01598992425917

FORID:

Type search text here!

tronic Journal for English as a Second Language

Home

About TESL-EJ

All Issues

Books

How to Submit

Editorial Board

Access

Sitemap

Metacognitive Strategy Training for

Vocabulary Learning
September 2003 Volume 7, Number 2

Metacognitive Strategy Training for Vocabulary Learning

Zohreh Eslami Rasekh
Texas A&M University
< zrasekh@tamu.edu>
Reza Ranjbary
Iran University of Science and Technology
< ranjbary@iust.ac.ir>

Abstract
Research shows that not all L2 strategy-training studies have been successful or
conclusive. Some training has been effective in various skill areas but not in others, even

within the same study (Oxford, 1989). The purpose of the present study was to shed light
on the issue o strategy training. We have investigated the effect of metacognitive strategy
training through the use of explicit strategy instruction on the development of lexical
knowledge of EFL students.
To reach the goal of the study two groups of EFL language learners at intermediate
language proficiency level were randomly assigned to a control and an experimental
group. Both groups received instruction on vocabulary learning strategies through a 10week period of instruction. However, only the experimental group received metacognitive
strategy training during the course of the semester. The training model used was based on
the framework for direct language learning strategies instruction proposed by Chamot
and OMalley (1994). The result of the study showed that explicit metacognitive strategy
training has a significant positive effect on the vocabulary learning of EFL students. [-1-]

Introduction
It has been claimed that successful language learners have their own special ways of doing
it. Stern (1975) and Rubin (1975) were probably among the first researchers who brought
up the idea of successful language learners. The idea can probably help us with both
understanding more about the nature of language learning and also to facilitate the
language learning process for others. Since this premise, most of the research in the area of
language learning strategies has focused on the identification, description, and classification
of useful learning strategies. The research has been descriptive with the aim to elicit the
useful strategies applied by successful language learners assuming that it could help other
learners to become more successful. Rubin (1975), suggested that good L2 learners are
willing and accurate guessers; have a strong drive to communicate; are often uninhibited;
are willing to make mistakes; focus on form by looking for patterns and analyzing; take
advantage of all practice opportunities; monitor their speech as well as that of others; and
pay attention to meaning. Naiman, Frohlich, and Todesco (1975) made a list of strategies
used by successful L2 learners, adding that they learn to think in the language and address
the affective aspects of language acquisition as well.
Learning strategies are defined by OMalley and Chamot (1990) as special thoughts or
behaviors that individuals use to comprehend, learn, or retain new information (p.1).
Oxford (1994) defines them as actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques students use, often
unconsciously, to improve their progress in apprehending, internalizing, and using the L2
(p.1).

In the 1980s and early 90s, research mainly focused on categorizing the strategies found in
the studies of the previous decade. As a result, several taxonomies were proposed to classify
them, including classifications of language learning strategies in general and language subskills strategies in particular. OMalley and Chamot (1990), for instance, have divided the
strategies into three main branches: cognitive, metacognitive, and socio-affective, each of
which includes lots of sub-strategies such as rehearsal, organization, summarizing,
deducing, and imagery. On the other hand, Oxford (1990a) has proposed a more
comprehensive model in which six categories, classified into two groups of direct and
indirect exist. The direct strategies include memory, cognitive, and compensation while
indirect strategies include metacognitive, affective, and social.
As Oxford (1990b) mentions, the social and affective strategies are found less often in L2
research. This is, perhaps, because these behaviors are not studied frequently by L2
researchers, and because learners are not familiar with paying attention to their own
feelings and social relationships as part of the L2 learning process.
According to OMalley and Chamot (1990), cognitive (e.g., translating, analyzing) and
metacognitive (e.g., planning, organizing) strategies are often used together, supporting
each other. The assumption is that using a combination of strategies often has more impact
than single strategies. As Graham (1997, pp. 42-43) states, the distinctions between
cognitive and metacognitive strategies are important, partly because they help us to indicate
which strategies are the most important in determining the effectiveness of learning.
Graham believes that metacognitive strategies, that allow students to plan, control, and
evaluate their learning, have the most central role to play in improvement of learning.
Anderson (2002b) believes that Developing metacognitive awareness may also lead to the
development of stronger cognitive skills (p.1). Since metacognitive strategies are the focus
of this study, a more detailed discussion on this topic follows. [-2-]

Metacognition
Metacognition involves active monitoring and consequent regulation and orchestration of
cognitive process to achieve cognitive goals (Flavell, 1976, p. 252). Flavell and Wellman
(1977), and Flavell (1979) included interpretation of ongoing experience, or simply making
judgments about what one knows or does not know to accomplish a task, as other features
of metacognition. Along with the notions of active and conscious monitoring, regulation,
and orchestration of thought process, Flavell believed through repeated use of
metacognition, it might in time become automatized.

