A of the Meta-Cognitive Strategy in EFL Writing - Literature review Example

?A REVIEW OF THE META-COGNITIVE STRATEGY IN EFL WRITING.  This literature review examines and evaluates meta-cognitive strategy in EFL writing. In the recent past, a number of studies have been carried out to investigate the role of self-knowledge and control over cognitive activities in various problem resolving situations (Chamot, 2005). The findings from these studies have assisted us in knowing more about how human brain solve difficult cognitive chores using strategic knowledge in relation to the objectives to be attained. Even though writing in many forms is seen as a problem- solving task, there is little if any research on the work of meta-cognition in EFL writing. Recent research efforts suggest that there is relationship between meta-cognitive knowledge and the quality of writing (Cohen, 1998). This is because in majority of these studies (Anderson, 2002) and (Chamot, 2005). the findings indicate that writing performance is remarkably affected by the learners’ knowledge about their writing strategy. 1.0. Introduction This paper examines how meta-cognitive knowledge affects English writing performance as a foreign language (EFL). There is sound evidence showing that there is a close relationship between meta-cognitive knowledge and writing performance. Teaching English as second language and as a foreign language has a number of similarities even though one key difference abide as observed by Brown (2002). Learners in English as a foreign language in classroom setup lack the necessary exposure to the language as they study it in a place where it is not being used. They do not have the additional input that English as second language learners have when surrounded by sufficient examples of the language in a place where it is spoken (Anderson, 2002). Studying in a foreign language needs a wide understanding, which is frequently associated with the need to carry out cognitive and procedural duties like writing and giving speech among others. The problem with EFL students is the difference between what they are familiar with and what the native speaker knows with respect to the language and substance of the written text (Clark, 1995). This is because most of the genuine texts are intended for native readers or individuals with good linguistics proficiency. It is worth noting at this point that even foreigners with substantial know-how of the language have problems at the level of identification. This greatly limits their efforts to understand the texts they ought to read as espoused by Chamot (2005). Studies have revealed that academic writing is an intricate endeavor that entails a broad range of cognizant and dynamic meta-cognitive strategies. 2.0. Literature Review 2.1. Meta-cognition Meta-cognition can be regarded as an individual’s knowledge regarding his/her cognitive processes and their outcomes (Anderson, 2002).The meta-cognitive strategies entail the active examination and subsequent control of the cognitive processes in regard to information processing (Anderson, 2002). This implies that students have the know-how of their cognitive process as well as the ability to apply that knowledge (Gosh, 1997). They are therefore able to select the most effective strategy for problem solving. Cohen (1998) further argues that meta-cognitive strategy is the individual’s ability to move outside the learning process and observe it from without. Meta-cognition is simply thinking about your own thinking (Wenden, 1991) and involves two dimensions namely: knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. Knowledge of cognition is the knowledge the student possesses about his/her cognitive sources with respect to the task requirements. The regulation of cognition on the other hand entails the self-regulating mechanisms applied in all problem-resolving situations (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994). The ability of individual to regulate his/her cognitive processes has been associated with intelligence. Hartman (2001) call these cognitive processes “meta-components” and argues that they regulate other cognitive components from which they get feedback. These components have the responsibility of figuring out how to perform a specific role as well as ensuring that the said roles are performed well (Weinert & Kluwe, 1994). These cognitive processes entail planning, examination and monitoring of problem resolving activities. According to Anderson (2002), the ability to properly assign cognitive resources like planning how and when a particular task should be completed is fundamental to intelligence. Even though majority of people of normal IQ use meta-cognitive regulation when they come across a difficult cognitive task, studies have shown that some individuals are more meta-cognitive than others (Elbow & Belanoff, 2000). Individuals with higher meta-cognitive capabilities are shown to be more likely to succeed in their cognitive tasks. Fortunately, Brown (2002) claim that people can study how to properly control their cognitive tasks. Elbow & Belanoff (2000) further claim that meta-cognitive instruction is best conducted under Cognitive Strategy Instruction (CSI) programs. CSI is an instructional technique which focuses on the improvement of thinking skills and procedures as a means of boosting learning. The aim of CSI is to assist all learners to be more strategic, independent and flexible as well as more productive in their learning efforts (Hartman, 2001). The programme is founded on the theory that there exist recognizable cognitive strategies, formerly thought to be employed by only the finest and the clever learners but which can now be learned by all learners. Some studies have shown that utilization of these learning strategies is linked with successful learning (Nunan, 1991). Meta-cognition allows learners to take advantages of instruction and controls the