language learning research.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

REGULATORY SKILLS METACOGNITIVE KNOWLEDGE AND

Although the inclusion of metacognitive knowledge and regulatory skills under the concept “metacognition” has been criticized (cf Cava- naugh & Perlmutter 1982 and Brown et al. 1982), writers also maintain that there is a close relationship between the two. For example, Cava- naugh & Perlmutter (1982: 14ff) theorize that it is through the regulatory skills that metacognitive knowledge is utilized- brought to bear upon or applied to a learning task. Others maintain that insights gained through the exercise of these regulatory skills can be assimilated into one’s existent metacognitive knowledge base to develop, revise and refine it. In fact, these two dimensions can be conceived as existing in a reciprocal relationship-what is known is constructed, in part, from what is done and approaches to problems being constructed, in part, by past experience (Hagen, Barclay and Newman, 1982; Brown 1978). Flavell and Wellman (1977) and Flavell(l981a) also favor an explanation that incor- porates feedback from one’s experience- reflected on by the learner and, then, abstracted and incorporated into hidher cognitive structure as a part of the acquisition cycle.

Another aspect of the relationship between metacognitive knowledge

Review 583

Table I A Taxonomy of Metacognitive Knowledge and Skills

Metacognitive Knowledge I. Person

A. inter and intra individual differences 1. learning style 2. proficiency:present level; progress* 3. comparisons with others

B. universal properties of humans as learners 1. cognitive 2. affective*

11. Task A. need for deliberate learning B. task demands: hard/easy; purpose C. nature of the content to be learned

111. Strategy A. strategy and task B. effectiveness of strategy C. principles underlying choice of strategy*

Regulatory Skills or Metacognitive Strategies I. Pre-Planning

A. determining objectives* B. selection of materials and methods C. assessing entering proficiency D. predicting difficulties

11. Planning-in-Action A. monitoring B. evaluating outcomes C. revising plan

*Modifications and/or expansions

and the regulatory skills that is of special interest has to do with when metacognitive knowledge may be brought to bear on a learning task. Lefebvre-Pinard (1 983) suggests that this involves defining those behaviors which benefit from conscious regulation (as opposed to those where automaticity may be more adaptive) and lists the following instances: (1) behavior that is being acquired; (2) automatized behaviors that are ineffi- ciently performed; (3) behaviors relating to tasks that normally comprise a novel element. Flavell’s (1981a) list is similar: (1) when the nature of the


task requires intentional conscious thinking (as opposed to tasks that require only automatic processing); (2) when one is behaving in novel and unaccustomed ways; (3) when it is important that the outcome be achieved and/or accurate and when the knowledge is seen as relevant to this success; (4) when expectations are not confirmed or there is any slowdown or block in processing. Of course, (he says) it is unlikely to be used if it’s not yet developed (although it may be developed and not used at all).

THE UTILITY OF METACOGNITION IN SECOND-LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING

In this section I will argue for the utility of using this two-dimensional framework as we strive to further our understanding of what learners do to acquire a second language and to use that understanding to inform our endeavors to facilitate the process.

I. Metacognition provides an expanded view on L2 learners’ cognitive abilities.

Since the 1970s research on L2 learners’ cognitive abilities has investigated foreign language aptitude (Carroll 1973, 198 l) , intelligence (Gene- see 1976), cognitive style (Hansen & Stanfield 1981), learning style (Reid 1987), universal language processing strategies, such as transfer, over- generalization, simplification, (Richards 1985) as well as the cognitive and communication strategies particular to individual learners, especially successful ones (cf p. 1 for references to this research). To date, however, as I have already stated, metacognition remains unrecognized and unexamined - except for a few studies. Taking into account the different categories of metacognitive knowledge (person, task and strategy) and the related set of regulatory skills (planning, predicting, monitoring, and evaluating) that constitute metacognition should provide us with a framework of concepts that would enable us to expand our present understanding of the cognitive skills learners bring to the enterprise of L2 learning.

Review 585

11. Acknowledging these different kinds of cognitive skills should lead to a more precise and complete analysis and interpretation of verbal report data.

Let me illustrate by referring to distinctions I have encountered in the analysis of retrospective accounts.

(a) Strategies that are actually used to deal with a particular learning or communication problem vs strategic knowledge about these strategies.