Anderson (2002a, p.1) defines metacognition as thinking about thinking. As Anderson

states, the use of metacognitive strategies ignites ones thinking and can lead to higher
learning and better performance. Furthermore, understanding and controlling cognitive
process may be one of the most essential skills that teachers can help second language
learners develop.
Most of the early investigations of metacognition were descriptive in nature in that they
sought to describe general developmental patterns of childrens knowledge about memory
processes. They were particularly interested in processes concerned with conscious and
deliberate storage and retrieval of information. However, as studies moved from descriptive
to empirical, the kinds of methodology expanded, the number of studies increased, and the
need for a scheme to classify this growing corpus of literature on metacognition arose.
Several classification schemes have been used to group, analyze, and evaluate these
strategies (e.g., Flavel, 1976; 1979; Flavell & Wellman, 1977; Kluwe, 1982) and even though
there are important differences among them, overall, three general categories consistently
appear: cognitive monitoring, cognitive regulation, and a combination of both.
Anderson (2002a), based on previous research, has proposed five main components for
metacognition. They include: 1) preparing and planning for learning, 2) selecting and using
learning strategies, 3) monitoring strategy use, 4) orchestrating various strategies, and 5)
evaluating strategy use and learning.
By preparation and planning in relation to their learning goal, students think about what
their goals are and how they will go about accomplishing them. Students, with the help of
the teacher, can set a realistic goal within a set time for accomplishing that goal. Setting
clear, challenging, and realistic goals can help students see their own progress and
hopefully, by becoming consciously aware of their progress, the students motivation for
learning would be increased.
The metacognitive ability to select and use particular strategies in a given context for a
specific purpose means that the learner can think and make conscious decisions about the
learning process. Learners should be taught not only about learning strategies but also
about when to use them and how to use them. Students should be instructed on how to
choose the best and most appropriate strategy in a given situation.
The next main component of metacognition is monitoring strategy use. By examining and
monitoring their use of learning strategies, students have more chances of success in
meeting their learning goals (Anderson, 2002a). Students should be explicitly taught that
once they have selected and begun to use the specific strategies, they need to check

periodically whether or not those strategies are effective and being used as intended. For
example, when reading, they can use context to guess the meaning of some unknown
vocabulary items. To monitor their use of this strategy, they should pause and check to see if
the meaning they guessed makes sense in the text and if not, go back and modify or change
their strategy. [-3-]
Knowing how to use a combination of strategies in an orchestrated fashion is an important
metacognitive skill. Research has shown that successful language learners tend to select
strategies that work well together in a highly orchestrated way, tailored to the requirements
of the language task (Chamot & Kupper, 1989; Wenden, 1998). These learners can easily
explain the strategies they use and why they employ them (OMalley & Chamot, 1990).
Based on Chamot and Kupper (1989), certain strategies or clusters of strategies are linked to
particular language skills or tasks. For example, L2 writing, like L1 writing, benefits from
the learning strategies of planning, self-monitoring, deduction, and substitution. L2
speaking demands strategies such as risk-taking, paraphrasing, circumlocution, selfmonitoring, and self-evaluation. L2 listening comprehension gains from strategies of
elaboration, inferencing, selective attention, and self-monitoring. Reading comprehension
uses strategies like reading aloud, guessing, deduction, and summarizing. Research shows
that use of appropriate language learning strategies often results in improved proficiency or
achievement overall or in specific skill areas (Oxford, Park-Oh, Ito, & Sumrall,1993).
One of the most important metacognitive strategies is to evaluate effectiveness of strategy
use. Self-questioning, debriefing discussions after strategies practice, learning logs in which
students record the results of their learning strategies applications, and checklists of
strategies used can be used to allow the student to reflect through the cycle of learning. At
this stage of metacognition the whole cycle of planning, selecting, using, monitoring and
orchestration of strategies is evaluated.
It should be noted that different metacognitive skills interact with each other. The
components are not used in a linear fashion. More than one metacognitive process along
with cognitive ones may be working during a learning task (Anderson, 2002b). Therefore
the orchestration of various strategies is a vital component of second language learning in
general and vocabulary learning in particular. Allowing learners opportunities to think
about and talk about how they combine various strategies facilitates strategy use.