application and preservation of cognitive strategies. Whereas there are a number of techniques to meta-cognitive instruction, the most successful ones are which provide student with both understanding of cognitive procedures and strategies. The most effective meta-cognitive instruction also provides the learner with practice in utilizing both cognitive and meta-cognitive techniques and assessing the results of their efforts. This is because merely offering knowledge without practice or otherwise does not look to be effective for the development of meta-cognitive regulation (Flavell, 1995). The knowledge of meta-cognition has offered psychologists with know-how on how the cognitive processes are used in learning and what distinguishes successful learners from their less successful counterparts (Weinert & Kluwe, 1994). Meta-cognition also has a number of implications for instructional intercessions, like teaching learners how to be aware of their learning procedures and outcomes as well as how to control those procedures for more successful learning. Metacognition as an approach in which learners monitor and regulate their mental processes is an essential element of learning. Learners employ both cognitive and metacognitive techniques to organize and regulate individual learning as underlined by Nunan (1991). Gosh (1997) compares meta-cognition to Executive Decision Making Process of Information Processing System (EDMP) which has emerged as a new school of thought to play a significant role in enhancing knowledge in the construct of self-controlled learning. Studies have established that self-controlled learning play a critical part in comprehending classroom learning methods and consequently in influencing the intellectual development of a learner applying cognitive and meta-cognitive techniques (Dornyei, 2001). Constructivist ideology maintains that students should have control over their learning process as a personal obligation of coming to terms with the reality. For this reason, they need both cognitive and meta-cognitive knowledge and capabilities for successful learning (Flavell, 1985). Although it is a new ideology and fast adopted by decision makers, tutors, scholars and parents alike, more research need to focus on the concept of self- controlled learning and meta-cognition to establish their importance in the classroom (Skehan, 1999). Meta-cognitive knowledge can be said to be individual’s belief about aspects that direct his or her cognitive processes (Flavell, 1985). There are three branches of metacognitive knowledge including task, person and strategy variables. Person variables division is composed of one’s knowledge and his or her beliefs about himself or herself and what he or she thinks about other individuals’ thinking processes (Metcalfe & Shimamura, 1994). A student can thus believe to be able to learn better by performing than by listening to instructions in the classroom. The task variables can be regarded as knowledge or all the collective data about the assigned task (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994). Wenden (1991) underscores the importance of this information or knowledge in helping an individual to assess the level of success that he or she is expected to achieve. For instance, a student may be aware that it will take him or her long time to write a composition on a social subject than a composition narrating about his or her first day in school. The third variable, strategy consists of both cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies (Nunan, 1991) as well as the conditional knowledge about when and the right place to apply such strategies (Perfect & Schwartz, 2002). This can be explained by a situation when a student recognizes that he or she needs first to figure out the primary theme of the text before he or she can respond to inference questions to a reading selection (Brown, 2002). The other branch is the metacognitive experiences which are individual internal responses to his or her individual meta-cognitive knowledge, tasks or strategies (Nunan, 1991). According to Brown (2002), these experiences are monitoring phenomena which can regulate cognitive activities and make sure that a cognitive objective has been attained. The foregoing procedures help to direct and regulate learning and comprise of planning and monitoring thinking activities as well as evaluating the product of those activities (Perfect & Schwartz, 2002). Based on these arguments, the following circumstance is offered by Deci & Ryan (1985) to help facilitate easy understanding. “After going through an allocated selection, a student might ask himself or herself about the general idea of the text as his or her cognitive objective is to understand the text. If he or she realizes that the answer to the questions is elusive due to lack of understanding, he or she realises the need to re-read the content so as to be able to answer the questions previously asked. If after re-reading the content is capable to answer the questions, then it is realized that an understanding of the text has been achieved”. All the above mentioned activities illustrates that the student was involved in the meta-cognitive experiences of directing and controlling his or her own learning process via self-questioning. Weinstein & Mayer (1986) explain that this is an ordinary meta-cognitive reading monitoring technique that makes sure that the cognitive objective of reading is attained. Metacognitive strategies and approaches can find a lot of applications in nearly all subjects in the school curriculum. They can be utilized in intellectual development processes of child like attention learning and understanding among others. They can also be used in wide range of subject areas as well as in individual subject area (Perfect & Schwartz, 2002). 