ENHANCING EFL STUDENTS’ RECOUNT TEXTS BY EMPLOYING METACOGNITIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES (MLS)
Abstract
Although writing in English is challenging for non-native students, metacognitive learning strategies could be the solution. Therefore, this paper aims to examine and describe if students' metacognitive learning strategies and writing abilities are positively and significantly correlated during the second semester at Nommensen University in Pematangiantar, Indonesia. The text was analyzed using a correlation study with 25 writing II students. In this study, two different kinds of variables were used. The first is the independent variable—the students' metacognitive learning strategies—and the second is the dependent variable—their writing skills. Pearson's simple product-moment correlation was employed to evaluate the collected data. A questionnaire modified from the theory of metacognitive learning strategies was used to assess the students’ metacognitive learning strategies. A written test using recount texts assesses students' English writing ability. The researchers conducted interviews to see how students who used metacognitive learning strategies responded to writing and interviewed English teachers to confirm the findings. The result showed a significant correlation between the students' metacognitive learning strategies and the students' writing skills (r = 0.590 > r table = 0.505). Therefore, the teacher and students need to consider metacognitive learning strategies in the learning process to develop their writing skills.References
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Biemiller, A., & Meichenbaum, D. (1992). The nature and nurture of the self-directed learner. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 75-80.
Brannon, L. & Knoblauch, C. H. (2009). On students’ rights to their own texts: A model of teacher response. College Composition and Communication, 33, 157-166.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd Edition). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
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. 105-127). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
El-Coumy, A. S. (2004). Metacognition and reading comprehension: current trends in theory and research. Cairo: Anglo Egyptian Bookshop.
Englert, C. (2001). A case study of the apprenticeship process: another perspective on the apprentice and the scaffolding metaphor. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10 (4), 102-122.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of Metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fogarty, R. (1994). How to teach Metacognition. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight Publishing.
Fogarty, R. J. (1994). Teach for metacognitive reflection. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Foster, H. M. (2002). Crossing over: teaching meaning-centered secondary English language arts. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. England: Pearson Education.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th edition). Cambridge: Longman.
Herman., Purba, R., Thao, N. V., & Purba, A. (2020). Using Genre-based Approach to Overcome Students’ Difficulties in Writing. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 7(4), 464-470. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.509.2020.74.464.470
Herman, Rafiek, M., Agustina, T., Saddhono, K., Malabar, S., Saputra, N., and Purba, R. (2023). Exploring the Metafunctions to Improve EFL learners’ Writing Ability in the Perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Research Journal in Advanced Humanities, 4(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.58256/rjah.v4i2.1195
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. London: Pearson Education Limited.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2008). Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching, 41,543-562. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005235
McArthur, C. A., Graham S., and Fitzgerald J. (2008). Handbook of writing research. New York: The Guildford Press.
Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Stress inoculation training. New York: Pergamon Press.
Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: the writing process and error analysis in students' texts. Canada: Queen "s University.
Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.
Nunan, D. (2009). Second language teaching and learning. Cengage Learning Asia, Pte. Ltd., Vancouver.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
O'Malley, J. M. (1987). The effects of training in the use of learning strategies on learning English as a second language. Cambridge: Prentice-Hall.
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Reid, E. S. (2009). Teaching Writing Teachers Writing: Difficulty, Exploration, Expression. College Composition and Communication 61(2). 197- 221.
Sobal, P. (2001). Teaching the writing process pedagogy. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Composition Center.
Tompkins, G. (2003). Literacy for the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Wahyuni, H. (2000). English education study program students’ metacognitive learning strategies and reading achievements: A correlational study. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.
Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive strategy use and academic reading achievement: Insights from a Chinese Context. Electronic Journal of Foreign Languages Teaching, 10, 54-69.
All articles published in English Review: Journal of English Education (ERJEE) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
Copyright Ownership
Authors retain the copyright of their articles and grant ERJEE the right of first publication. The journal is granted a non-exclusive license to publish, reproduce, and distribute the article in any format, medium, or platform, provided that proper credit is given to the original authors.
License Terms – CC BY 4.0
Under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, others are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially
As long as they:
- Provide appropriate credit to the original author(s) and source
- Provide a link to the license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
- Indicate if any changes were made
There are no restrictions on the reuse, reproduction, or adaptation of published articles as long as attribution is properly given.
Author Warranties
By submitting a manuscript to ERJEE, authors confirm that:
- The work is original and does not infringe any existing copyright.
- The manuscript has not been previously published and is not under consideration elsewhere.
- All sources and references are appropriately acknowledged.
- Necessary permissions have been obtained for any copyrighted materials used.
