European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 11, Number 4 (2009)

Analysis on Metacognitive Strategies in Reading and Writing Among Malaysian ESL Learners in Four Education Institutions
Mohd Sahandri Gani Hamzah University Putra Malaysia Saifuddin Kumar Abdullah Jabatan Pengajian Politeknik dan Kolej Komuniti Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia Abstract This study deal with analyze of meta cognitive strategies (MS) in reading and writing among 400 Malaysia ESL learners in polytechnic, teacher training institute, form six and matriculation colleges. The sample was selected based on non-random sampling and were categorized in two category there is more successful learners and less successful learners. The six types of learning strategies are memory, cognitive, compensation, meta cognitive, effective, and social strategies. Both of MSL and LSL perform high mean score of meta cognitive strategies compare with other strategies. Result of One Way ANOVA among four groups of Malaysian ESL learners ranking of meta cognitive strategies shows that teacher training institution and polytechnic students view significant different and better than matriculation and form six students. This result is proven that teachers training institution and polytechnic practice and apply meta cognitive strategies during their six months training. Whereas, matriculation and form six students learn English only for the purpose of examination.

Keywords: Metacognitive, Strategies, Reading, Writing, ESL.

1.0. Background of the Study

The title of the study Analysis of Metacognitive Strategies in reading and writing among Malaysian ESL learners in Institutions of Higher Learning. The venue of the study was in the East Coast region of Peninsular Malaysia. The respondents were from four selected Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL), namely Polytechnic, Teacher Training Institute, Form Six and Matriculation College. There were 400 respondents between 18 and 19 years of age. Although these students came from various institutions, they had a common goal which were at all pre-university levels of study and preparing to further their studies in University where English is used extensively in learning and teaching. All of them have to sit for the Malaysian University English Test (MUET) before applying for admission in university locally and TOFEL for aboard. For this purpose, there is a need for the students to effectively learn the English Language and to be proficient in order to pass the MUET and TOFEL with a satisfactory grade. This study is an attempt to address the shortcomings in ESL learning the local context. It hopes to provide some information to the authorities involved at the decision making and implementing levels in Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education.

676

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 11, Number 4 (2009)

1.1. Malaysian ESL Learners in the Selected Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL)
After having received the SPM examination results, the qualified students may move on to study in various IHL. There are numerous options for them at this level. They can go to university or they can choose to enroll themselves in Form Six class, Matriculation College, Teacher Training Institute, Polytechnic or Community College. English is also emphasized as this level as a means of preparing students for the MUET which is a requirement for the pre-university students who wish to enroll in the university programmers. For example, English is taught in the Teacher Training Institutes to enhance students competency in English in a variety of context and to facilitate them in their studies (Teacher Education Division, Ministry of Education, 2006). The role of English at this level is an important tool for learning especially in dealing with terminologies in various field of studies. English is also needed for obtaining and expanding knowledge through the Internet, and understanding the reference materials, as many references books are written in English (Teacher Education Division, Ministry of Education, 2006). English is also taught in Matriculation colleges, to help students become effective and efficient English language user in social and academic contexts and to prepare them for the MUET and TOFEL exam. (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2006).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

One of the possible reasons that the majority of the Malaysian ESL learners are incompetent user of English because they do not learn the language effectively. They did not know the effective learning strategies exists as they were not taught any strategy training, that is, on how to use the learning strategies (OMalley & Chamot, 1989) in language activities particularly in reading and writing tasks. Through short interviews of local students and instructors, the researcher discovered that neither the students nor the instructors were aware of the use of MS. Another problem is that the majority of Malaysian ESL learners are at risk students because, according to McKeachie (1988), when they enter the high levels of education without proper learning strategies, they are handicapped in achieving success in mastering English and other disciplines as well. This appear to be true when Zuridah (2008) conducted a study of the English language proficiency of 405 students at six Malaysian public university in 2006 and found that 54.6% of students were under limited and very limited users of English. Surprisingly, only 1.4% were good user of English. This shows that the majority of the students are handicapped and need help. They need to be trained on how to use MS in their ESL learning. Next, problem is the lack of exposure through a brief discussion with instructors, the researcher found that the instructors do not know that the use of MS in reading or writing tasks is linked to motivation and self- efficacy, and that the more students are aware of their thinking processes as they learn to complete their tasks, the more they can control and manage their ESL learning. This seems to be true when Marzano, Brand, Hughes, Jones, Presseisen, Rankin,and Suhor (1988) point out that neither the lectures nor the students perceive that self-awareness promotes self-regulation. According to Marzano, et.al. (1988), if the students are aware of how committed they are to reaching goals, of how strong their disposition is to persist, and of how focused their attention is to a thinking, reading or writing tasks, they can regulate their commitment, disposition, and attention (marzano,et,1988). Thus they have to become users of MS.

