Metacognitive Mindscapes: Understanding Secondary EFL Writing Students’ Systems of Knowledge 9781138587519, 9780429503894

Synthesizing research on metacognition and intersecting it with studies on second and foreign language writing, Sin Wang

250 17 17MB

English Pages [129] Year 2020

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Metacognitive Mindscapes: Understanding Secondary EFL Writing Students’ Systems of Knowledge
 9781138587519, 9780429503894

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Endorsement
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of contents
Illustrations
1 Introduction
1.1 Aim of the book
1.1.1 Investigation of an under-explored student population
1.1.2 Development of a construct of metacognitive knowledge and metacognition
1.1.3 A qualitative and interpretive methodological approach
1.2 Significance of metacognition and metacognitive knowledge in language learning
1.3 Outline of the book
2 Literature review
2.1 Metacognitive theories
2.1.1 Flavell’s Cognitive Monitoring (1979)
2.1.2 Schraw and Moshman’s Metacognitive Theory (1995)
2.1.3 Kuhn’s Metacognitive Development (2000)
2.1.4 Krathwohl’s Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy (2002)
2.2 Metacognitive knowledge
2.3 Metacognitive knowledge and second and/or foreign language writing
3 Methodology
3.1 Context and participants
3.2 Qualitative interpretivist research paradigm
3.3 Data collection
3.4 Data analysis
4 Metacognitive knowledge system of high-proficiency students
4.1 Person knowledge: perception of English writing
4.1.1 A positive impression of English writing
4.1.2 A negative impression of English writing
4.2 Person knowledge: self-assessment of English writing ability
4.3 Task knowledge: content-related requirements
4.4 Task knowledge: language-related requirements
4.5 Task knowledge: organization-related requirements
4.6 Task knowledge: other domains of task knowledge
4.7 Strategic knowledge: pre-writing strategies
4.8 Strategic knowledge: while-writing strategies
4.9 Strategic knowledge: post-writing strategies
4.9.1 Proofreading and revision
4.9.2 Self- and peer assessment
4.10 Strategic knowledge: strategies for improving English writing
4.10.1 Learning beyond the classroom
4.10.2 Learning with a partner
4.10.3 The three “Rs”
5 Metacognitive knowledge system of average-proficiency students
5.1 Person knowledge: perception of English writing
5.1.1 A positive impression of English writing
5.1.2 A negative impression of English writing
5.2 Person knowledge: self-assessment of English writing ability
5.3 Task knowledge: content-related requirements
5.4 Task knowledge: language-related requirements
5.5 Task knowledge: organization-related requirements
5.6 Task knowledge: other domains of task knowledge
5.7 Strategic knowledge: pre-writing strategies
5.8 Strategic knowledge: while-writing strategies
5.9 Strategic knowledge: post-writing strategies
5.9.1 Focus on grammar
5.9.2 Focus on content
5.9.3 Focus on mechanics
5.9.4 Focus on word limit
5.9.5 Focus on handwriting
5.9.6 Focus on structure
5.10 Strategic knowledge: strategies for improving English writing
6 Metacognitive knowledge system of low-proficiency students
6.1 Person knowledge: perception of English writing
6.1.1 A positive impression of English writing
6.1.2 A negative impression of English writing
6.2 Person knowledge: self-assessment of English writing ability
6.3 Task knowledge: content-related requirements
6.4 Task knowledge: language-related requirements
6.5 Task knowledge: organization-related requirements
6.6 Task knowledge: other domains of task knowledge
6.7 Strategic knowledge: pre-writing strategies
6.8 Strategic knowledge: while-writing strategies
6.9 Strategic knowledge: post-writing strategies
6.10 Strategic knowledge: strategies for improving English writing
6.11 Conclusion
7 Comparison of metacognitive knowledge systems and implications
7.1 A summary of the metacognitive knowledge systems of high-proficiency, average-proficiency, and low-proficiency students
7.1.1 Metacognitive knowledge system of high-proficiency students
7.1.2 Metacognitive knowledge system of average-proficiency students
7.1.3 Metacognitive knowledge system of low-proficiency students
7.2 Comparison of metacognitive knowledge systems of high-proficiency, average-proficiency, and low-proficiency students
7.2.1 Comparison of person knowledge of high-proficiency, average-proficiency, and low-proficiency students
7.2.2 Comparison of task knowledge of high-proficiency, average-proficiency, and low-proficiency students
7.2.3 Comparison of strategic knowledge of high-proficiency, average-proficiency, and low-proficiency students
7.3 Pedagogical and theoretical implications
7.3.1 Developing a rubric
7.3.2 Collecting and/or writing up exemplars to illustrate dimensions of quality
7.3.3 Designing evaluative and dialogic tasks based on the exemplars
7.3.4 Developing EFL young learners’ metacognitive knowledge system through EWI
7.3.5 Theoretical implications
References
Index

Citation preview

 i

Metacognitive Mindscapes

Synthesizing research on metacognition and intersecting it with studies on second and foreign language writing, Sin Wang Chong puts forward a conceptual framework of metacognition and metacognitive knowledge that is employed as an analytical lens to examine junior secondary EFL students’ writing proficiencies. The exploration takes into account three facets of metacognitive knowledge, namely person knowledge, task knowledge, and strategic knowledge. Based on data garnered from interviews, open-​ended questionnaires, and think-​ aloud sessions with students, the book analyzes the three types of metacognitive knowledge  –​theorized as a system  –​of junior secondary students with high, average, and low writing proficiencies. Discussion of the findings offers an expanded understanding of the factors that potentially affect students’ writing proficiencies, which will inform the teaching of primary and secondary EFL writing teachers to be more learner-​centered. The book will appeal to researchers and teachers interested in metacognition and metacognitive knowledge. Sin Wang Chong is Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in TESOL at the School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen’s University Belfast, UK. His research interests include assessment feedback, computer-​assisted language learning, learner/​teacher autonomy, and research methodologies (qualitative and systematic review). He is Associate Editor of the Taylor & Francis journal Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching.

 ii

“Chong’s Metacognitive Mindscapes is a book that fills an increasingly crucial gap in the research on metacognitive strategies to support secondary EFL writing students’ processes of knowledge acquisition and synthesis. It is also a crossover book, contributing valuably to the body of scholarly research on metacognition and scaffolding lesson-​ plan development for frontline EFL teachers working with late primary and early secondary English language learners. This, perhaps more than any other book to date, is a combination of research and practical application geared to further researchers’, educators’, and students’ own understanding of how they come to think about the process and practice of writing from an integrative, personal, and social perspective.” –Lori Howe, University of Wyoming, USA

 iii

Metacognitive Mindscapes Understanding Secondary EFL Writing Students’ Systems of Knowledge

Sin Wang Chong

 iv

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Sin Wang Chong The right of Sin Wang Chong to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-​1-​138-​58751-​9  (hbk) ISBN: 978-​0-​429-​50389-​4  (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Newgen Publishing UK

 v

Contents

List of illustrations 

vii

1 Introduction 

1

2 Literature review 

7

3 Methodology 

18

4 Metacognitive knowledge system of high-​proficiency students 

23

5 Metacognitive knowledge system of average-​ proficiency students 

44

6 Metacognitive knowledge system of low-​proficiency students 

67

7 Comparison of metacognitive knowledge systems and implications 

87

References  Index 

109 115

 vi

 vi

newgenprepdf

Illustrations

Figures 2 .1 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 6 .1 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