For example, when language learners report that they try to understand new vocabulary by guessing the meaning from the context, this is strategic knowledge of the kind of strategy used to accomplish a particular task. And if they add, that the best way to remember vocabulary is to keep a record of all new words and read it over regularly (as did one learner I interviewed), this is strategic knowledge of strategies they have judged effective. On the other hand, if learners are observed referring to the glossary or repeating a word as they are reading (cf Hosenfeld 1984:237-8), that is an example of a strategy that is actually used.

Of course, strategic knowledge based on retrospective reports can point to strategies learners have actually used. They are not all fabrica- tion, but it should be remembered that they may be generalized and an admixture of fact, inference, and belief. This does not make them any less valid as a source of insight into strategic knowledge. However, it is important that they not be confused with strategies learners actually use.

(b) Metacognitive knowledge about the “person and task variables” vs the actual use of the regulatory skills (or metacognitive strategies). For example, when a learner reports “my comprehension is not perfect” or “I have a problem understanding,” this is an example of metacognitive knowledge about the “person variable.” It is distinct from the actual use of a monitoring strategy by an L2 learner who is listening to a TV newscast and who notes as he listens, for example, that he understands about 50 percent of the news with difficulty and/or realizes there is a term that keeps recurring but which he does not understand. Similarly, the statement “speaking about more abstract topics is more difficult” is an example of metacognitive knowledge of the task variable. It is different from the monitoring strategy which led an L2 learner to note as she was participating in a class discussion that she did not know how to use the technical terms related to the topic of discussion. Of course, it is assumed, single and/or repeated instances such as the two described above can lead learners to conclude that they have difficulty understand-


ing and that talking about abstract topics is hard. In this way monitoring leads to the development of metacognitive knowledge. It is also true that from such statements about the person and task variables, it may be inferred that at some point learners were actually involved in monitoring their learning. However, as is the case with cognitive strategies, what is inferred should be kept distinct from what is stated. Metacognitive strategies (not as amenable to observation as cognitive strategies) should not be identified with the knowledge that can result from their use.

(c) Knowledge about the person and/or task variable vs strategic knowledge. The above examples have noted the need to separate strategic knowledge from the actual use of strategies. Differences among the various categories of metacognitive knowledge should also be noted. When a learner admits that he has a real problem speaking because he keeps making mistakes, this is different from the statement that whenever he speaks, he always listens for his mistakes. The first is an example of metacognitive knowledge about the person variable (he has a problem speaking; he keeps making mistakes) and the second about the strategy variable (he always listens for his mistakes when he speaks).

(d) Cognitive strategic knowledge vs metacognitive strategic kno wl- edge. Within the category of strategic knowledge, confusion may result by not noting differences between cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies, i.e. the regulation of cognition and cognition itself. Thus, a learner who reports deciding that she will try to use the expressions she has just heard or the grammar rule she has just understood has referred to the planning or regulating of his learning. This is different from the statement that she always tries to use new words in sentences. The first refers to metacognitive strategic knowledge about planning and the second to cognitive strategic knowledge.

111. Metacognition provides an added perspective from which to view differences between successful and less successful language learners.

It has already been noted that in order to better understand how a second language is acquired, some researchers have investigated the strategies that characterize good language learners (Naiman, Frohlich & Stern 1975; O’Malley et al. 1985). It has been assumed that one of the reasons for the lack of success of some language learners is their limited repertoire and/or inappropriate use of strategies. (cf Abraham and Vann 1987 for a case study which illustrates this point.) Studies that have compared good and poor learners in areas other than L2 learning have

Review 587

led to the conclusion that metacognition is another variable to be taken into account in any explanation of successful and unsuccessful learning outcomes.

It has been shown that knowledge about and the ability to regulate cognition has begun to emerge in pre-school children and that efficiency of use and complexity of knowledge and skill increase with age. ( Flavell & Wellman 1977; Brown 1978; Kurdek & Burk 1981; Brown et al. 1982; Pitts 1983). Still, the research also shows that metacognition does not develop automatically. Working across all age groups, researchers have noted that not only younger but also poorer (though chronologically older) learners are deficient in metacognitive knowledge and skills. For example, in their review of the reading research, Brown and Baker (1984) cite studies that have illustrated that poorer readers have little awareness on how to approach reading. They view it as a decoding process rather than as a meaning-getting proces. This has been corroborated by Pitts (1983) who further observes that less successful readers, no matter what age, evidence deficiencies in their use of the regulatory skills to monitor their understanding. Brown et al. (1982) refer to research in problem solving with adults which demonstrated that the planning strategies of successful learners were characterized by more flexibility and diversity. (For further research contrasting good and poor learners, also see Wingenbach 1982; 1984; Kaufman & Randlett 1983; Gambrel1 1981; Bransford et al. 1981; Forrest-Pressley & Gillies 1983; Stewart & Ebo 1983).