677

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 11, Number 4 (2009)

1.3. Objectives of the Study

a. to compare between MSL and LSL based on learning strategies. b. to determine the similarities and differences MSL against other learning strategies among SML and LSL. c. to distinguish metacognitive strategies performance among Malaysian ESL in 4 institution.

1.4. The Concept of Metacognitive Strategies

Research such as ONeil (1978), Oxford (1990), and Allami & Salmani-Nadoushan (2006), define MS in different ways. However, MS may be summarised as higher order executive skills which enable students to approach learning in a systematic, efficient and effective way by using the elements of planning, monitoring and evaluating. Therefore, MS involve for example, planning for learning on reading and writing, monitoring of own progress in reading and writing task or self-evaluating of learning after the language activity (reading or writing task is completed. This concept is graphically represented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: MS in Reading and Writing Processes

Metacognitive strategies

Learning Processes

Planning for own learning

Monitoring of own learning Lead to

Evaluation of own learning

Reading Learning Tasks Writing

According to figure 1 there are 3 component of learning processes in metacognitive strategies such as planning, monitoring and evaluation in Learning English as second language. This 3 component of learning process lead to learning tasks reading and writing component.

678

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 11, Number 4 (2009)

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework of the Study

INPUT

PROCESSES

PRODUCT

ESL ability of the learners

Use of MS in Reading and Writing in ESL Learning MUET

Proficiency in English

More Successful Learners

Planning

Groups

Monitoring

Less Successful Learners

Evaluating Results from Exams e.g. MUET and Other Forms of Assessment s (MUET)

In the above framework Input refer to ability of ESL learners which divided into two groups more successful and less successful learners. Along the metacognitive process the strategies that involve in writing and reading are self planning, monitoring and evaluation among ESL learners. At the end of the study both ESL groups performance and assessment be refer to their metacognitive strategies. The whole process which is mirrored in the study is based on Banduras (1986) Social Learning Theory which advanced a view of human functioning that records a central role to cognitive, various, self-regulatory, self-reflective processes in human adaptation and change. This is to say that the Malaysian ESL learners may adapt to new learning strategies in order to succeed in their ESL learning. Bandura (1986) stresses on this theory, that is, people are viewed as self-organizing, pro-active, self reflecting and self-regulating. For example, how people interpret the result of their own behavior informs and alters their environments and the personal factors they possess which, in turn, inform and alter subsequent behavior. In this context, the Malaysian ESL learners are viewed as self organizing, 679

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 11, Number 4 (2009) pro-active, self-reflecting, and self-regulating individuals. They should be able to plan, monitor and evaluate their own learning. According to Nussbaum and Kardash (2005), this the foundation of Banduras (1986) concept which views (a) personal factors in the form of cognition, affect, and biological events; (b) behavior; and (c) environmental influences which create interactions. Nussbaumn & Kardash (2005) states that Bandura altered the label of his theory from social learning to social cognitive both to distance it from prevalent social learning theories of the day and to emphasizes that cognition plays a critical role in peoples capability to construct reality, self-regulate, encode information, and perform behaviors. By using social cognitive theory as a framework, the instructor can work to improve their students emotional states and to correct their faulty self-beliefs and habits of thinking (personal factors), improve their academic skills and self regulatory practices (behavior), and alter the school and classroom structures that may work to undermine student success (environmental factors) (Pajares,2002)