Language Learning Strategy Training

The results of the studies on strategy description and categorization have found their
implications in language classrooms in helping teachers accelerate the language learning of
their students. If learners are to be in a position to be made aware of different strategies that
can assist them in the process of learning, they should be familiar with the strategies that
are available. In other words, if students have to make their strategy selection, they have to
know about the process of making this selection, because informed selection of strategies
presupposes knowledge of strategies and knowledge of strategies presupposes instruction
(Nunan, 1991, p.179). With the expansion of language learning strategy instruction research,
the question to be answered is whether training on strategies would result in improvement
in language learners. A large body of research supports the positive effects of training on
strategies in language learning performance (Carrell, Pharis, & Liberto, 1989; Carrell, 1998;
Oxford 1990a, 1990b, 1996; Oxfordet al., 1990). Cottrell (1999) claims that through practice
and instruction, learners use of strategies can be automatized. [-4-]
It has been suggested that learning strategy instruction may help learners in three ways:
firstly, learning strategies instruction can help students to become better learners, secondly,
skill in using learning strategies assists them in becoming independent and confident
learners, and finally, they become more motivated as they begin to understand the
relationship between their use of strategies and success in learning languages (Chamot &
Kupper, 1989; Chamot & OMalley, 1994).
To ratify this premise, an abundant body of research has been carried out in recent years..
OMalley and Chamot (1990), and Oxford (1990a) have found that the use of learning
strategies in classroom instruction is fundamental to successful learning. Supporting their
findings, Oxford et al. (1990, p. 210) in their studies of six cases found that Strategy
training can enhance both the process of language learning (the strategies or behaviors
learners use and the affective elements involved) and the product of language learning
(changes in students language performance)." They also claimed that the training has some
positive effects on the teacher:
Teachers who use strategy training often become enthusiastic about their roles as
facilitators of classroom learning. Strategy training makes them more learner oriented
and more aware of their students needs. Teachers also begin to scrutinize how their
teaching techniques relate (or fail to relate) to their students learning strategies and
sometimes teachers choose to alter their instructional patterns as a result of such scrutiny.
(Oxford et al., p.210)
With regard to vocabulary learning, research shows that for most adult learners direct
vocabulary instruction is beneficial and necessary, due to the fact that students are not able

to acquire the mass of vocabulary just by meaningful reading, listening, speaking and
writing. Learners can be taught explicitly how to improve their own vocabulary by teaching
them appropriate vocabulary learning strategies in contrast to simply letting students learn
vocabulary in their own way (Brown & Perry, 1991). Ellis (1985) notes that we should
remember that vocabulary learning also involves the use of individual learning techniques.
Ellis has also found that the growing interest in providing a description of vocabulary
learning techniques and strategies aims to enhance understanding of the acquisition
processes that take place in the learners mind. Therefore a description of vocabulary
learning strategies can be used as a guideline to help learners in their lexical acquisition
(Ellis, 1995).
In relation to vocabulary learning strategies, Sanaoui (1995) reported that there were two
approaches to vocabulary learning among students: a systematic approach and an
unsystematic approach. In systematic approach learners were more organized and
independent, used extensive records of lexical items, and reviewed words more often. In
unsystematic approach, learners were dependent on the course, used minimal or no records
of lexical items, and reviewed words little or not at all.
Coady (1997), arguing on the importance of context in vocabulary learning, recommended
the use of vocabulary learning strategy instruction approach to enhance lexical acquisition:
The proponents of this approach (learning strategy instruction) also believe that context is
the major source of vocabulary learning but they express some significant reservations
about how well students can deal with context on their own. As a result, there is
considerable emphasize on teaching specific learning strategies to students so that they
can effectively learn from context. (Coady, 1997, p. 276) [-5-]
Husltijn (1997) claimed that the teaching of vocabulary learning strategies especially at the
intermediate and advanced level by the use of keyword strategy would bring significant
result. He added, Modern foreign language pedagogy stresses the importance of teaching
students appropriate learning and studying strategies (1997, p.127). Parry (1997) carried
out a study that showed how cognitive strategies had dramatic impacts on the success or
failure of students in terms of their acquisition of academic words. Altman (1997) showed
the significance of metacognitive awareness in the process of using words in oral
communication.