2.2. Meta-cognitive strategies Meta-cognitive strategies can be regarded as the approaches that are applied by students as the way of managing, monitoring and evaluating their learning activities (Weinert & Kluwe, 1994). Alternatively, meta-cognitive strategies include techniques, methods and thinking activities employed by students to regulate their cognition and learning (Elbow & Belanoff, 2000). Majority of scholars perceive meta-cognitive strategies as a kind of cognitive strategies and seem to be related with them (Brown, 2002) and (Flower & Hayes, 1991). Brown (2002) holds that there is a thin line between meta-cognitive strategies and cognitive strategies although individuals should realize the underlying objectives for utilizing a strategy and as such distinguish whether a strategy is cognitive or meta-cognitive. According to Flower & Hayes (1991), the difference between the two reside in the fact that cognition strategy involves techniques for applying knowledge in problem solving while meta-cognitive strategy involves monitoring, regulating and understanding individual’s techniques in problem solving. Instructors are impressed by this kind of learners who can comprehend the content of the lesson after their initial reading. They are equally impressed by the type of learners who give good timely responses to their questions, whether written or oral (Flower & Hayes, 1991). Conversely, instructors are not impressed by students who do not understand the content of reading despite several readings or the type who provide thoughtless answers to their questions. Those who grasp the content matter immediately are branded competent, while the rest are labeled poor or simply incompetence. The two types of students differ in a number of aspects. Firstly, weaker learners lack the knowledge of their thinking process and do not evaluate their learning process (Hartman, 2001). They simply do not how to learn and what to do in a problematic task. On the other hand, competent students have a number of thinking skills. For one, they are conscious of their knowledge and know when and how to use it in learning. They thus have meta-cognition: the awareness of their knowledge and are in charge of their learning process (Weinert & Kluwe, 1994). They therefore have the ability to monitor and control their learning process superbly in problem solving. 2.3. Metacognitive Theory The theory of Metacognitive is concerned with cognitive self-knowledge and explains what a person knows about his or her thinking. Brown (2002) observes that the theory emerged in late 20th century and has enhanced our knowledge on complex cognitive phenomenon. This has been by offering information on student’s awareness of and power of their cognitive tasks. As earlier noted, meta-cognition is perceived by many psychologists as the knowledge which directs and controls all processes of cognitive activities. It has two general facets namely: knowledge and experience. The former is principally concerned with the individual’s knowledge resident in what a person knows about his or her own thinking. The latter deals with what a person has practically done or learned. According to Clark (1995), our metacognitive knowledge is made up of three variables namely individual, role and strategy variables. Having a sound metacognitive knowledge foundation is vital to successful writing. In meta-cognitive perspective, an excellent learner is a person who has sound meta-cognitive knowledge about the kind of the cognitive activity he or her is tackling and about the right strategies for attaining cognitive objectives (Hartman, 2001). Recent research efforts suggest that there is a strong relationship between the learners’ metacognitive models and their real writing performance (Brown, 2002). The relationship between the two has a special significant impact for EFL writing instruction (Flower & Hayes, 1991). Creating English language writing skills presents a big challenge to EFL learners while overcoming this hurdle is significant to the educational success of these learners (Anderson, 2002). This is because EFL students who fail to attain the expected level of English writing proficiency may not be allowed into the mainstream syllabus and hence denies them the chance of earning a degree certificate. There is sufficient information that points out the critical role played by meta-cognitive variables in EFL writing than linguistic proficiency. EFL writers often have little if any metacognitive knowledge base and as such are not able to determine whether they are making any progress towards the objective of the writing task (Gosh, 1997). Additionally, EFL learners usually lack clear defined objectives for English language writing assignment they are engaged with. They simply expect their teacher to take the duty of explaining writing objectives as well as monitoring their progress (Flower & Hayes, 1991). But to progress as an English writer, the learner ought to actively set and then control his or her progress to achieving the cognitive objectives associated with writing. To be successful, EFL writing instructions ought to be based on the knowledge of the learner’s metacognitive knowledge and ought to be focused toward assisting him or her have their cognitive models (Flavell, 1985). Exposing ESL learners to instructional practices which need self-evaluation and self-monitoring provides them with control over their writing process as they get to know how to engage in objective-directed behaviours, leading to improved English language writing capability (Flower & Hayes, 1991). It therefore appears that there is a significant relationship between writing competence and the metacognitive knowledge base. This relationship is as a result affected by and made up of three hypothetically interactive but distinct variables namely personal, task, and strategy (Flavell, 1985). 