A conceptual framework of metacognitive knowledge Student’s writing sample 1 Student’s writing sample 2 Student’s writing sample 3 Student’s writing sample 4 Two patterns of pre-​writing strategies employed by the AP students Student’s writing sample 5 Student’s writing sample 6 Student’s writing sample 7 MK system of HP students MK system of AP students MK system of LP students An analytic writing rubric co-​developed with the teachers

14 30 33 53 55 57 74 76 77 89 90 93 102

Tables 2 .1 MK in the four metacognitive theories 2.2 Types of MK and their relevance to EFL writing

13 14

 vi

 1

1  Introduction

Metacognitive knowledge involves knowledge about cognition in general, as well as awareness of and knowledge about one’s own cognition. –​Pintrich (2002, p. 219)

1.1  Aim of the book This book reports on a qualitative study on the metacognitive knowledge (MK) systems (person, task, and strategic knowledge) of a group of Grade 7 students in Chengdu, China (n  =  125) in the context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing. In the second and/​or foreign language (S/​FL) context, it is important to understand students’ complex system of MK because it “plays an important role in oral communication of information, oral persuasion, oral comprehension, reading comprehension, writing, language acquisition, attention, memory, problem solving, social cognition, and various types of self-​ control and self-​instruction” (Flavell, 1979, p. 906). It has been shown in recent studies that metacognition is an important factor that contributes to students’ acquisition of “multifarious aspects of language learning” (Zhang, 2010, p.  321); teacher intervention and direct instruction of MK has a positive impact on students’ S/​FL development. For instance, research in this area has conclusive findings on the positive influence of metacognition on L2 students’ reading and listening development (Goh & Taib, 2006; Li & Ka, 2012; Martin, Nguyen, & McDaniel, 2016; Schoonen et al., 2003; Schoonen, Hulstijin, & Bossers, 1998; Schoonen & de Glopper, 1996; Tseng, Dörnyei, & Schmitt, 2006; Vandergrift, 2003; Wenden, 1982; 1983). Compared with the existing literature on metacognition and S/​FL writing, this study is innovative for three reasons: (1) it focuses on an under-​ explored student population (junior secondary students); (2)  it develops a construct of MK; and (3) it adopts a qualitative and interpretive

 2

2  Introduction methodological approach which highlights the “situatedness” and “lived experience” of the students. A more thorough review of related literature on metacognitive theories and the impact of MK on S/​FL writing will be provided in Chapter 2. 1.1.1  Investigation of an under-​explored student population While the notion of MK has been increasingly recognized by S/​FL writing researchers as one of the crucial factors affecting students’ writing proficiencies, the majority of the studies focused on MK systems of university students because researchers believed they are cognitively and linguistically mature to self-​report their cognitive processes. In the studies which included younger learners (e.g., primary school students) as participants, students’ MK was often analyzed alongside various student factors (Schneider, Lingel, Artelt, & Neuenhaus, 2017). Moreover, most of the aforementioned studies adopted a relatively narrow definition of MK that mostly focused on task knowledge and strategic knowledge of certain genres such as argumentative essays (Ong, 2014). The present study reports on an exploratory study that intends to portray MK systems of a group of junior secondary EFL student-​writers by adopting a more holistic theoretical framework of MK, which includes person knowledge, task knowledge, and strategic knowledge. The emphasis on EFL secondary writers is important because writing teachers can formulate appropriate intervention measures to develop students’ MK and self-​regulatory skills at an earlier age, before students’ attitudes towards writing become ingrained (Lee, 2008). 1.1.2  Development of a construct of metacognitive knowledge and metacognition It is difficult to conduct research on metacognition or its components (MK, metacognitive experience, metacognitive awareness, self-​ regulation) because of the confounding definitions and a lack of well-​ established theoretical framework. In educational literature, scholars have frequently adopted different terms such as metacognition, self-​ regulation, and self-​regulated learning which are often treated as synonymous to each other (Dinsmore, Alexander, & Loughlin, 2008). Through a review of the theoretical underpinnings of metacognition and MK, a tripartite definition of MK (person knowledge, task knowledge, strategic knowledge) is proposed and utilized as the conceptual framework which guides the present study.

 3

Introduction  3 1.1.3  A qualitative and interpretive methodological approach Another challenge in conducting research on metacognition is the reliance on self-​ reporting instruments such as questionnaires, oral interviews, and stimulated recall (Kim, 2013; Shellings, 2011; Van Hout-​ Wolters, 2000) because cognitive processes are not outwardly manifested. In order to ensure that the participants can express and describe such abstract and internal processes, researchers have shown preference to recruiting college or university students as the participants (Ong, 2014; Wei, Shang, & Briody, 2012; Zeng, 2007; Zhang, 2010). Nevertheless, as mentioned, the investigation into the MK systems of young learners is of paramount importance. To help younger learners reflect on their own thinking in a writing process, much care is taken in the development of appropriate research instruments, namely descriptive and qualitative instruments (open-​ended questionnaire and interview guide) written in the first language of the student participants (i.e. Chinese) in lieu of quantitative instruments, to enable younger EFL learners to provide rich description of their experience when “thinking about writing”. Moreover, since studies on metacognition rely heavily on self-​reporting instruments, it is necessary to collect data from multiple sources to enable thorough and thick description. Thick description is particularly important to the student participants in the present study because they are young learners and they may sometimes have difficulties articulating their experience accurately and comprehensively. To capture the complexity of these students’ MK systems, data were collected from three sources: open-​ended questionnaires administered to 125 students; focus-​group semi-​structured interviews with 62 students; and students’ writing. In particular, to increase the credibility of the data collected through the self-​reporting instruments, the interviews were conducted as stimulated recall sessions. Each interview includes the following parts: first, students were asked to write on a prompt which resembles a text-​type they were learning at the time. Afterwards, a stimulated recall was immediately conducted. Students were asked questions which guide them to reflect on their writing process.