Language Learning Strategy Training Models

Finding the usefulness of strategy training, some researchers tried to present a model
including the steps to be taken by teachers for this kind of instruction (Oxford et al. 1990;
OMalley & Chamot, 1990).
OMalley and Chamot (1990) found two approaches in teaching learning strategy, direct
(overt in Oxfords model) and embedded (covert in Oxford model). Direct training is
learning strategy instruction in which students are informed about the value and purpose
of learning strategies (OMalley & Chamot, 1990, p. 229). Whereas, embedded training is
guidance in the use of learning strategies that is embedded in the task materials but not
explicitly defined to the learner as strategy instruction (OMalley & Chamot, 1990, p. 230).
They added that embedded approach had little effect on learners. Wenden (1987) has also
criticized embedded instruction since with this kind of training the learners who were not
familiar with cognitive or socio-affective strategies that were available to them, could not
use the metacognitive ones and as a result no transfer occurred. As a result, she
recommended the use of a more direct approach for the instruction.
Later, Chamot & OMalley (1994) working on a project called Cognitive Academic Language
Learning Approach (CALLA) provided a useful framework for direct language learning
strategies instruction. The sequence of instruction in CALLA approach is a five-phase
recursive cycle for introducing, teaching, practicing, evaluating, and applying learning
strategies. In this approach, highly explicit instruction in applying strategies to learning
tasks is gradually faded so that students can begin to assume greater responsibility in
selecting and applying appropriate learning strategies. The cycle repeats as new strategies or
new applications are added to students strategic repertoires (Chamot & OMalley, 1994;
Chamot Barnhardt, El Dinary, & Robbins, 1999).
CALLA model of Chamot and OMalley (1986) relies on Andersons (1985) distinction
between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge is
defined as A special type of information in long term memory that consists of knowledge
about the facts and things that we know. This type of information is stored in terms of
propositions, schemata, and propositional networks. It may also be stored in terms of
isolated pieces of information temporal strings, and images (OMalley & Chamot, 1990, p.
229), whereas, procedural knowledge is the Knowledge that consists of the things that we
know how to do. It underlies the execution of all complex cognitive skills and includes
mental activities such as problem solving, language reception and production, and using
learning strategies (OMalley & Chamot, 1990, p. 231). They also suggested that all the
three main categories of learning strategies could be taught through the CALLA approach. [6-]

To have a successful and helpful learning strategy instruction some requirements must be
met by the teachers. These are summarized by Oxford (1994) into the following principles
that she left subject to further investigation: 1) L2 strategy training should be based clearly
on students attitudes, beliefs, and stated needs, 2) strategies should be chosen so that they
mesh with and support each other and so that they fit the requirements of the language task,
the learners goals, and the learners style of learning, 3) training should, if possible, be
integrated into regular L2 activities over a long period of time rather than taught as a
separate, short intervention, 4) students should have plenty of opportunities for strategy
training during language classes, 5) strategy training should include explanations, handouts,
activities, brainstorming, and materials for reference and home study, 6) affective issues
such as anxiety, motivation, beliefs, and interestsall of which influence strategy choice
should be directly addressed by L2 strategy training, 7) strategy training should be explicit,
overt, and relevant and should provide plenty of practice with varied L2 tasks involving
authentic materials, 8) strategy training should not be solely tied to the class at hand; it
should provide strategies that are transferable to future language tasks beyond a given class,
9) strategy training should be somewhat individualized, as different students prefer or need
certain strategies for particular tasks, and 10) strategy training should provide students with
a mechanism to evaluate their own progress and to evaluate the success of the training and
the value of the strategies in multiple tasks.
Nevertheless, not all L2 strategy training studies have been successful or conclusive. Some
training has been effective in various skill areas but not in others, even within the same
study (Oxford, 1989). Therefore the present study was conducted to shed some light on this
issue. Considering that different variable of gender, cultural background, motivation,
learning style, and attitudes and beliefs may affect strategy use and learning, the present
study can add to the previous literature on strategy training.

Justification for the Study

Most of the research in the field of learning strategy instruction has focused on reading
strategies as one of the important language skills (Carrell, 1998), and on cognitive strategies
as one of the main categories of learning strategies. In addition, most of the research on
vocabulary learning strategies has focused on cognitive strategies. Due to the importance of
metacognitive learning strategies and vocabulary learning, the present study focused on
explicit metacognitive strategy instruction and its impact on lexical knowledge improvement
of adult EFL students.
The importance of metacognitive strategies has been emphasized by OMalley, Chamot,
Stewner-Mazanares, Russo, and Kupper (1985, p. 561) by stating, students without

metacognitive approaches are essentially learners without direction or opportunity to

review their progress, accomplishment, and future directions. According to Anderson
(2002b, p. 1), developing metacognitive awareness in learners may also lead to the
development of stronger cognitive skills and much deeper processing. It results in critical
but healthy reflection and evaluation of thinking.
In addition, vocabulary knowledge is known to play a key role in the individuals proficiency
in both first and second language. Vocabulary size was shown to be the best predictor of
reading comprehension in L1 and L2 (Coady, 1997). Also it has been shown to correlate
highly with global assessment of writing quality and with general language proficiency
scores (Bachman & Palmer, 1996). [-7-]
Finally, as it has been suggested by some researchers including, Brown (1994), Chamot et
al., (1999), Chamot and OMalley (1992) Coady (1997), McCarthy (1990), and Oxford
(1990a, 1991,1996) one of the areas that teachers could help their students in relation to
learning strategies could be to familiarize them with different lexical learning strategies,
which would lead to more autonomy in students. Moreover, most of the studies in learning
strategies have concentrated on identification, description and classification of learning
strategies used by language learners. As a result, more attention should be paid to finding
whether strategies used by successful students can be taught to unsuccessful students, and if
so, what instructional approaches teachers should use to teach the strategies.
To achieve the purpose of the study the following research question was proposed:
Does the metacognitive strategies instruction significantly increase the lexical knowledge
of Iranian EFL students?