To date, discussion of differences between good and poor L2 learners has stressed the importance of cognitive and communication strategies. No attempt has been made to study how unsuccessful L2 learners regulate their learning or what they know about it. By taking into account not only cognitive and communication strategies but also the metacognitive knowledge and regulatory skills involved in a particular learning enterprise, future studies of good and poor learners could provide a clearer picture of the cognitive complexities that might be involved in the differences. Specifically, in the case of a particular learner performing a particular learning task, (1) does he or she (a) know when to engage in deliberate learning? (b) possess the knowledge and skills necessary to adequately plan, monitor, and evaluate his or her learning? (c) possess the cognitive strategies necessary to respond to perceived problems? implement chosen plans? and (2) does implementation of the chosen strategies enhance


learning in that situation? serve to revise an existent approach to such a task? lead to transfer of the strategies to similar tasks?

IV. Metacognition has been shown to influence the continued and appropriate use of strategies.

A second assumption underlying research on learner strategies is that learners’ repertoire of strategies can be expanded and refined and that poor learners may benefit from learning how to use strategies utilized to good effect by their more efficient companions. This is an assumption that remains relatively unproven in the domain of second language learning.11 However, intervention research in the training of cognitive strategies to learners in other skill areas has demonstrated that the continued choice and appropriate use of strategies in a variety of situations-the ultimate test of successful strategy training - is related to metacognition. I *

The first phase of intervention studies, which concentrated on training learners to use cognitive strategies to accomplish memory or reading tasks, demonstrated that learners could be induced to use cognitive strategies. Moreover, strategic intervention was shown to make a difference in learning performance (See, for example, Dansereau et al. 1979; Wein- stein et al. 1979; Wong (ed.) 1982; Cook & Mayer 1983). At the same time, it was also noted that the effects of cognitive strategy training were limited. Though in some cases, strategies were maintained over a limited period of time, generally they were not. Nor did learners initiate their use in performing learning tasks in different domains of content where it might have been appropriate to do so.

Consequently, subsequent studies included a metacognitive component. Either learners were told about the significance of the strategy and/or taught how to monitor and evaluate its use and, therefore, determine its relevance for themselves. Results of these studies have shown that such training can influence learners’ choice and use of strategies (Raphael & Pearson 1982; Kendall & Mason 1982; Schunk 1982, 1983; Raphael & McKinney 1983; Goetz and Palmer 1984; Torgeson 1982; Ryan 1982; Paris et al. 1982; Borkowski et al. 1983). Once aware of the significance of a strategy, they would choose to use it without the guid- ance of the researchers. Other studies, though fewer, have further shown that the inclusion of a metacognitive component can influence the main- tenance of strategies and their transfer to other situations (Brown and Palinscar 1982; Schneider 1985). In sum, this research has provided

Review 589

evidence of the critical role of metacognition in the acquisition of cognitive strategies - one that should be provided for in the research designs and/or classroom activities of L2 researchers and teachers who seek ways to help refine the learning competence of language learners.

V. Using metacognition as a framework to analyse learner-oriented process research should highlight the similar cognitive abilities underlying a learner’s deliberate attempts to learn a second language AND to use it to communicate.

As noted earlier (cf note #2), learner-oriented process research can be distinguished on the basis of how the learner is viewed, i.e. as a learner of language OR as a user of language (as writer, or reader). Examining retrospective and introspective data from projects with these different perspectives in metacognitive terms should highlight the similarities in the cognitive abilities utilized by L2 learners in their deliberate attempts to learn a second language AND to use what they have learned to communicate in the written and/or spoken language. This is a similarity that has been obscured, perhaps, by the varying procedures and schema utilized in the analysis of these data.