1.2  Significance of metacognition and metacognitive knowledge in language learning Flavell’s seminal work on metacognitive monitoring in the 1970s laid the theoretical foundation for metacognition and the subsequent contributions by researchers in the fields of cognitive science and educational psychology. Research has found that metacognition, together

 4

4  Introduction with a number of psychological factors (e.g., motivation, personality, learning styles), plays a significant and fundamental role in learning, in particular, language learning (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 1999; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Flavell, 1979; Pintrich, 2002; Wenden, 1998). Among the first to explicate the indispensable role of metacognition in successful language learning, Wenden (1987) elaborated on Flavell and contended that successful language learners possess rich MK and an array of metacognitive strategies. MK, in Wenden’s definition, comprises three facets: knowledge about the self (person knowledge), knowledge about learning tasks (task knowledge), and knowledge about the strategies needed to complete learning tasks (strategic knowledge). Wenden accentuated the difference between MK and domain knowledge, with the latter referring to learners’ knowledge about a subject (e.g., English grammar). On the other hand, Wenden (1998) defined metacognitive strategies as “general skills through which learners manage, direct, regulate, guide their learning, i.e. planning, monitoring and evaluating” (p. 519). Moreover, the significance of metacognition rests in its facilitative role of learners’ acquisition of language learning strategies. Research has shown that students who possess strong MK are able to employ strategies for thinking, learning, and problem-​ solving when attempting various learning tasks, including writing in a foreign language (Knospe, 2018). The acquisition of language learning strategies is of paramount importance to successful English as a Second Language (ESL) learners because “learners with strategic knowledge of language learning, compared with those without, become more efficient, resourceful, and flexible, thus acquiring a language more easily” (Tseng et al., 2006, p. 78). Among the four language skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking), writing performance of ES/FL learners appears to be the most significantly influenced by learners’ metacognition and MK. Hacker, Keener, and Kircher (2009) underscored the importance of metacognition in EFL writing by referring to the whole writing process as “applied metacognition” (p. 160). For instance, the different writing stages (e.g., drafting, writing, revising, editing) closely resemble various metacognitive components (e.g., goal setting, monitoring, evaluating). Knospe (2018) further elaborated on the reasons which make developing MK in ESL writer-​learners imperative. She believed that the knowledge domain of metacognition is closely interrelated to learners’ execution of “metacognitive regulation behavior” (p.  121), or what others have called “self-​regulatory learning”, referring to “learning characterized by effective strategy employment” (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015, p. 164). To put simply, under the premise that successful language learning takes

 5

Introduction  5 place when learners engage in self-​regulatory learning (i.e. learners utilize appropriate metacognitive strategies in the learning process), it is impossible for learners to implement metacognitive strategies without knowing what the strategies are (declarative knowledge), how the strategies are used (procedural knowledge), and when the strategies should be applied (conditional knowledge). It is my intention to keep this section on the role of metacognition and MK in S/​FL language learning short. It is also my intention to introduce related terms which at first glance appear to be confusing (e.g., metacognition, MK, metacognitive strategies, self-​regulatory learning, declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, conditional knowledge). The purpose of this section is to make a case for the importance of metacognition in S/​FL language learning and exemplify the complexity of this construct. In Chapter  2, I  will delve deeper into studies on metacognition and MK and attempt to provide my own model of MK which serves as the conceptual framework of the present study.

1.3  Outline of the book From the perspective of S/​ FL learning, this chapter (Chapter  1) describes the exigencies of incorporating the constructs of metacognition and MK in the understanding of students’ acquisition of S/​FL. Research findings related to the substantial influence of metacognition on S/​FL learning were discussed, alongside the limitations in these studies. Chapter 2 focuses on the theoretical underpinning of metacognition, with a particular focus on MK. I will first define metacognition and its different components (e.g., metacognitive experience, metacognitive awareness, self-​regulation). I  will then justify the focus on MK and explain its importance in S/​FL learning, especially writing. Based on a careful review of the literature, a MK framework will be proposed which serves as the conceptual framework for the present study. The chapter closes with the introduction of research questions which are about the MK systems of three types of EFL Grade 7 learners (students with high, average, and low English proficiencies). Chapter 3 provides information on the context and participants and explains in detail the research design and methods adopted in this study. Since data reported in qualitative studies are best understood in relation to the context they are situated in, a brief description of the education context in mainland China will be provided. The focus will be on junior secondary English language education. Contextual information about the secondary school will also be included. The rest of the

 6

6  Introduction chapter reports such important methodological issues as selection of participants, research ethics, development of the research instruments (open-​ended questionnaire, writing questions, and interview guide). It will also document the data collection and analysis process. Chapters 4 to 7 report and discuss findings related to the MK systems of the three ability groups of students. Data drawn from an open-​ended questionnaire, semi-​structured interviews, and students’ writing are reported and discussed in depth. For Chapters  4 to 6, MK systems of each ability group will be reported with reference to person, task, and strategic knowledge. Chapter 7 will compare and contrast the MK systems of the three groups of students and key findings will be presented diagrammatically. In the same chapter, both theoretical and pedagogical implications will be drawn based on the findings reported. It is my research philosophy that findings from educational research should be relevant to not only researchers but also frontline teachers. Therefore, pedagogical implications are equally important. In particular, with an understanding that students with different writing proficiencies exhibit a distinct yet similar MK system, intervention measures for EFL writing teachers will be proposed which could potentially strengthen students’ person, task, and strategic knowledge in writing. One part of this chapter focuses on the needs of the teachers. In this part, I will attempt to introduce some sample curriculum materials which incorporate the needs of the student participants as exemplified in their MK systems. Although the teaching materials are developed based on the needs of the student participants and the context of the secondary school, teachers who work in other similar contexts (i.e. Southeast Asian regions, namely Hong Kong, Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, Singapore) can easily adapt the materials to cater for their students’ needs.

 7

2  Literature review

While there is consistent acknowledgement of the importance of metacognition, inconsistency marks the conceptualization of the construct. –​Veenman, van Hout-​Wolters, & Afflerbach (2006, p. 4)

The most universal definition of metacognition is “how one monitors or thinks about one’s own cognition” (Dinsmore et al., 2008, p. 393), or simply, “thinking about thinking” (Miller, Kessel, & Flavell, 1970). The acquisition of metacognitive skills is developmental and takes place inside an individual; this process, also called endogenous constructivism (Moshman, 1982), is in opposition to the emphasis on external and contextual factors (exogenous constructivism) in affecting learners’ uptake of knowledge and skills. Focusing on student learning, Tobias and Everson (2009) defined metacognition as “a higher order executive process that monitors and coordinates other cognitive processes engaged during learning, such as recall, rehearsal, or problem solving” (p. 108). To delve deeper into the theoretical underpinnings of metacognition, I present chronologically a number of well-​known metacognitive theories, which serve as “systematic frameworks used to explain and direct cognition, metacognitive knowledge, and regulatory skills” (Schraw & Moshman, 1995). I then propose my own MK framework and end this chapter by highlighting the impact of MK on S/​FL writing.