Methodology
Subjects

The participants of the study were 53 male and female Iranian EFL students taking part in
an intensive course of English in Tehran Institute of Technology aged 19 to 25. The average
age of the subjects was 21.86. They were studying English to enroll later in either English
business classes or information technology classes. They had passed Headway elementary
achievement test with at least 65 percent of the whole score. They were assigned into two
classes and considered at pre-intermediate level of language proficiency. Twenty-nine of the
subjects were female, and twenty-four were male. One of the classes was randomly selected
as the control group and the other class as experimental group. To be sure of the

homogeneity in the groups regarding lexical knowledge of the book that they were supposed
to study during the experiment, a vocabulary achievement test (VAT) was developed and
used. The reliability and validity of the vocabulary test was checked against Nelson language
proficiency test administered to the subjects. The result of the vocabulary pre-test showed
that there was no significant difference between the control and experimental groups in
terms of lexical knowledge to be taught in the experiment period. The number of the
students in the control was 26 and there were 27 subjects in the experimental group.
Design

This study had an intact group, pretest-posttest, experimental design. The subjects were
already assigned in groups by the institution. Two classes were selected for this study and
one was randomly assigned as experimental and the other as the control group. The
homogeneity of the two groups in terms of vocabulary knowledge and language proficiency
was checked using a vocabulary achievement test and Nelson English language proficiency
test respectively.
Instrumentation

Two instruments were used in this study. The first one was Nelson Language Proficiency
test which was used as a standardized measure to check the homogeneity of subjects in
terms of language proficiency and also to be used as a standardized measure to check the
reliability and validity of our vocabulary test. [-8-]
The second one was a 40 item multiple-choice test of vocabulary, which was developed by
the researchers. The vocabulary items in the test were mainly selected from the new lexical
items taught and exposed to during the course. The validity and reliability of the test was
checked against a standardized test (Nelson Test). The test was used as the assessment tool
in the pre-test and the post-test phase of the study.
Two internal consistency estimates of reliability which included coefficient alpha and a splithalf coefficient expressed as Spearman-Brown corrected correlation were computed for the
vocabulary test. For the split-half coefficient, the test items were split into two halves based
on odd and even numbers to nullify the effects of unwanted factors such as tiredness of the
test takers. The value for coefficient alpha was .73 and the value of the split-half coefficient
was .80, each indicating satisfactory reliability.
Considering the other main characteristics of the test, namely validity, first, most of the
vocabulary items in the vocabulary achievement test (VAT) and the distracters were selected

from the new lexical items of the book and were also used in the glossary and the
accompanying workbook. This strategy helped to increase the content validity of the VAT.
To check the criterion-related validity of the test, Nelson language proficiency test, which is
a standardized test, was used which showed .81 of coefficient of determination, which is
satisfactory for a test like this.

Procedure
Both experimental and control groups enrolled in an English course which lasted for 10
weeks (four hours a day, three days a week). The textbook used for this course was Headway
pre-intermediate. The authors have emphasized the role of lexical knowledge in learning the
English language and have put some sections on vocabulary learning strategies in the book.
One of the researchers taught both classes.
Both groups received the usual training based on the procedures suggested in the Headway
Teachers book. The vocabulary strategies which were covered in the book were summarized
and taught in the first session for both groups. The instruction and use of vocabulary
learning strategies continued throughout the course for both groups of subjects. It is
believed that metacognitive strategies are responsible for controlling other strategies and as
a result they have their best effects if students are aware of other strategies that are available
to them at the beginning of the course (OMalley & Chamot, 1990, p. 230).
Only the experimental group received explicit instruction on metacognitive strategies
beginning from the second day of the course. The training was based on CALLA model of
teaching learning strategy which includes five steps:
1. Preparation: The purpose of this phase was to help students identify the strategies they
are already using and to develop their metacognitive awareness of the relationship between
their own mental processes and effective learning. In this step the teacher explained the
importance of metacognitive learning strategies and a handout including different
metacognitive strategies was distributed to the students. In relation to vocabulary learning,
which was the subject of this study, students with the help and guidance of the teacher set
specific goals for mastering the vocabulary from certain chapters in the textbook within a
certain time frame, and they planned their time in order to accomplish the task (timemanagement). [-9-]
2. Presentation: This phase focused on modeling the learning strategy. The teacher talked
about the characteristics, usefulness, and applications of the strategy explicitly and through
examples and illustrated his own strategy use through a reading task in relation to unknown