Let me illustrate by comparing findings from research on composing processes as reported by Zamel (1983), (learner as writer), with Holec’s (1987) description of the management skills of L2 learners who chose to self-direct their attempts to improve their aural/oral proficiency, as opposed to taking a formally organized course, (learner as learner).

Zamel notes that one of the major findings of her study was the extent to which ESL advanced writers understood that composing involves the constant interplay of thinking, writing and rewriting. In fact, the behaviors described to illustrate these three aspects of composing are illustra- tive of what the literature on metacognition would refer to as regulatory skills or metacognitive strategies. What students did to “get into” the topic (transcribing some of their thoughts in the form of notes, lists, or diagrams; looking at the blank pages until a beginning seemed to suggest itself; writing down a conclusion first) could all be classified, in Brown’s terms (cf p. 580) as pre-planning. More specifically, they are strategies that enabled the writers not only to generate but also to select ideas to write about and, in some cases, to determine tentatively how they might go about it. Once the writing was underway, students were observed “planning-in-action”, evaluating and revising - two other of the main regulatory skills identified by Brown. They reread and considered what


was already written. Some “not only reread aloud but also reacted to their writing by audibly commenting on it.” (Zamel 1983:173) As noted by Zamel, one of the purposes of this rereading was to assess or evaluate what they had written. She also describes the nature and extent of the revisions which took place during the original writing.

On the surface the behaviors utilized by Holec’s learners to manage or self-direct their learning may appear quite different. As noted, the language skills they were trying to acquire were usually (though not exclu- sively) oral/aural. Moreover, the context of their learning was different - they were self-directing their learning outside the confines of a formal institution of learning. In their case, pre-planning did not involve selecting ideas and determining how to organize them, but selecting materials and determining the activities to use in exploiting them. Moreover, while L2 writers usually have the objectiveltask set for them (they are told what to write about), these self-directed learners were expected to determine their language learning objectives. Zamel’s writers reread what they had written to assess whether the form of expression matched their intent. For example, they had to make decisions about sentences and the appropriateness of complex words (173:175). On the other hand, for Holec’s self-directed learners, evaluation required considering the proficiency with which they performed their chosen skill, measuring it against their stated objectives and, then considering the efficacy of their chosen materials and methods.

Still, generically, the skills are the same and illustrate the facility with which learners’ in different contexts regulate a learning or communication task. Planning involves finding, choosing, and determining a way of using resources appropriate to the accomplishment of a particular task - be they ideas for a composition or materials to acquire facility in conver- sational English. Evaluating requires that intermim outcomes be mea- sured against one’s stated purpose. If the task at hand is writing a composition or term paper, this means considering what one has written. On the other hand, if the task at hand is understanding conference presentations, this means assessing the facility with which one can com- prehend the spoken language. Evaluation also requires that the means utilized to implement objectives be assessed - leading to appropriate revisions. Zamel’s writers changed words, rewrote whole sentences, re- ordered ideas; Holec’s learners chose different materials and methods.

The planning and evaluating skills Zamel described were noted during a writing/observation session. She also includes learner statements made

Review 591

spontaneously during this session and during a subsequent interview. Besides providing information on the nature of the composing process, these statements appear to be a rich source of insight on the metacognitive knowledge the learner-writers had acquired about themselves (person knowledge), writing (task knowledge), and the strategies they utilized (strategic knowledge).

Using a metacognitive framework to highlight similarities in the cognitive abilities underlying a learner’s deliberate attempts to learn a second language and to use it to communicate in the written and/or spoken language should be useful both from a pedagogical and theoretical point of view. First of all, it would allow for a more holistic approach to diagnosing a learner’s competence as learner. The studies referred to here have been of different groups of learners. However, data gathered on the metacognitive knowledge and regulatory skills of the same group of unsuccessful learners (or writers, readers) in various contexts, (as they write a composition, participate in a conversation, try to achieve a particular linguistic objective), might yield useful insights on their difficulties and suggest appropriate interventions.