2.1  Metacognitive theories 2.1.1  Flavell’s Cognitive Monitoring (1979) In his influential framework of metacognition, Flavell (1979) proposed that the monitoring system of cognition comprises four interactive variables: metacognitive experiences, goals, actions, and metacognitive

 8

8  Literature review knowledge (MK). According to Flavell (1979), metacognitive experiences are defined as situations in which learners are required to exercise metacognition. In his own words, metacognitive experiences are: situations that stimulate a lot of careful, highly conscious thinking: in a job or school task that expressly demands that kind of thinking; in novel roles or situations, where every major step requires planning beforehand and evaluation afterwards; where decisions and actions are at once weighty and risky; where high affective arousal or other inhibitors or reflective thinking are absent. Such situations provide many opportunities for thoughts and feelings about your own thinking to arise and, in many cases, call for the kind of quality control that metacognitive experiences can help apply. (Flavell, 1979, p. 908) Goals are defined by Flavell (1979) as “the objectives of a cognitive enterprise” (pp. 906–​907), which is reminiscent of the notion of “motive” in Leont’ev’s framework of activity theory (1978). In Leont’ev’s activity theory model, “motive” refers to “the biological or social need or desire to lead human activity towards a specific object” (Inaba, 2019, Loc 641). While Leont’ev’s notion of “motive” refers to learners’ innate and psychological attributes, “goals” in Flavell’s cognitive monitoring model refers to both learners’ aspirations or desires and learning tasks which learners need to complete. Closely related to “goals” are learners’ actions, which mean “cognitions or other behaviours” used by learners to complete the goals or tasks (Flavell, 1979, p. 907). Specifically, actions are goal-​ directed, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies employed by learners. When discussing “actions”, Inaba (2019), drawing upon Leont’ev, referred to both task-​specific strategies (actions) and generic strategies employed by learners (operation). Comparing MK with the other components of the cognitive monitoring model, Flavell contended that MK plays the most significant role in the whole cognitive monitoring process because it represents an understanding of people being cognitive creatures who engage in cognitive tasks and experiences through employing a plethora of cognitive strategies and that it is the “knowledge or beliefs about what factors or variables act and interact in what ways to affect the course and outcome of cognitive enterprises” (Flavell, 1979, p.  907). Specifically, MK in Flavell’s cognitive framework refers to person knowledge, task knowledge, and strategic knowledge. Person knowledge refers to belief about “the nature of yourself and other people as cognitive

 9

Literature review  9 processors” (p. 907), which can be further divided into “intraindividual differences”, “interindividual differences”, and “universals of cognition” (ibid.). The task category of MK describes “the information available to you during a cognitive enterprise”, which Flavell described in a dichotomized manner (e.g., familiar vs unfamiliar, interesting or dull) (ibid.). Finally, strategic knowledge is defined straightforwardly as “knowledge that could be acquired concerning what strategies are likely to be effective in achieving what subgoals and goals in what sorts of cognitive undertakings” (ibid.). Flavell (1979) referred to the “four classes of phenomena”, metacognitive experiences, goals, actions, and MK, as interrelated variables which contribute to learners’ cognitive monitoring (p.  906). To exemplify, in a typical EFL writing classroom, a teacher gives a writing task for the students to complete. This writing task is a “goal” or “task” externally assigned to learners. This “goal” or “task” can also be perceived as a “metacognitive experience” which activates learners’ MK to utilize cognitive and metacognitive “strategies” to complete the task. 2.1.2  Schraw and Moshman’s Metacognitive Theory (1995) Echoing Flavell’s (1979) argument that MK is an indispensable component of the construct of metacognition, Schraw and Moshman (1995) presented their rendition of the metacognition model as comprising knowledge of cognition (i.e. MK) and metacognitive control processes. According to Schraw and Moshman (1995), knowledge of cognition is “what individuals know about their own cognition or about cognition in general” (p. 354). Drawing upon Brown (1987), Schraw and Moshman asserted that knowledge of cognition encompasses three types of knowledge: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and conditional knowledge. Declarative knowledge answers the “what” questions, including: “what does the learner know about him/​herself ?” and “what are some factors which may affect the learner’s performance?” In the context of EFL writing, below are some questions which learners who possess a higher degree of declarative knowledge would be able to answer: • Which writing genre am I good at writing? • What is my weakness in writing discursive essays? • Do I  perform better in writing when sample writings are provided to me? • Do I  perform better in writing when topical vocabulary or stock phrases are provided to me?

 10

10  Literature review Procedural knowledge, as the name suggests, refers to learners’ “knowledge about the execution of procedural skills” (Schraw & Moshman, 1995, p.  353). While learners with both a high and low degree of procedural knowledge are capable of employing strategies or skills to complete a given task, the former demonstrate a higher capability in using the skills effectively, automatically, and sequentially. I  shall illustrate such difference using two imaginative EFL writers, Amy and Eric, as an example. Amy and Eric are looking for ways to employ a more sophisticated lexical item for their writing. Amy, an EFL learner who is weak in procedural knowledge, struggles to find the right word. One of Amy’s classmates suggests she use Google Translate. Taking the classmate’s advice, Amy thinks of the word in her L1 and then looks for the translation in the target language using Google Translate. On the other hand, Eric, who is more adept at procedural knowledge, thinks of the same strategy. However, Eric remembers his teacher telling him that the translation provided by Google Translate is not always accurate. Therefore, after he types the word in L1 in the translation machine, he shows his teacher the English words provided by Google Translate and asks which word is the most appropriate to use in his composition. Being less relevant to the “what” and “how” questions, conditional knowledge means “knowing when and why to apply various cognitive actions” (Schraw & Moshman, 1995, p. 353). Some scholars conceptualize conditional knowledge as a type of declarative knowledge because conditional knowledge is about “what is the best strategy or skill to be used in this particular task”. To illustrate, I  am returning to the stories of Amy and Eric. This time, they are asked to write an informal letter to their friends to give advice. Before this writing unit, both Amy and Eric learned formal expressions for writing an argumentative essay. They both scored a high mark in vocabulary because they were able to use formal words and expressions. When writing this informal letter to his friend, Eric decides that it is a good strategy to use formal words and expressions because he was praised by the teacher in doing that; in contrast, Amy decides that she will not use those formal words and expressions because they will make the letter too pretentious. Taking into account the genre in focus, Amy refers to samples of informal letters provided by the teacher for some casual or semi-​formal expressions. From the above, it is clear that Amy demonstrates a higher degree of conditional knowledge than Eric because Amy is able to evaluate the task at hand and take into consideration the writing genre before formulating the appropriate strategy related to vocabulary use.

 1

Literature review  11 Metacognitive control processes, or “regulation of cognition”, refers to “metacognitive activities that help control one’s thinking or learning” (Schraw & Moshman, 1995, p. 354). These “metacognitive activities”, or self-​regulatory skills, including planning, monitoring, and evaluation skills, form the later self-​regulation model by Zimmerman (2001) in which self-​regulation is defined as follows: “neither a mental ability nor an academic performance skill, self-​regulation refers instead to the self-​ directive process through which learners transform their mental abilities into task-​related academic skills” (p. 1). 2.1.3  Kuhn’s Metacognitive Development (2000) Arguing that metacognition is a developmental process rather than a static construct, Kuhn (2000) maintained that metacognition systems of young and adult learners differ in two ways: levels of metacognitive awareness and metastrategic control. Metacognitive awareness refers to “what [strategies] one believes and how one knows” while metastrategic control means the “application of the strategies” (Kuhn, 2000, p. 178). Although the term “knowledge” is not used, these two components in Kuhn’s metacognition theory are very much in line with the procedural knowledge and declarative knowledge proposed by Schraw and Moshman (1995). In Kuhn’s own words, metacognitive awareness is defined as “metaknowing about declarative knowing”, which expanded on Schraw and Moshman’s (1995) declarative knowledge to include not only “what strategies or skills I know” but also “how/​from where I get to know these strategies or skills”. On the other hand, Kuhn (2000) offered her definition of metastrategic control as “metaknowing about procedural knowing”, which made reference to Schraw and Moshman’s (1995) procedural knowledge. Like metacognitive awareness, metastrategic control includes two components: procedural knowledge (how I  execute the skills or strategies) and the meta-​level (how/​from where I get to know how to execute these strategies or skills). 2.1.4  Krathwohl’s Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy (2002) Based on the original Bloom’s Taxonomy which includes six categories (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation), Krathwohl’s revised Taxonomy focused on providing a more fine-​tuned understanding to the “knowledge” category, which addressed the problem of “unidimensionality” in the original framework (2002  p.  213). In the original Taxonomy, this category includes a strong noun aspect and weak verb aspect. The noun aspect denotes