vocabularies. Learners were explicitly taught about the variety of strategies to use when they
do not know a vocabulary word they encounter in a text and they judge the word to be
important to the overall meaning of the text. But more importantly, they received explicit
instruction on how to use these strategies. They were told that no single vocabulary learning
strategy would work in every case. For example, word analysis strategy (dividing the word
into its component morphemes) may work with some words but not with others. Using
contextual cues for guessing the meaning of unknown words may be effective in some richcontext cases but not in context-reduced texts. The preparation and planning, the selection
of vocabulary learning strategies, monitoring of strategy selection and use, orchestrated use
of several strategies, and evaluation of effectiveness of metacognitive strategies for
vocabulary learning were illustrated through several examples.
3. Practice: In this phase, students had the opportunity of practicing the learning
strategies with an authentic learning task. They were asked to make conscious effort using
the metacognitive strategies in combination with vocabulary learning strategies. The
students, by the teachers assistance practiced monitoring while using multiple strategies
available to them. The students became aware of multiple strategies available to them by
teaching them, for example, how to use both word analysis and contextual clues to
determine the meaning of an unfamiliar word. Students were shown how to recognize when
one strategy isnt working and how to move on to another. For example, a student may try to
use word cognate to determine the meaning of the word football. But that strategy wont
work in this instance The English equivalent of the word Persian Football is soccer. The
students need to be able to turn to other strategies like using contextual clues to help them
understand the meaning of the word.
4. Evaluation: The main purpose of this phase was to provide students with opportunities
to evaluate their own success in using learning strategies, thus developing their
metacognitive awareness of their own learning processes. Activities used to develop
students self-evaluation insights included self-questioning, debriefing discussions after
strategies practice, learning logs in which students recorded the results of their learning
strategies applications, checklists of strategies used, and open-ended questionnaires in
which students expressed their opinions about the usefulness of particular strategies.
5. Expansion: In this final phase students were encouraged to: a) use the strategies that
they found most effective, b) apply these strategies to new contexts, and c) devise their own
individual combinations and interpretations of metacognitive learning strategies. They were
asked to consider not only vocabulary learning but also other domains of language learning.
[-10-]

As time went by less time was spent on the checking since it was believed that the use of
strategies had changed from factual knowledge to procedural and as a result automatic.
According to Cottrell (1999, p. 22), A skilled student uses strategies, and with practice the
strategies become nearly automatic. However, throughout the semester, in order to sustain
students awareness, they were periodically asked whether they used the strategies and if
they had found them useful. The use of strategies was also systematically reinforced by the
teacher. Moreover, in teaching new vocabulary items the teacher made the students aware
of the importance of using metacognitive strategies in combination with vocabulary learning
strategies. Students could do this by asking questions about the strategies they used to learn
new vocabulary items.
At the end of the course both the control group and the experimental group were given the
vocabulary achievement test and the results of the tests were compared to find the effects of
the training.

Data analysis
Statistical analysis of t-test was used to test possible differences between the two groups at
the beginning and end of the study.
In order to establish the homogeneity of the two groups in terms of vocabulary knowledge
an independent-samples t-test was conducted to examine the difference among the
performance of the two groups on the vocabulary test before the experiment. The result
indicated that there was not any significant difference (t (51) = 1.00 a< .05) between the
mean scores of the subjects in the control group with the participants in the experimental
group. In simple words, the two groups were homogenous in terms of lexical knowledge of
the new items of the course book at the beginning of the course. The result is presented in
the following table.

Table 1 Results of the independent-samples t test in

vocabulary
pre-test
Group

Mea
n

Std.
Deviati
on

Std.
Err
or
Mea

n
Experimental
Group(Metacognit
ive)

2
7

7.66
67

3.3855

.
6515

Control
Group(None)

2
6

6.65
38

3.9592

.
7765

To find the effectiveness of explicit metacognitive strategy instruction on the lexical

knowledge of the experimental group and compare the improvement with their
counterparts in the control group, both groups took part in a post-test of the same
vocabulary achievement test after completing the course. The results of the vocabulary test
in the two groups were compared using independent samples t-test statistical procedure,
whose result showed that the mean scores of the experimental group (M = 29.29, SD = 3.84)
was significantly (t (51) = 3.55 a< .05) different from the control group (M = 25.30, SD =
4.32). In other words, while there was not any significant difference between control and
experimental group in terms of lexical knowledge at the beginning of the study, the
experimental group surpassed the control group in terms of lexical knowledge at the end of
the experiment. The result of the t-test of post-test of both groups is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Results of the independent-samples t test in

vocabulary
post-test
Group

Mea
n

Std.
Deviati
on

Std.
Err
or
Me
an

Experimental
Group(Metacognit
ive)