2.3. The Writing Process According to Cohen (1998), writing comprise of three primary cognitive techniques including planning, translating and appraisal. Planning is further divided into three parts namely idea generation, planning and setting goals. Translating which is the second cognitive technique in writing entails composing where the writers practically put down their concepts in visible language and task through which the writer changes the ideas from a linear plan into sentences (Skehan, 1999). Planning is divided into three sub-strategies: generating ideas, organizing and goal-setting. The second part of the writing process, the act of composing referred to as “translating” is when writers actually put their ideas into visible language. This is an activity through which the writer transforms the ideas from a linear or hierarchic plan into sentences (Elbow & Belanoff, 2000). The last phase of writing is reviewing which is further divided into two parts: reading and editing. All the three strategies of wring are under the control of monitoring which is equated by Brown (2002) to the capability of thinking consistently, coordinating and evaluating the mental activities in maintaining and changing the focus of concentration in ensuring the writing process progress successfully. This process is called executive control where learners must monitor the writing process as they write (Flower & Hayes, 1991). The monitor acts as a writing strategist as it dictates when the writer should move from one process to the next (Clark, 1995). Chamot (2005) contends that writing is a difficult task possessing a recursive process demanding that the overlapping three stages of writing be tackled individually for proper understanding. For successful writing therefore, a writer should spent considerable time in planning and setting his or her goals as it is a very vital aspect of successful writing (Elbow & Belanoff, 2000). The next stage of writing is composing where concepts are transformed into the sentences. This stage involves a lot of activities and becomes the most challenging part in the writing process. The last stage namely revising improves the quality of the writing process. Flower & Hayes (1991) praise it as a fundamental and important aspect of the entire writing process where skilled writers spent considerable time. Successful revising leads to a good writing although writers revise little (Anderson, 2002). They take the place of proof readers rather than reviewers whose task is to edit the text to fit the targeted reader. 3.0. Discussion 3.1. Metacognitive Strategies for EFL Learners Students who successfully utilize metacognitive strategies take control of their own behaviours as illustrated by Deci & Ryan (1985). This is because they know what they are thinking as they do a specific activity and they can apply this knowledge to regulate what they are doing. Clark (1995) observes that understanding and regulating cognitive processes is a necessary skill for educators to assist in their development. This is why a teacher in EFL writing classroom should focus on metacognitive strategies rather than focusing only on learning the language. In this way, the teacher will be at a position to help the learners to plan, regulate and evaluate their learning process (Dornyei, 2001). Below are the basic metacognitive strategies that can improve the learning process and hence good performance. 3.1.1. Preparing and planning for learning. For students to take control of the learning process, they should be included in the preparation and planning of their learning (Anderson, 2002). This implies that the learners must be involved in the planning and managing of their own learning. The teacher should enable the students to set their learning objectives and prepare for their learning roles. By involving them in preparation and managing of their learning in relation to learning objectives, they can ponder about what they require to fulfill and how they can work toward achieving it. Nevertheless, it is necessary that teachers ensure that the students are aware of their learning objectives. Since when they understand what is expected of them, it becomes a lot easier to monitor their learning progress (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994). For instance, in an EFL writing lecture room a student may set the objective of writing a report of certain production process at the vend of a lecture. This can assist him or her in organizing the concepts and preparing an overview and deciding on the strategies to make more presentable. 3.1.2. Selecting and Using Learning Strategies Learners should be able to make well thought decisions about what learning strategy to employ when handling a given task. For example, in an EFL reading classroom, the writers may have a number of learning strategies to select in dealing with unpopular word (Skehan, 1999). For instance, they can use context clues strategy or text analysis strategy. Therefore, teachers should teach the students when and how to apply such strategies. They should also let the students understand that no one strategy will work for certain situations. The students must therefore choose the strategy that best suits their particular situation (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). 3.1.3. Monitoring Strategy Use The students should always examine whether they apply the strategies they have learned. In a writing lecture for instance, students learn a number of strategies to write an excellent essay. They should consider their targeted audience and the objective of the writing among other issues. Additionally, teachers should teach students how to monitor their use of these strategies by pausing periodically while writing and questioning the task they are performing. They can for instance ask whether the background information given is sufficient and whether the information provided is sufficient in attaining their goal as expounded by Perfect & Schwartz (2002). 