Secondly, researchers could build upon and derive insights from similar learner-oriented projects. I have already tried to point out some of the similarities between the regulation of a writing task and of a self-directed language learning project. Some of the strategies L2 writers reported using (Zamel 1983) also bear clear similarities to strategies described by O’Malley et al. (1989, who interviewed high school learners explicitly to discover the learning strategies they used to accomplish oral/aural tasks in academic contexts. For example, the high school learners reported determining in advance to focus attention on specific aspects of language input or situational detail. A similar strategy appears to be used by the L2 writer who said, “The first draft is for getting the ideas down . . . I don’t have to worry about grammar and vocabulary . . . at the end I’m more concerned with grammar, structure . . . (Zamel 1983:178). Like Zamel’s writers who reread to evaluate what they had written, these high school learners also reported checking the outcomes of their language learning. Both groups referred to using advance preparation although what this entailed in each case was different. Taking similarities such as these into account in order to build upon and/or derive further insights from them should, hopefully, lead to more empirically valid explanatory concepts and research questions about some of the cognitive abilities that L2 learners bring to the task of language learning - a prerequisite for


research that will be relevant to the development of our understanding of what learners do to help themselves acquire a second language.

VII. Findings on metacognition in the domain of L2 learning could serve to broaden the theoretical discussion on metacognition in the cognitive developmental field.

In his critique of the research on metacognition to date, Yussen (1985) suggests two areas which have been neglected- both of which seem appropriate for investigation by second language researchers. First, he says, metacognitive development has, generally, been conceptualized with a clear eye to childhood. However, he lists differences between adults and children (kinds of cognitive acquisitions, context of cognitive development or change, the applications of acquired skills and knowledge) to underscore the importance of studying metacognitive phenom- ena in adults as well. Second, he makes the point that the study of metacognition has been trapped by a particular framework for studying cognition and problem solving in general, the puzzle solving framework. This is a framework which provides a limited view of much interesting cognitive activity, for it deals with problems that are already defined and with highly specified solutions. On the other hand, he notes, viewing metacognition through other problem solving frameworks (he suggests ill-defined problems and planning), which are not so specified in terms of problem definition and solution, could provide a different account of metacognitive knowledge and skills. His examples of ill-defined problems (writing) and of planning (developing a program of study for school) suggest the kind of problem solving that typifies a good number of the sub-tasks that constitute language learning.

Anita Wenden York College City University of New York

NOTES

'Bialystok and Ryan (1985) identified two similar skill components, i.e. analysed knowledge and cognitive control, in their analysis of the cognitive skills that differentiate metalinguistic awareness from ordinary linguistic communication.

2According to Yussen 1985, the work and ideas of John Flavell and Ann Brown, who

Review 593

have offered independent and complementary sets of definitions-descriptions of the domain, have had the greatest collective impact in structuring the definition of metacognition as a field. Therefore, the taxonomy is based upon their writings.

3L2 process research may be distinguished in terms of focus or perspective, i.e. it is either product-oriented or learner-oriented. Product-oriented process research utilizes performance data. It examines learner language to determine, for example, the nature of the learners’ interlanguage system. Learner-oriented process research, as I define it, examines verbal reports or observes learners as they complete a learning task to determine what they do to help themselves learn and how they manage these endeavors, i.e. the learner as learner is studied (cf Wenden and Rubin-forthcoming 1987 for a review of earlier studies and a description of more recent work) OR the learner as language user or communicator is studied. For example, research on the composing processes (e.g. Zamel 1982; 1983; Jones 1980a; 1980b; Raimes 1985) focuses on the L2 learner as writer. Research on the reading process (e.g. Hosenfeld 1984) appears to focus on the L2 learner both as learner and as reader. Finally, the research on communication strategies (e.g. Tarone 1977; Glahn 1980; Fserch & Kasper 1983) focuses on learners as they attempt -to negotiate meaning in oral discourse.

4A model with somewhat similar components i.e. learner characteristics including metacognitive knowledge, learner activities or strategies, task, and materials, has been proposed by Jenkins (1979) and described in great detail by Brown et al. (1982) who say that the components of such a model are “exactly what expert learners come to consider when they design their own plans for learning.” (1982:22) Also see Masson 1982, Ryan 1982, Forrest- Pressley & Gillies 1983; Brown and Baker 1984 for factors that interact to affect the outcome of the reading process; Kitchener 1983 for a provocative description of a three- level model of cognitive processing to account for complex monitoring when individuals are faced with problems on which contradictory evidence and opinion exists.