2
7

29.29
63

3.8412

.
739
2

Control
Group(None)

2
6

25.30
77

4.3245

.
848
1

[-11-]

Conclusion
The major concern of the present study was to explore the effectiveness of explicit
metacognitive strategies training on vocabulary learning of the EFL students. As it was
shown, the experimental group outperformed the comparison group on the vocabulary
achievement test. Thus, the explicit metacognitive strategy training seems to have
contributed to the improvement of students vocabulary learning. In other words, the
explicit instruction and practice the experimental group received about how to plan their
vocabulary learning, set specific goals within a time frame, select the most appropriate
vocabulary learning strategy, monitor strategy use, use a combination of strategies, selftesting degree of mastery of the new vocabulary items after meeting the words for the first
time, managing their time by devoting some time during their study hours to vocabulary
practice, and finally evaluating the whole process, contributed to this improved and
expanded lexical knowledge. The findings of this study indicate that explicit metacognitive
strategies instruction has positive impact on the lexical knowledge development of EFL
students. It corroborates with studies focused on other types of learning strategies such as
cognitive strategies using the two kinds of instruction (explicit and embedded) (Wenden,
1987; Carrel et al., 1989; Kern, 1989; Cohen, Weaver, & Li, 1998; Wenden, 1998) according
to which learning strategy instruction has positive effects on development of skills and
components of language.
The findings of this study support the foreign language research literature on strategy
training of other components and skills of the language such as reading comprehension
(Kern, 1989; Carrell, 1998). Moreover, it can be asserted that the model used to teach
metacognitive strategies was a practical and useful one.
The findings of the present study have implications for learners, teachers, and teacher
educators in the realm of TEFL in particular and education in general. It helps teachers in
accomplishing their challenging task of teaching English in EFL contexts where learners
have less exposure to language compared to ESL contexts. Teachers can help learners use
different metacognitive strategies to facilitate their vocabulary learning. Textbook writers,
especially in the context of EFL, do not include a sufficient amount of information on
learning strategies. A need for the inclusion of and emphasis on learning strategies is
obvious.
Both learners and teachers need to become aware of learning styles and strategies through
strategy instruction. Attempts to teach students to use learning strategies have produced

good results (Rubin & Thompson, 1994). The main objective of such attempts is to allow
students to become more aware of their preferred learning strategies and to help them
become more responsible for meeting their own objectives. Such objectives can be only
achieved when students are trained in strategy use so that they become more independent
and effective.
However, before teaching students how to use strategies effectively, teachers should be
trained in strategy instruction and assessment. They should also be trained on how to
implement strategy instruction inside their classrooms. The Strategy-Based Instruction
(SBI) approach adopted by Cohen, Weaver, and Li, (1998) emphasizes the role of SBI in the
foreign language classrooms. In addition, Cohen, Weaver, and Li advise teachers to
systematically introduce and reinforce learning strategies that help students use the target
language more effectively and thus improve their performance. Oxford (1990a) suggests
that strategy training can be achieved after familiarizing the students with the language
learning strategies and providing them with opportunities for practicing these strategies
through integrating them into the classroom instructional plan and embedding them into
regular class activities. [-12-]
There is a need for more comprehensive research on a wide range of variables affecting
language learning strategies use. Variables such as cultural background, beliefs, learning
style, motivation, and attitude that may have a bearing on language learning strategy use
should be studied with students of different language backgrounds and proficiency levels.
Moreover, research on the frequency of use of the social and affective strategies and choice
of given strategies is recommended since it is helpful for both learners and teachers.
Finally, the idea of self-regulation and empowerment with strategic instruction will possibly
prove more effective in certain contexts. Where learners of EFL have been educated in a
more teacher-centered, top-down curriculum rather than one that promotes learners
autonomy and independence, strategy instruction could prove most effective.

References
Altman, R. (1997). Oral production of vocabulary: A case study. In J. Coady, & T. Huckin,
Second language vocabulary acquisi6ion. (pp. 69-97). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Anderson, J.R. (1985). Cognitive Psychology and its implications. 2nd ed. San Francisco.
Freeman.