3.1.4. Evaluating Individual’s learning. By motivating learners to appraise what they are doing, teachers will assist them to be actively engaged in meta-cognition so as to evaluate the outcome of their learning (Anderson, 2002). 3.2. Teaching Metacognition strategies Teachers can use meta-cognition strategies to teach their students the way they teach both processes. They can use techniques such as direct instruction, teacher modeling and application to teach metacognition strategies (Anderson, 2002). When using direct instruction, they should tell them the strategies they are being taught and when and how to use them. Teachers can also provide several examples to demonstrate their instruction. They can modify the strategies by applying techniques such as ‘think out loud’ to illustrate when and how a particular strategy can be applied (Flavell, 1985). The significant point in the foregoing technique is that teachers would offer a model of the cognitive process by speaking out loud what is going on inside their brains (Anderson, 2002). Students must be provided with ample opportunities to do a similar role under the guidance of teachers, a strategy that will be internalizing them until they become ‘automatic’. This utilization of the strategies acts as self-reliance practice supported by teachers’ response (Skehan, 1999). Realizing and practice in utilizing metacognitive strategies will assist learners to succeed in solving problems in their subject areas and also in their lives. 3.3. Activities that can improve metacognition As earlier explained meta-cognition is a situation in which one is knowledgeable enough to possess the knowhow of his or her ability and has the capability of monitoring and controlling his or her own cognitive and learning processes (Metcalfe & Shimamura, 1994). Meta-cognition is therefore cognitively interconnected with reflection, explained by Flower & Hayes (1991) to be the active procedure of discovering issues and their accompanying thoughts and feelings. Since reflection helps in ascertaining the efficiency of learning, EFL teachers should integrate into their teaching action that which encourage reflective activities together with the development of language. This in essence can make the students understand what is going on during the writing/learning process while allowing them to develop their meta-cognition and sound learning skills (Nunan, 1991). Below are some activities that can be used to improve their metacognition. 3.3.1. Maintaining a Reflective Journal A journal can be regarded as a position where a student can discover ideas, record their cognitive processes, emotions as well as their reflections. Journal writing can be an essential way of enhancing meta-cognition via reflective processes according to Perfect & Schwartz (2002). Generally, teachers may tell learners to write on what they comprehend and what they do not as a means to activate their prior knowledge based on their expectations. In the views of Dornyei (2001), teachers should encourage their students to write about their “thinking, emotions, associated experiences and moods” in relation to the lesson. This will enable the teacher to understand the students’ ambiguities and inconsistencies (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). The teacher should thus give feedback on how their previous challenges in the learning/teaching process were dealt with while examining themselves as students. Another option is for the teachers to encourage learners to maintain a dialogue journal, which is regarded by Nunan (1991) as a ‘recorded frequent communication between a leaner and instructor’. In these journals, learners should be made to play duty in controlling conversation through recording as much as they wish whereas the instructor should respond to their questions appropriately (Skehan, 1999). In this case, the teacher should act as a player when students are writing dialogue journals. Similar to oral conversation, the quality of written conversation will depend on mutual relationship between the teacher and the student. Researchers agree that mutual relationship between the two will cause them remain engaged in constant conversation. The instructor should therefore act as a mental guide, assisting learners to emphasize on the reflective period and not as an examiner rectifying the learners writing (Clark, 1995) and (Perfect & Schwartz, 2002). More significantly, instructors should have a clear understanding of the advantages of journal writing. The learners on the other hand ought to know that the more they write, the more they can enhance their proficiency in writing English and hence raise their comprehension of tacit knowledge (Gosh, 1997). This also will boost the development of reflective opinion and meta-cognition as well as promote self discovery and personal development (Deci & Ryan, 1985). 3.3.2. Talking about Thinking Like the ‘thinking out-loud’ technique in teaching metacognition, this exercise engages the learners in the self-talk-out-loud about their individual cognitive process. Here, learners would speak to themselves about their metacognitive techniques when engaging in a learning chore (Metcalfe & Shimamura, 1994). Before writing an allocated assignment for example, learners talk about how they are to write it, the knowledge needed, the strategy to be applied and what is expected of them (Clark, 1995). While writing, they can recognize the writing strategies being applied as well as evaluate the challenges faced and how to overcome them. Additionally, the students can discuss the correctness of their initial expectation, the insight achieved after writing the assignment as well as their successes and failures (Brown, 2002). They can also discuss their mitigating measures in order to succeed in the next writing. This self-talk technique is useful since it allows learners to understand their own metacognitive process beginning from planning, monitoring and evaluating (Elbow & Belanoff, 2000). It will also help them to have their vocabulary in identifying the thinking processes while applying them. 3.3.3. Self-Questioning In this exercise, learners ask themselves questions that boost the growth of metacognitive strategies. The role of a teacher here is facilitation by guiding the learners with reflective questions that activate their meta-cognition (Weinert & Kluwe, 1994). 