 12

12  Literature review the type of knowledge which learners are expected to possess, including “knowledge of specifics” (e.g., knowledge of terminology), “knowledge of ways and means of dealing with specifics” (e.g., knowledge of classifications and categories), and “knowledge of universals and abstractions in a field” (e.g., knowledge of theories and structures) (ibid.). The verb aspect, which was never explicitly mentioned in the original Taxonomy, refers to students’ ability to “recall or recognize knowledge” (ibid.). The objective of Krathwohl’s revised Taxonomy was to refine the “knowledge” category to comprise both the noun (knowledge dimension) and verb aspects (cognitive process dimension). Focusing on the knowledge dimension, a fourth type of knowledge, MK, was added to the existing knowledge types (factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge). Three sub-​types of MK were identified by Krathwohl: strategic knowledge, knowledge about cognitive tasks, and self-​knowledge. These three types of MK seem to be based on Flavell’s (1979) and Wenden’s (1998) construct of MK, which consists of person knowledge, task knowledge, and strategic knowledge. Wenden’s MK model will be further elaborated in the next section. As exemplified from the review of four of the most representative metacognitive theories in the past three decades, educational researchers and psychologists have been constantly interested in the construct of metacognition, in particular MK. Despite it being a sought-​after construct, the review of the four metacognitive theories reveals that understandings of MK are quite different from one another. This fuzziness is well captured by the quote by Veenman, van Hout-​Wolters, and Afflerbach (2006) which I place at the outset of the chapter. The fuzziness in the MK construct (Table 2.1) warrants the development of an updated and comprehensive MK framework, which is the focus of the next section.

2.2  Metacognitive knowledge To operationalize the construct of MK for language learning research, Wenden (1998) gave her definition of MK as “a relatively stable information human thinkers have about their own cognitive processes and those of others” (p. 516) and further divided MK into three variables: person knowledge (PK), task knowledge (TK), and strategic knowledge (STK). Wenden’s construct of MK has been widely adopted in research examining the influence of MK on students’ L2 learning. For example, in the study conducted by Schoonen and his colleagues (1998) examining the effect of MK on Grades 6, 8, and 10 students in Dutch, Wenden’s construct of MK was employed with an additional component called

 13

Literature review  13 Table 2.1 MK in the four metacognitive theories Metacognitive theory

Type of MK

Flavell’s Cognitive Monitoring (1979)

• • • • • • •

Schraw and Moshman’s Metacognitive Theory (1995) Kuhn’s Metacognitive Development (2000)

Krathwohl’s Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy (2002)

• • • •

Person knowledge Task knowledge Strategic knowledge Declarative knowledge Procedural knowledge Conditional knowledge Meta-​knowledge about declarative knowledge Meta-​knowledge about procedural knowledge Person knowledge Task knowledge Strategic knowledge

“plans and goals” regarding the goals and general plans that students internalized to make sense of the learning tasks. In a more recent study by Zhang (2010) on Chinese university students’ MK of EFL reading, Wenden’s tripartite construct was utilized as the conceptual framework with the descriptions of each component being modified to EFL reading. In MK research on EFL writing, Ruan (2014) analyzed MK (the term “metacognitive awareness” was used in the study to denote MK) in 51 Chinese university students through the lens of person, task, and strategy variables. Although less frequently referred to in second language research, other  scholars such as Brown (1987) and Schraw (2009) have defined metacognition by dividing it into knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition. In the domain of knowledge about cognition, Brown (1987), for instance, classified it into three components with a primary focus on reading strategies: declarative knowledge (DK), procedural knowledge (PRK), and conditional knowledge (CK). While DK refers to the factual understanding of learning strategies, PRK is defined as the knowledge of how these strategies are operationalized and executed. CK is regarded as a higher-​order form of MK because a learner who possesses CK knows when and why such strategies are to be employed. Rather than considering Brown’s and Wenden’s constructs of MK in isolation, this paper regards the two constructs as complementing each other in a sense that Brown’s DK, PRK, and CK enrich our understanding of STK in Wenden’s framework. Synthesizing

 14

14  Literature review PK

MK

TK

STK

Strengths, weaknesses, movaons, beliefs, goals Task purpose, relevance, nature, difficules General cognive strategies, subject-specific strategies

DK PRK

CK

Knowledge domain of metacognion Figure 2.1 A conceptual framework of metacognitive knowledge Source: Chong, 2018 Table 2.2 Types of MK and their relevance to EFL writing Metacognitive knowledge

Definition

Relevance to EFL writing

Person knowledge (PK)

Knowledge about one’s self, including one’s experience, self-​concept, and belief in a task or activity (Pintrich, 2002)

Task knowledge (TK)

Knowledge associated with the enactment, purpose, requirements, and relevance of a task (Paris & Winograd, 1990) Knowledge about strategies useful for learning and cognition (Ellis, Denton, & Bond, 2014)

• Self-​efficacy and self-​ concept about writing e.g., strengths and weaknesses • The perceived importance of writing • Motivation to write • Language, content, and organization requirements of writing tasks

Strategic knowledge (STK)

• Strategies appropriate for each stage of writing (planning, writing, and evaluating) for self-​ regulation (Brown, 1987)

the four metacognitive theories and drawing particularly on Wenden and Brown, I  propose a framework for conceptualizing MK for the current study (Figure 2.1) which was first introduced in Chong (2018). Specifically, the definition of each knowledge variable and its relevance to EFL writing is illustrated below in Table 2.2.