Anderson, N. J. (2002a). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and

learning. ERIC Digest. Education Resources Information Center.
Anderson, N.J. (2002b).Using Telescopes, Microscopes, and Kaleidoscopes to Put
Metacongnition into Perspective. TESOL Matters, 12 (4), 2002.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. 3rd ed. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Brown, T. S. & Perry, F.L. (1991). A comparison of three learning strategies for ESL
vocabulary acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 655-70.
Carrell, P.L. (1998). Can reading strategies be successfully taught?
http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/98/mar/carrell.html
Carrell, P.L., Pharis, B.G. & Liberto, J.C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL
reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 647-678.
Chamot,A. U., Barnhardt, S., El Dinary. P.B., & Robbins, J. (1999). The learning strategies
handbook. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Chamot, A. U., & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction.
Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13-24.
Chamot, A. U., & OMalley, J. M. (1986). A cognitive academic language learning
approach: An ESL content-based curriculum. Wheaton: National Clearinghouse for
Bilingual Education.
Chamot, A. U., and OMalley, J. M. (1992). The cognitive academic language learning
approach: A bridge to the mainstream. In P. A. Richard-Amato & M. A. Snow (Eds.), The
multicultural classroom: Readings for content-area teachers. White Plains: Longman.
Chamot, A. U., & OMalley, J. M. (1994). Language learner and learning strategies. In N. C.
Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 371- 392). London: Academic.

Coady, J. (1997). L2 vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading. In J. Coady & T.

Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 225-237). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. [-13-]
Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S. F., & Li, T. (1998). The impact of strategic-based instruction on
speaking a foreign language. In A. Cohen. Strategies in learning and using a second
language (pp. 107-56). London: Longman.
Cottrell, S. (1999). The study skills handbook. London: Macmillan Press.
Ehrman, M., &. Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an
intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 74, 311-327.
Ellis, R. (1985). Sources of variability in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics, 6, 118-131.
Ellis, R. (1995). Modified oral input and the acquisition of word meaning. Applied
Linguistics, 16, 409-441.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), The
nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34,
906-911.
Flavell, J.H. & Wellman, H.M. (1977). Metamemory. In R.V. Kail & J.W. Hagen (Eds.),
Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hulstijn, J. (1997). Mnemonic methods in foreign language vocabulary learning: Theoretical
considerations and pedagogical implications. In J. Coady, & T. Huckin, Second Language
Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 203-224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kern, R. G. (1989). Second language reading strategy instruction: Its effects on
comprehension and word inference ability. Modern Language Journal, 73, 135-149.
Kluwe, R. (1982). Cognitive knowledge and executive control: Metacognition. In D. R.
Griffin (Ed.). Animal mind-human mind (pp. 201-24). New York: Springer-Verlag.
McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., & Todesco, A. (1975). The good second language learner. TESL
Talk, 6, 58-75.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language learning methodology. London: Prentice Hall International.
OMalley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
OMalley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Mazanares, G., Russo, R., & Kupper, L. (1985).
Learning strategies applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL
Quarterly, 19, 285-96.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with
implications for strategy training. System, 17, 235-247.
Oxford, R. (1990a). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New
York: Newbury House. [-14-]
Oxford, R. (1990b). Styles, strategies, and aptitude: Connections for language learning. In
Parry, T.S. and C.W. Stansfield (Eds.) Language aptitude reconsidered. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall Regents.
Oxford, R.L. (1994). Language learning strategies: An updated. Eric Clearinghouse on
Languages and Linguistics, (online).
Oxford, R. (1996). Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language learning
strategies. Applied Language Learning, 7:1&2, 25-45.
Oxford, R., Crookall, D., Cohen, A., Lavine, R., Nyikos, M., & Sutter, W. (1990). Strategy
training for language learners: Six situational case studies and a training model. Foreign
Language Annals, 22, 197-216.
Oxford, R. L., Park-Oh, Y., Ito, S., & Sumrall, M. (1993). Learning a language by satellite:
What influences achievement? System, 21, 31-48.
Parry, K. (1997). Vocabulary and comprehension: Two portraits. In J. Coady, & T. Huckin.
Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 55-68). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the good language learner can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51.
Rubin, J., & Thompson, I. (1994). How to be a more successful language learner, 2nd ed.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Sanaoui, R. (1995). Adult learners approaches to learning vocabulary in second language.
The Modern Language Journal, 79, 15-28.
Stern, H.H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern
Language Review, 31, 304-318.
Wenden, A. L. (1987). Incorporating learner training in the classroom. In A. L. Wenden, & J.
Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 31-42). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics,
19, 515-37.

About the Authors

Zohreh Eslami Rasekh is an Assistant Professor of ESL at Texas A&M University in
College Station, Texas. She has taught EFL at high school level in Iran and has trained EFL
teachers in Iran for 8 years. Her research interests include issues related to ESL and EFL
learning and teaching.
Reza Ranjbary is a lecturer at Iran University of Science and Technology in Tehran, Iran.
He has taught EFL to Iranian students during the last six years. His research interests
include Language Learning Strategies, English for Special Purposes, and Computer Assisted
Language Learning.

Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.

Editors Note: Dashed numbers in square brackets indicate the end of
each page for purposes of citation.

[-15-]