51n their discussion of the two skill components of metacognition, Bialystok & Ryan (1985) make the point that metacognitive knowledge should not be viewed dichotomously, as either being conscious and statable or not, but rather as developing along a linear dimension. This, they suggest, allows for a description of metacognitive knowledge (or analysed knowledge as they designate it) in terms of degrees, e.g. as low, moderate, high. From this point of view, data from structured questionnaires, which technically do not represent “statable” knowledge, in that the learner is not required to articulate but simply to recognize what is known and to respond in an appropriate fashion, would be considered as a less analysed or lower degree of acquired metacognitive knowledge than data based on open ended or semistructured interviews, which require learners to articulate their views on a topic.

6The need to take social and affective factors into account is also suggested by Brown et al. 1982; Hagen et al. 1982).

’Diary studies (cf Bailey & Ochsner 1980) are another source of information on metacognitive knowledge of social and affective factors in L2 learning.

Vavanaugh and Perlmutter 1982 point to the weaknesses of Flavell’s taxonomy and suggest that a better approach would be to identify and assess aspects of knowledge needed to perform particular tasks in specific contexts. For alternative taxonomies see Bobrow 1975; Klatzky 1984; Yussen 1985.

Qhe decisions listed to exemplify the exercise of the regulatory skills have been based on research done mostly with children on metamemory and problem solving described by Brown (1978). They should not be expected to be comprehensive of the decisions involved in regulating a second language learning enterprise. Nor will they all be directly translat- able. They are, however, intended to be suggestive of similar type decisions.


lowhile O’Malley et al. (1985) provide data on metacognitive strategies, this data is based on retrospective accounts and should, by definition, be considered metacognitive strategic knowledge.

IIO’Malley et al. (1985a) report on the results of a training study that succeeded in training L2 learners of intermediate level proficiency in the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies (with limited effect on learning performance). However, in this study learners were not distinguished as being successful or unsuccessful.

%ee Brown and Baker (1984) for a description of three other important features of successful strategy training models (other than the need for a metacognitive component), i.e. diagnosis, interaction, and contextualization.

REFERENCES

Abraham, R. & Vann, R. (1987). Strategies of two language learners: A case study. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning: London, United Kingdom: Prentice-Hall International.

Bailey, K. & Ochsner R. (1980). A methodological review of the diary studies: Windmill tilting or social sciences. Paper presented at Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum, UCLA.

Bialystok, E. & Ryan E. (1985). A metacognitive framework for the development first and second language skills. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley. G. E. Mckinnon, T. G. Waller (eds.) Metacognition, Cognition, and Human Performance Volume 1: Theoretical Perspectives New York: Academic Press.

Bobrow, D. G. (1975). Dimensions of representation. In D. G. Bobrow, &A. Collins (eds.) Representation in Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. New York: Academic Press.

Borkowski, J . G., Peck, V. A., Reid, M. K., Kurtz, B. E. (1983). Impulsivity and strategy transfer: Metamemory as mediator. Child Development 54, 459-413.

Bransford, J. D., Stein, B. S., Shelton, T. S., Owings, R. S. (1981). Cognition and adapta- tion: The importance of learning to learn. In J. H. Harvey (ed.) Cognition, Social Behavior and the Environment. Hilldale, N. J.: Erlbaum Associates.

Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (ed.) Advances in Instruction Psychology Volume l . New Jersey: Erlbaum Publishers.

Brown. A. L. & Palinscar, A. S. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from texts by means of informed, self-control training. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities 2, 1-18.

Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R., & Campione, J . C. (1982) Learning, remembering, and understanding. Technical Report No. 244. Center for the Study of Reading. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Also in J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.) Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology, Volume 1. New York: Wiley, 1983.

Brown, A. L. & Baker, L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.) Handbook of Reading Research New York: Longman.

Carroll, J. B. (1973). Implications of aptitude test research and psycholinguistic theory for foreign language teaching. International Journal of Psycholinguistics 2, 5-14.

Carroll, J. B. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude. In K. C. Diller (ed.) Individual Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude. Row- ley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.

Cavanaugh, J. C. & Perlmutter, M. (1982). Metamemory: A critical examination. Child Development 53, 11-28.

Review

Cohen, A. & Aphek, E. (1980). Retention of second-language vocabulary over time: Inves- tigating the role of mnemonic associations. System 8, 221-235.

Cohen, A. & Aphek, E. (1981). Easifying second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3, 221-236.