1.5. Research Methodology

1.5.1. Respondents A total of 400 students, ranging in age from 18 to 19 years, participated in this study. They were from Institution of Higher Learning (IHL) located in East Coast region of West Malaysia. The method of selection was based on no-random sampling or purposive sampling. The respondents were categorized into two categories: More Successful Learners (MSL) and Less Successful Learners (LSL). The Think aloud Protocols were conducted one month after Stage 2. The respondents were briefed on how the Think-aloud session would be conducted. Each respondent verbalized the process and the English language teacher, instructor or lecture recoded it using a tape recorder. The teacher or lecture prompted the respondent if it was necessary. The whole procedure took a total of two weeks to complete. 1.5.2. Analyses and Interpretation of Data The data analyses were accordingly performed to yield answers to the various research question using the Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS) programmers. The analyses employed descriptive statistics and inferential statistics for qualitative data as described below: The six types of learning strategies on Strategy Inventory For Language Learning (SILL) are memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies and social strategies (Oxford, 1990). 1.5.3. The ranking of Metacogntive Strategies against Other Learning Strategies on SILL Based on Frequency of Use among MSL and LSL.
Table 1: Compares the number of the MSL and LSL who rated the various learning strategies in terms of frequency of use.
MSL Mean score 3.69 3.63 3.47 3.35 2.96 2.96 Category of use High High Medium Medium Medium Medium Mean score 3.18 3.31 3.09 3.07 2.90 2.84 LSL Category of Use Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Types of Learning Metacognitive strategies Social strategies Cognitive strategies Compensation strategies Affective strategies Memory strategies

680

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 11, Number 4 (2009) Statistical analysis in Table 1 shows that the three highest-ranked learning strategies used in ESL learning are not similar for MSL and LSL. Thus, MSL in general, used MS (mean = 3.69) more than other learning strategies on SILL. On the other hand, the LSL ranked social strategies highest (mean = 3.31). The result from table 1 also show that memory strategies (mean = 2.96, mean = 2.84) ranked lowest for both groups of Malaysian ESL learners. This suggest that the Malaysian ESL learners in general do not rely much on memorization in their ESL learning. The differences in the ranking can also observed among the two groups of learners. First, it can be seen that MS (Mean = 3.69) was the highest ranked type of strategy for MSL, while social strategies (Mean = 3.31) was highest for the LSL. This data indicate that among the Malaysian ESL learners, the MSL utilized more of the MS such as planning, monitoring and evaluating in their own ESL learning and performance. The result indicate that the LSL placed more importance on Social Strategies, for example, asking question such as asking for clarification or verification and asking for correction, cooperating with others such as cooperating with peers and cooperating with the proficient users of the new language or empathizing with others such as becoming aware of others thoughts and feelings (Oxford, 1990) to help them to cope with their learning. In addition, the MSL indicated a high use rate of metacognitive and social strategies while the other four learning strategies on SILL, that is, cognitive, compensation, affective and memory strategies were rated medium use. In contrast, the LSL indicated a medium use rating for all six types of learning strategies, including the highest ranked social strategies. This difference suggest that, on the whole, the MSL seem to utilize strategies more, particularly metacognitive and social strategies. The t- test were used to find significant differences between the MSL and the LSL in their use of the various learning strategies in their ESL learning. The result are presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Result of t- test analysis for differences in strategies use between MSL and LSL on SILL
t value 7.67 4.58 6.92 4.52 0.78 1.89 Sig.p (2 tailed) 0.003* 0.012* 0.023* 0.005* 0120 0.091

Type of Learning Strategies MS Social Strategies Cognitive Strategies Compensation Strategies Affective Strategies Memory Strategies *Sig p<0.05

The result in Table 2 show that out of six different types of learning strategies on SILL, there are significant differences between the learner groups in the rating for four of the strategies: metacognitive (t = 7.67), social (t = 4.58). cognitive (t = 6.92) and compensation (t = 4.52) at p<0.05. These result reflect that the Malaysian ESL learners benefit from instruction or guidance in the use of at least these four learning strategies, that is, metacognitive, social, cognitive and compensation strategies.
Table 3: The Ranking of MS among Four Groups of the Malaysian ESL Learners in Four IHL Table 3 shows that results of One-Way ANOVA among four groups of the Malaysian ESL learners in Four IHL based on the way these learners ranked MS
Sum of Square 9.477 99.205 108.682 df 3 396 399 Mean Square 3.159 .251 F 12.609 Sig.p .000*