 15

Literature review  15

2.3  Metacognitive knowledge and second and/​or foreign language writing Recent studies have shed light on the important role played by metacognition in improving students’ performance in English writing (Teng, 2019). This intersection between MK and writing is justifiable because the process of writing closely resembles the metacognitive experiences described by Flavell in a sense that writing involves deliberate and reflective thinking in the planning and evaluation stages (Kim, 2013). Furthermore, Kim contended that, compared with speaking and listening, examination of MK in the writing process will yield the most insight because there is minimal interference from factors that inhibit students’ reflective thinking, namely “time-​constraints” and “real-​time interaction with interlocutors” (p. 10) during the writing process. Research investigating MK and its impact on S/​FL learners’ performance of writing shows a developmental pattern. The earliest studies on MK and S/​FL writing were mostly exploratory in nature, in which researchers analyzed the MK systems of L2 student-​writers to throw light on language learning strategy research (Victori, 1999; Wenden, 1991). Victori (1999) conducted a study on a group of undergraduate university Spanish students which was one of the earliest studies that compared the MK systems of more successful and less successful student-​writers. The findings indicated that more successful student-​ writers had more solid understanding in the three knowledge variables (PK, TK, and STK). In addition, Victori’s study was trailblazing because it offered insight into the pedagogical implications by suggesting that S/​FL writing instruction should have an explicit focus on developing students’ MK. Another line of research intertwining the concept of MK and S/​FL writing is the investigation of the notion of MK within the context of a process-​genre approach to writing (Badger & White, 2000; Deng, Chen, & Zhang, 2014; Negretti & Kuteeva, 2011; Sasaki & Hirose, 1996). These researchers were interested in examining how students’ MK affected their use of rhetorical and structural features in academic writing. A third line of research utilizing the construct of MK to examine students’ performance in S/​FL writing is a comparative analysis of MK and other personal factors such as L1 writing proficiency and linguistic fluency. Schoonen and his colleagues have conducted multiple studies on this topic (Schoonen & de Glopper, 1996; Schoonen et al., 2003). In their longitudinal study, Schoonen et al. (2003) examined the numerous personal factors that affected the L2 writing performance of 400 secondary Dutch students. It was found that there was a positive and strong correlation between students’ L1 and L2 proficiencies, with

 16

16  Literature review the influence of L1 proficiency being mediated by students’ MK and linguistic fluency. Focusing on young language learners in primary and secondary schools, the majority of the studies on MK focus on its impact on learners’ reading comprehension, listening comprehension, and speaking skills, but not writing skills. Regarding the relation between MK and S/​FL reading, Soodla, Jõgi, and Kikas (2017) found that there is a positive correlation between a group of senior primary students’ MK and their reading comprehension. In another study, van Steensel and Oostdam (2016) noted a positive effect of MK on Grade 7 and 9 language learners in the Netherlands, which is evident in both monolingual and bilingual learners, although other variables, for example SL vocabulary knowledge, seemed to contribute to learners’ efficacy in reading comprehension. As for listening and speaking skills, Zhang and Goh (2006) conducted a study on Singaporean secondary ESL learners’ perception of STK, a component of MK, in listening and speaking. These learners perceived that STK in listening and speaking, which is operationalized as use-​ focused learning strategies, form-​ focused learning strategies, comprehension strategies, and communication strategies, was conducive to their listening and speaking performance; nevertheless, they found the use-​focused learning strategies particularly helpful. Another major finding of this study is that there is a discrepancy between learners’ perception of STK and perceived use of the strategies, a phenomenon which may be the outcome of the lack of confidence of language learners to use the strategies. Among the few studies which target the relationship between MK and S/​FL writing skills, Surat, Rahman, Mahamod, and Kummin (2014) explored the MK of writing of 18 secondary school students. Operationalized as DK, PRK, and CK, the researchers found that younger learners’ MK of writing was rudimentary, evident by the limited use of DK and PRK. This study suggests the importance of teacher intervention to develop MK in young S/​FL writers. While the notion of MK has been increasingly recognized by S/​FL writing researchers as one of the crucial factors affecting students’ writing proficiencies, the majority of the studies focused on MK systems of university students because researchers believed they were cognitively and linguistically ready to self-​report their cognitive processes. In the studies that included secondary school students as participants, students’ MK was often analyzed alongside various student factors. Moreover, most of the studies adopted a relatively narrow definition of MK that mostly focused on TK and STK of certain genres such as argumentative essays (Ong, 2014). This monograph reports on an

 17

Literature review  17 exploratory study that intends to portray Chinese EFL secondary student-​writers’ MK systems by adopting a more holistic theoretical framework of MK (Figure 2.1). In particular, the study is guided by two research questions: 1. What are the MK systems (PK, TK, and STK) of EFL secondary students with high, average, and low English proficiencies? 2. What are the similarities and differences among the MK systems of these three groups of students?

 18

3  Methodology

Knowledge is believed to be shaped by the values and worldviews of like-​minded groups of individuals… Knowledge is intersubjective and created through an ever-​evolving consensus between the participants and researcher. –​Hadley (2017, p. 20)

3.1  Context and participants The present study was conducted in a foreign language school in the city of Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China. This school was selected because the researcher had connections with an English teacher at the school who later became a research assistant of the researcher. This foreign language school is one of the private schools in the first batch of key schools in Sichuan Province. In total, the school serves more than 6,000 primary and secondary students. The number of students in the school has been growing in recent years, especially in the primary school section. Most Grade 7 students in the school have been learning English as a foreign language for seven years (six years in primary school and one year in secondary school). Studying in an examination-​oriented culture, junior secondary students in this school face a number of high-​stakes tests, including district-​wide and city-​wide secondary school admission tests, as well as Zhongkao (a national examination for junior secondary students) in the second semester of Grade 9. After preliminary discussion with the Principal and the English Department Chairperson, I applied for ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of my institution. Ethical approval was granted in April 2018 (Ref. no. 2017-​2018-​0379). Informed consent was sought from the parties concerned before the research was conducted

 19

Methodology  19 in June 2018. A written informed consent form was completed by the Principal, 125 Grade 7 students, and their parents. Among the 125 students, 40 of them were categorized by the school as having a high English proficiency level, 40 of them were considered to be average level, and 45 of them were regarded as low achievers in English.

3.2  Qualitative interpretivist research paradigm A research paradigm in social science studies refers to “a set of assumptions about the social world, and about what constitutes proper techniques and topics for inquiry” (Punch, 1988, p. 28), or simply put, the worldview which informs the research. Alternatively, focusing on researchers, a research paradigm means “the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques” possessed by social scientists (Usher, 1996, p.  14). This qualitative study positions itself under the interpretivist paradigm, which is one of the four paradigms proposed by Connole, Smith, and Wiseman (1993) (the others are positivism, critical theory, and postmodernism). From an interpretivist perspective, the construction of knowledge is through social interactions. In other words, researchers following this paradigm acknowledge that understanding of the world, rather than being simply an agglomeration of absolute truths, consists of phenomena that are subject to the interpretation of people. Such interpretation is likely to be influenced by a variety of factors, including the person’s experience, background, belief, and knowledge. Since knowledge is not viewed as “objective and generalisable”, interpretivist researchers seek to understand others’ understanding of the world through communication and negotiation (O’Donoghue, 2019, p. 9). With a view that knowledge is co-​constructed and multiple viewpoints are acknowledged, the mission of qualitative studies is not to provide a “rule of thumb” or generalizable findings, but to present voices of the participants, especially those under-​explored, through the intersection of the lived experience of the participants and the researchers’ perspective. To maintain empathy, qualitative researchers are often positioned as people who are immersed in the situations of the participants instead of outsiders. For instance, to understand learners’ and teachers’ perception of a pedagogical intervention, qualitative educational researchers observe lessons, interview the teacher, and conduct focus group interviews with the learners. The researchers may also conduct content analysis on school documents or information related to the educational context to familiarize themselves with the context where the research is conducted.