Cook L. K. & R. E. (1983). Reading strategies training for meaningful learning. In M. Pressley and J . R. Levin (eds.) Cognitive Strategy Research: Educational Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Dansereau, D. McDonald, B., Collins, K., Garland, J., Holley, C.D., Diekhoff, G. M., & Evans, (1979). Evaluation of a learning strategy system. In O’Neill & Speilberger (eds.) Cognitive and Affective Learning Strategies. New York: Academic Press.

Fierch, C. & Kasper, G. (eds.) (1983). Strategies in Interlanguage Communication London: Longman.

Fserch, C. (1984). Strategies in production and reception: Some empirical evidence. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. Howatt (eds.) Interlanguage Edinburgh: University Press.

Flavell, J. H. & Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R. V. Kail, Jr., & J. W. Hagen (Eds.) Perspectives on the Development of Memory and Cognition. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive- developmental inquiry. American Psychologist 34, 906-91 1 .

Flavell, J. H. (1981a). Cognitive monitoring. In P. Dickson (ed.) Children’s Oral Commu- nication Skills. New York: Academic Press.

Flavell, J . H. (1981b). Monitoring social cognitive enterprises: Something else that may develop in the area of social cognition. In J. H. Flavell & L. Ross (eds) Social Cognitive Development: Frontiers and Possible Futrtres. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Forrest-Pressley D. L. & Gillies L. A. (1983). Children’s flexible use of strategies during reading. In M. Pressley & J. R. Levin (eds.) Cognitive Strategy Research: Educational Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Gambrell, L. B. & Heathington, B. S. (1981). Adult disabled readers metacognitive awareness about reading tasks and strategies. Journal of Reading Behavior 13, 215-222.

Genessee, F. (1976). The role of intelligence in second language learning. Language Learn- ing 26, 267-280.

Glahn E. (1980). Introspection as a method of elicitation in interlanguage studies. Interlan- guage Studies Bulletin Utrecht 5 , 119-128.

Goetz, E. T. & Palmer D. 1984. The role of students’perceptions of study strategies and personal attributes on strategy use. ED 243 077.

Hagen, J . W., Barclay, C., Newman, R. 1982. Metacognition, self-knowledge, and learning disabilities: Some thoughts on knowing and doing. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities. 2, 19-26.

Holec, H. (1987). The learner as manager: managing learning or managing to learn? In A. Wenden & J . Rubin (eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning: London, United Kingdom: Prentice-Hall International.

Horwitz, E. (1987). Surveying students’beliefs about language learning. In A. Wenden & J . Rubin (eds) Learner Strategies in Language Learning: London, United Kingdom: Prentice-Hall International.

Hosenfeld, C. (1984). Case studies of ninth-grade readers. In J . C. Alderson and A. H. Urquhart (eds.) Reading in A Foreign Language London: Longman.

Huang, X. H. (1984). An investigation of learning strategies in oral communication that Chinese EFL learners in China employ. The Chinese University of Hong Kong. (available ERIC).

Jenkins, J. J . (1979). Four points to remember: A tetrahedal model and memory experi-


ments. In L. S. Cernak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.) Levels of Processing in Human Memory. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum Publishers.

Jones, C. S. (1980a). Collecting data on the writing process of L2 writers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Ontario TESL Association.

Jones. (1980b). The composing processes of an advanced ESL writer. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Ottawa TESL Association.

Kaufman, N. J . & Randlett, A. L. (1983). The use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies of good and poor readers at the college level. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Reading Forum. ED 239 243.

Kendall, J . R. & Mason, J . M. (1982). Metacognition from the historical context of teaching reading. Technical Report No. 263. Illinois University, Urbana. Center for the Study of Reading. ED 220 821.

Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development 26, 222-232.

Klatzky, R. L. (1984). Memory and Awareness: An Information-Process Perspective. New York: Freeman & Company.

Kurdek, L. A, & Burt, C. W. (1981). First through sixth grade children’s metcognitive skills: Generality and cognitive correlates. Merrill Palmer Quarterly 27, 287-305.

Lebebvre-Pinard M. (1983). Understanding and auto-control of cognitive functions: Impli- cations for the relationship between cognition and behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development 6, 15-35.