4.0. Conclusion The idea of meta-cognition first emerged in the late 20th century. It refers to the capability of students to be conscious of their cognitive process as well as being in charge of their individual learning processes. The concept of metacognition is not new to many scholars. It has been agreed that the concept enhances successful learning in a number of areas. Studies and classroom experiences have shown that learners with good meta-cognition skills are more tactical and good performers than their counterparts with weak good metacognition skills. The learners are in-charge of their conduct, meaning they have the ability to manage their learning process competently and without help (Perfect & Schwartz, 2002). They choose and apply successful learning strategies and check their application of strategies, appraise and choose when a learning task is resolved to a reasonable level (Gosh, 1997). In EFL set up and provided that meta-cognition strategies play an important role in the learning activities, instructors should ensure that learners have meta-cognitive skills alongside the language. To accomplish this, instructors can offer direct lessons about how these strategies can be applied, or take learners over the strategies by modeling (Brown, 2002). All in all, learners ought to be offered guided practices, whereby, the learners assume full accountability for finishing a given a task. This involves the metacognitive strategies of planning, monitoring and evaluating (Elbow & Belanoff, 2000). Moreover, meta-cognition skills should be trained via classroom exercises that boost reflective thinking and activities. Learners should be persuaded to maintain a journal so that they can learn emerging issues, reflect upon their cognitive process, and assess themselves as students. This reflection is essential, because it is a way of bringing learning to the conscious attention and therefore to the degree of awareness (Perfect & Schwartz, 2002). Learners should also be allowed to ‘talk-out loud’ about their knowledge when they are working on a learning task. This is because it is through this approach that they gain control over their cognitive processes (Nunan, 1991). Moreover, critical is the application of self-questioning exercises in which learners ask themselves issues that activate every phase of their thinking process from planning to tackling a given task, monitoring how successful are the strategies being used to do the task to appraising their learning result (Brown, 2002). These exercises put learners in a type of reflection-in-action of the task they are doing (Perfect & Schwartz, 2002). Meta-cognition skills can therefore grow when conscious is situated in practice. These activities improve metacognition and provide a new framework for language skills advancement as learners have a chance to apply English to do the learning tasks in a friendlier environment. In a nut shell, the major difference between successful learners and weak learners can be based on the conscious capability to understand their knowledge and their learning processes, or simply “meta-cognition”. Learners with sound metacognition skills are able to learn as well as solve learning tasks with ease (Brown, 2002). Meta-cognition skills can similarly be imparted into learners via direct methods. In EFL writing, instructors should offer learners with classroom exercises that boost both English language skills as well as metacognitive techniques of planning, monitoring and evaluating. 5.0. References Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Brown, H. D. (2002). Strategies for success: A practical guide to learning English. White Plains, NY: Longman. Clark, B. L. (1995). “Talking about writing: A guide for tutor and teacher conferences”, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chamot, A. (2005). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA): An Update. White Plains, NY: Longman. Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London and New York: Longman. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human Behavior. New York: Plenum. Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. New York: Longman Elbow, P., & Belanoff, P. (2000). A community of writers: A workshop course in Writing. Boston: McGraw Hill. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1991). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication 32, 365-387. Flavell, J. H. (1995). Cognitive development. (2nd Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gosh, C. (1997). Metacognitive awareness and second language listeners. ELT Journal, 51, 361–369. Hartman, H. J. (2001). Metacognition in Learning and Instruction: Theory, Research and Practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Metcalfe, J., & Shimamura, A. (1994). Metacognition: knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International. Perfect, T. J., & Schwartz, B. L. (2002). Applied metacognition. Cambridge: University Press. Skehan, P. (1999). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward Arnold. Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (1994). Self-regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues and Educational Applications. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Weinert, F., & Kluwe, R. (1994). Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding. Hilldale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. London: Prentice Hall. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies, Handbook of Research on Teaching. (3rd Ed.) (pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan. Read More