Source Between Groups Within Groups Total *Sig p<0.05

681

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 11, Number 4 (2009) One way ANOVA in table 3 shows that there are significant differences in the mean scores of the four groups of the Malaysian ESL learners IHL ranking MS F=12.609, df = 3, 396; p<0.05. Consequently, the result in Table 3 show the different groups of Malaysian ESL learners in IHL. The result shows that there is little variation between individual learners within specific groups, but there is greater variation between the groups. The results of the Tukey test in table 4 also show that there are significant differences between specific groups.
Table 4: Tukey test of metacognitive strategies ranking among four groups of Malaysian ESL learners in four IHL
Matriculation College 100 3.04 .458 Form Six 100 3.08 .478 Teacher Training Institute 100 3.41 .551 * * Polytechnic 100 3.30 .509 * *

Source N Mean SD Matriculation College Form Six Teacher Training Institute Polytechnic

* *

* *

The result from Table 4 were ranked from the highest to the lowest in terms of the four groups of the Malaysian ESL learners ranking MS. The result suggest that out of four groups of learners in four IHL, the learners from the teacher training Teacher Training Institute and Polytechnic ranked MS highest. The students in the Teacher Training Institute and Polytechnic again appear to most perceive MS as important and thus ranked them highest. This consistency is reflected in the previous sections. It could be due to the different approach in their syllabus specification which are not emphasized explicitly in the other two groups of learners. Another possible reason could again be the nature of their programmed in these two institutions in which the focus is on both components, that is, the theoretical aspect and also the practical aspect of the course. Thus, this reflects that the students from Teacher Training Institute and the Polytechnic differ from the other two groups in the way they perceived the importance of MS and ranked them highest.

1.6. Summary
In this research every Malaysian student given an equal opportunity to learn English Language in school and at Higher Learning Institution such as Polytechnics, Teacher Training Institution, Form Six and Matriculation Colleges. However, some students seem to learn rather easily, while some other students apparently find learning English fraught with difficulty and are not competent in the language even after many years of learning. Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) for metacognitive is important in ESL learning because they are the higher order executive skills that may entail planning, monitoring, and evaluating the successes of learning activities. In this study analysis of metacognitive strategy in reading were more focused on categories that mention above. In higher learning institution as shown in the conceptual framework. In general, the use of metacognitive among MSL (mean 3.69) and LSL (mean 3.18) compare with other strategies. Furthermore, the result shows that significant between four groups of ESL learners. The differences in meta cognitive among teacher trainee institution and matriculation, teachers trainee institution and form six students, polytechnic and matriculation and form six with matriculation. In the other word, we can conclude that teachers trainee institution and polytechnic shows that highest performance in meta cognitive strategies in English. The reason these two institutions have higher percentage is because the students have to apply their meta cognitive strategies in teaching practice for six months at the school. Whereas, polytechnic ESL students go for industrial training six months and apply the meta cognitive strategies in the working environment. In addition to 682

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 11, Number 4 (2009) that, different types of meta cognitive strategies as been implemented by students in both institutions such as over viewing, paying attention, delivering speech production, find out about language learning, organizing, setting goals and objectives, identifying the purpose of the language task, planning and seeking the opportunity as well as self monitoring and self evaluating which the students make use of in learning during their teaching practice and industrial training.

References
[1] [2] [3] Allami, H., Salmani-Nadoushan, M.A. (2006). Cognitive Orientation in Teaching Writing. http:www3.telus. net/linguistic issues. Karens Linguistic Issue, T.A. (2009) Bandura, A. (1986). Self foundation of thought and action. A social cognitive theory. Englewood Clffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall. Marzano, R.J., Brandth, R. S., Hughes, C.S., Jones, B.Z., Rankin, S.C., & Suhor, C.(1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Mc. Keachie, W.J. (1988). The need for study strategy training. In C.E. Weinstein, E.T. Goetz, & P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 3-9) New York: Academic Press Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, Teacher Training Division (2006). Syllabus and syllabus specifications English Language WB 013 and WB 023. Malaysia. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, Teacher Training Division (2006). Syllabus for English for Technical Purposes. Technical Education Department Malaysia. Nussbaum, E.M. and Kardash, C.M. (2005). The Effects of Goal Instructions and Text on the Generation of Counterarguments During Writing. Journal of Educational Psychology., 97: 157169. OMalley, J.M and Chamot, A.U. (1989). Learning Strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ONeill,H.F.Jr. (1978). Learning strategies. New York: Academic Press. Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What EveryTeacher Should Know. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Newbury House.

[4]

[5] [6] [7]

[8] [9] [10]

683