Masson M. E. J. (1982). A framework of cognitive and metacognitive determinants of reading skill. Topics in Learning and Learning Disab

Naiman, N. Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, (1975). The Good Language Learner Toronto: OISE Publications.

O’Malley M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L. & Russo, R. P. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learn- ing 35, 21-47.

O’Malley, M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P. & Kupper L. (1985a). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly 19, 557-584.

O’Neil,H. F. & Spielberger, C. D. (eds.) (1979). Cognitive and Affective Learning Strate- gies. New York: Academic Press.

Paris, S. G., Newman, R. S. & McVey, K. A. (1982). Learning functional significance of mnemonic actions: A microgenetic study of strategy acqu on. Journal of Experi- mental Child Psychology 34, 490-509.

Pitts, M. M. (1983). Comprehension Monitoring: Definition and practice. Journal of Reading 26, 516-523.

Politzer, R. L. & McGroarty M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly

Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly 19, 229-258.

Raphael, T. E. & Pearson, P. D. (1982). The effect of metacognitive training on children’s question-answer behavior. ED 215 315.

Raphael & McKinney, J . (1983). An examination of fifth- & eighth-grade children’s question-answering behavior: An instructional study in metacognition. Journal of Read- ing Behavior IS, 67-86.

Reid, J. (1987). Learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly 21, 87-103.

19 ,103-124.

Review 597

Richards, J . (1975). Simplification: A strategy in the adult acquisition of a foreign lan-

Rubin, J. (1975). What the good language learner can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9,

Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Lin- guistics 2 , 117-131.

Rubin, J . (1984). State of the art: Whaf have we learned about learner strategies ? Revised version of a paper presented at the TESOL convention 1983. To appear in A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning: London, United Kingdom: Prentice-Hall International (1987).

Ryan, E. B. , Ledger, G. W., Short, E. J., Weed, K. A. (1982). Promoting the use of active comprehension strategies by poor readers. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities

Schneider W. (1985). Developmental trends in the metamemory-memory behavior relationship: An integrative review. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E MacKinnon, T. G. Waller (eds.) Metacognition, Cognition and Human Performance Volume I: Theoretical Per- spectives. New York: Academic Press, Inc.

Schunk, D. (1982, 1983). Progress self-monitoring: Effect on children’s self efficacy and achievement. Journal of Experimental Education. 51, 89-93.

Stanfield, C . & Hansen, J . (1983). Field dependence-independence as a variable in second language cloze test performance. TESOL Quarterly 17, 29-38.

Stewart 0. & Ebo T. (1983). Some implications of metacognition for reading instruction. Journal of Reading 27, 36-43.

Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage. In H. D. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (eds) On TESOL ’77 Washington D.C.: TESOL.

Torgesen, J. K. (1982). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: educational implications. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities. 2 , 44-53.

Wenden A. (1986). What do L2 learners know about their language learning ?: A second look at retrospective accounts. Applied Linguistics 7, 186-205.

Wenden A. & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning: London, United Kingdom: Prentice-Hall International.

Weinstein, C. E., Underwood, V. L., Wicker, F., & Cubberly, W. E. (1979). Cognitive learning strategies: Verbal and imaginal elaboration. In H. O’Neil & C. D. Spielberger (eds.) Cognitive and Affective Learning Strategies. New York: Academic Press.

Wesche, M. B, (1979). Learning behaviors of successful adult students on intensive language training. Canadian Modern Language Journal 35, 41 5-427.

Wingenbach, N. G. (1982). Gifted readers: Comprehension strategies and metacognition. ED 244 237.

Wingenbach, N. G. (1984). The gifted reader: Metacognition and comprehension strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English. ED 243 093

Wong, B. Y . L. (issue editor) (1982). Metacognition and learning disabilities. Topics in Learning and Learning Disab

Yussen, S. R. (1985). The role of metacognition in contemporary theories of cognitive development. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G . E. MacKinnon, T. G. Waller (eds.) Meta- cognition, Cognition and Human Performance Volume I : Theoretical Perspectives. New York: Academic Press, Inc.

Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly 16,

Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies.

guage: an example from Indonesian-Malay. Language Learning 25, 115-126.

41-51.

2, 53-60.

195-2 10.

TESOL Quarterly 17, 165-181.

Documents

Metacognition: An Expanded View on the Cognitive Abilities of L2 Learners