 20

20  Methodology

3.3  Data collection Data collection took place in June 2018 when the researcher paid a three-​day visit to the school. Following the qualitative interpretivist research paradigm, students’ understanding of their MK systems (PK, TK, STK) was elicited from three sources: open-​ended questionnaire, students’ writing, and focus group interviews. The English version of the open-​ ended questionnaire was developed by the researcher and comprises two parts. Part A  is about students’ personal information, including name, age, class, and school. Part B comprises seven open-​ended questions, focusing on students’ PK, TK, and STK in relation to EFL writing. Face and content validity of the questionnaire was attained through the literature review of prominent metacognition theories (refer to Section 2.1 of Chapter 2) and studies related to MK and S/​FL writing (refer to Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of Chapter 2). In addition, a full professor who specializes in language learner psychology read the questionnaire items and gave comments. The questionnaire was revised based on the professor’s feedback. The revised open-​ended questionnaire was translated into Simplified Chinese by a research assistant who is a native speaker of Mandarin. The open-​ended questionnaire was administered by the research assistant in the school hall where all the student participants gathered. Students were asked to respond in Simplified Chinese. Twelve student interviews were conducted with 12 groups of students after they completed the open-​ ended questionnaire. Among the 12 groups, four groups were from the high-​ability group (n = 22), average-​ ability group (n  =  20), and low-​ability group (n  =  20) respectively. In total, 62 students were interviewed, constituting approximately 50% of the students who completed the questionnaire. The interviews were structured in the format of a stimulated recall and each lasted for approximately 50 minutes. Each group was first given 20 minutes to write on a topic. The writing prompt, which was based on a genre the students had recently learned, was provided by the teacher who coordinated Grade 7 English. The writing prompt given to the students was: “Write about a trip using the past tense”. After the students completed their writing, I asked students questions to facilitate their reflections on their writing process and their general writing experience. Conducted in a semi-​ structured format, most of the interview questions were prepared in advance with some follow-​up questions. The stimulated recall sessions, which lasted for approximately 30 minutes per group, were video and audio recorded. To facilitate students’ expression of ideas, the interviews

 21

Methodology  21 were conducted in Mandarin and/​or Sichuan dialect by the researcher and research assistant.

3.4  Data analysis A total of 125 copies of open-​ended questionnaires, together with 12 video files and 62 pieces of student writing, were collected. The open-​ ended questionnaires were translated from Simplified Chinese to English and typed on a Word document by the research assistant who is now a doctoral student majoring in Language Sciences at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. The translation was checked by the researcher. A total of 42,564 words of responses were documented. As for the interview data, the 12 video files were translated from Mandarin or Sichuan dialect into English and transcribed in the same manner, but on NVivo, using its transcription function. The transcripts of 12 interviews amount to 24,763 words. As for the student writing, they were scanned and stored in the researcher’s computer to facilitate analysis on NVivo. Thematic analysis was conducted on the three sources using a qualitative coding software, NVivo 12. Computer-​assisted coding was preferred to manual coding because the former enables researchers to “accommodate a rich and large amount of the data” (Dollah, Abduh, & Rosmaladewi, 2017, p.  61) using such functions as memos and annotations, visualization of data, and organization of information into themes and cases. The purpose of thematic analysis is to “identify themes, i.e. patterns in the data that are important or interesting, and use these themes to address the research or say something about an issue” (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017, p.  3353). Thematic analysis requires researchers to extract both semantic and latent meanings from the qualitative data. Semantic meaning refers to “explicit or surface meanings of the data” while latent meaning means “the underlying ideas, assumptions, and conceptualisations –​and ideologies –​that are theorised as shaping or informing the semantic content of the data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p.  84). Both deductive and inductive coding methods were used when analyzing the data. At the initial stage of coding the open-​ended questionnaires and interview transcriptions, data were coded deductively based on the conceptual framework of MK (Figure 2.1). These initial categories include PK, TK, and STK. STK is further divided into DK, PRK, and CK. A second round of coding was done inductively, which concerned developing sub-​themes under each category based on emergent themes from the data collected. Following exemplary practice of inductive coding, a constant comparison method of data analysis was adopted to triangulate codes

 2

22  Methodology applied to data from the open-​ended questionnaires and interviews (Glaser, 1965). On the other hand, a focused content analysis was performed on the 62 pieces of student writing to provide evidence to triangulate students’ self-reported MK systems with what is practiced. In particular, evidence related to TK, i.e. students’ understanding of the writing task, and STK, i.e. the strategies students used to solve problems in the writing process, was elicited.

 23

4  Metacognitive knowledge system of high-​proficiency students

4.1  Person knowledge: perception of English writing 4.1.1  A positive impression of English writing The open-​ended questionnaire responses suggest that the majority of the students who possess a high level of English writing proficiency perceived English writing positively. Most notably, three reasons contributed to such positive perception: intellectual satisfaction, emotional satisfaction, and usefulness of English. Intellectually speaking, students perceived English writing as “a kind of learning opportunity” (open-​ended questionnaire). This group of students acknowledged that English writing is a complicated process: In English study, I think it’s not enough to just have the vocabulary and grammar. In English writing, you have to connect the words with grammar closely. Grammatical knowledge is relatively loose but you can synthesize your understanding through writing. It’s just like you have to prepare rice through cooking it, and writing is the process of cooking. You have to not only synthesize the knowledge, but also absorb and digest the knowledge. (Open-​ended questionnaire) In the face of the complex writing process, these students demonstrated readiness to overcome the challenge. They held the belief that they were able to become a more successful and effective writer in English when they practiced diligently. They were motivated to practice their writing skills because they anticipated the “excitement” and “happiness” which would come alongside academic breakthroughs:

 24

24  Knowledge system of high-proficiency students In my mind, we use it [English writing] to improve ourselves, so I don’t think this good thing is difficult for me. Maybe some of the elements are difficult but I don’t care. I want to try my best to show myself. If it is really difficult, I will try to make it easy. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I also enjoy the process of writing and enjoy the happiness which results from practicing writing words and sentences. And I  enjoy the excitement of each breakthrough. (Open-​ended questionnaire) After writing, I’ll be very much looking forward to the feedback of the teacher because I would be complimented by the teacher (if I have completed the writing attentively). In this way, I can acquire a real sense of happiness. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Another intellectual reason why these students were motivated to write in English is their belief that writing in English enables them to express their “inner thoughts”, “emotions”, and opinions about “daily life”: I think English writing is important because English writing can express what we want to say, our inner thoughts, and it’s super direct and complete. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I think English writing and Chinese writing are similarly important. They are the expressions of your own emotions and the record of various events. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Maybe we write something around us in English and because of English writing, we’ll care about things in our daily life. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Comparing English writing with Chinese writing, students felt that they could express their ideas and opinions more freely because English writing topics are usually related to daily life: We can express more on the topic in English because it’s more interesting and easier than that of Chinese writing. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

 25

Knowledge system of high-proficiency students  25 In English writing, you can use phrases, grammar, words or sayings and so on randomly which you know or you can look up. It’s a platform for you to write what you want freely (Open-​ended questionnaire) Moreover, writing in English provides an alternative conduit through which students can express their ideas in detail. It is especially important to students who are not expressive and eloquent speakers: I don’t have to speak it out but just have to write (my spoken English is not good). (Open-​ended questionnaire) In English learning, the most important and main thing is to express what you want to express clearly. But if you speak in English, you just get yourself across to others. But writing requires you to be very rigorous and you have to know every detail accurately. In this way, it can be very easy for us to express what we want to express. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Apart from the intellectual satisfaction, this group of students found English writing to be emotionally rewarding. These students described English writing as “enjoyable”, “interesting”, and “more relaxing”. They found English writing interesting because there are fewer restrictions in English writing than in Chinese writing: Although it [English writing] may seem dull to me, it’s still interesting. In the process of writing, you can use different words and language to depict the same thing. In English writing, you don’t have to use dictions which you have to use in Chinese writing. A sentence can appear suddenly in English writing and you don’t even have to pay attention to dictions. But if I can utilize dictions, I’d be quite happy. (Open-​ended questionnaire) One type of freedom in English writing experienced by the students is the topic they were asked to write on. These topics are usually personal and related to their everyday life. In this regard, students were encouraged to include their experience in writing. These students found this documentation of their daily life in written form fascinating (“Sometimes using English to write a diary or movie review will be interesting; it’s another unique way of recording things” –​open-​ended questionnaire).

 26

26  Knowledge system of high-proficiency students Finally, this group of students were motivated to improve their writing in English because they held the perception that English is useful. These students identified three types of usefulness in English writing: for study, for communication, and for workplace. The students believed that English writing is useful in improving their English in general because they could put into practice the linguistic knowledge they learned in grammar lessons. Moreover, writing in English is useful to train students to think in English: I like English writing because in English writing, you can practice and strengthen the knowledge you have learned. For example, the spelling of words and application of grammar. In the process of writing, you can also activate your thinking. (Open-​ended questionnaire) English writing can help improve my English proficiency, practice my writing ability, my grammatical knowledge and my English thinking pattern. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Being a proficient English writer would also mean that students have a better chance at excelling in international English tests and national examinations, which are essential to students’ future study: It can also build a foundation for TOEFL and IELTS, helping me stride a big step forward. (Open-​ended questionnaire) More importantly, writing good English can help you gain more marks. (Open-​ended questionnaire) English is very important for me because it makes up a large proportion in Zhongkao (Senior High School Entrance Examination) and Gaokao (The National College Entrance Examination). If I do not attach importance to it, it will drag me behind. (Open-​ended questionnaire) In addition, the ability to write well in this international language would help students communicate with foreigners more efficiently:

 27

Knowledge system of high-proficiency students  27 My host family is from America. I always write to them. Through English writing, I can get an understanding of my host family and even the life of foreigners. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I think if I  can write well, maybe I  can also communicate with foreigners more fluently. (Open-​ended questionnaire) From the perspective of these students, English writing is also an indispensable skill in the workplace: It’s really important. Sometimes we will use English for some reports and sometimes we will communicate with some foreigners. We will use our writing ability and sometimes we will give some English speeches. We must write ourselves and writing is important for our work. So I think it is really important. (Open-​ended questionnaire) and in future jobs in some foreign enterprises, you can also use English to communicate. (Open-​ended questionnaire) 4.1.2  A negative impression of English writing Very few high-​proficiency (HP) students described English writing in a negative manner (four references). Among the few who did, they were mainly dissatisfied with the mechanical style of English writing. Some students stated that teachers told them to recite sentences and use them in their writing without thinking. Others disliked the fact that they had to do a lot of writing drills and exercises: I don’t like English writing because I think it’s very boring. Our teacher told us not to think and then use what you have already recited. (Open-​ended questionnaire) However, I dislike it a little bit when doing exercise. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Furthermore, students held a negative impression of English writing because of pressure from tests and examinations. Some students

 28

28  Knowledge system of high-proficiency students admitted that while they found writing in English an enjoyable process per se, it was difficult for them to perform well in high-​stakes examinations: I think writing a story is a process of enjoyment, but I can never achieve high marks. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Because English writing consists many marks and if you do not pay attention, your marks will be deducted. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

4.2  Person knowledge: self-​assessment of English writing ability Another prominent theme is students’ self-​ concept of their ability to write in English. It is surprising to see that HP students expressed their lack of confidence in such aspects as grammar, vocabulary, and sentences (41 references). In the questionnaire responses, they did not mention any of their strengths. From the above, these students held a negative view about their English writing ability and perceived themselves as writers who always make grammatical mistakes: I don’t have a good mastery of grammar, so when I write there may be some grammatical errors. (Open-​ended questionnaire) There are a lot of complex grammar rules in English and there are rules of irregular and regular verbs. So compared with Chinese, it is a little bit complicated; after all Chinese is my mother tongue. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Actually in primary school, I  thought English writing was very easy; but when I have entered junior secondary school, I find that English writing is very difficult because you have to consider more about grammar. You don’t just consider the words. (Open-​ended questionnaire) In addition, these students struggled with the ability to use more advanced vocabulary items and sentence structures, which are assessed in national English examinations:

 29

Knowledge system of high-proficiency students  29 I have limited vocabulary. Therefore, I  cannot write some good expressions in English and in exams. These are important requirements. So after writing, my composition will be dull and uninteresting. (Open-​ended questionnaire) The teacher asks us to write some good sentences and we cannot use the rubbish language. We are required to describe more, use more clauses and also to increase the length of our writing. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

4.3  Task knowledge: content-​related requirements This group of students were able to identify two areas related to content which they found important in English writing. Since most of their experience with English writing focuses on recount writing, the students strived to include vivid descriptions of scenarios and details of the events which took place: Whether there are detailed descriptions. Whether I  can make the composition vivid. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Depict more sceneries to make the composition vivid. (Open-​ended questionnaire) In addition to vivid descriptions, another task requirement students often mentioned is the importance of avoiding going off topic (“Whether I have gone off topic” –​open-​ended questionnaire). To the students, the importance of including relevant ideas is twofold. First, it is important to “go with the flow of the topic” (open-​ended questionnaire), meaning to include ideas relevant to the writing prompt. In the writing task students completed for the stimulated recall, students were asked to recount a travel experience using the past tense. One student shared a relevant idea which he included in his writing: “em… em… 18th is the Dragon Boat Festival, a festival for us to remember. We were quite happy in these few days and about where we went. And I described my trip” (Interview). This student described his travel experience at the Dragon Boat Festival in his writing in Figure 4.1. Second, the inclusion of relevant content means that the supporting ideas need to be relevant to the main ideas (“Don’t go off topic when writing and develop the composition according to the main

 30

30  Knowledge system of high-proficiency students

Figure 4.1 Student’s writing sample 1

idea” –​open-​ended questionnaire). For instance, students mentioned the importance of including examples relevant to the main idea (“whether the examples chosen are correct”  –​open-​ ended questionnaire) in order to “avoid mistakes related to logic” (open-​ended questionnaire).

4.4  Task knowledge: language-​related requirements A great number of students mentioned their teachers’ expectation for them to write with a high degree of grammatical accuracy (“pay attention whether I’ve made grammatical mistakes” –​interview) (38 references). The types of grammatical items which they paid close attention to include verb tense, verb form, third-​person singular, collocations, singular and plural noun, part of speech, quantifier: Whether there are changes of forms, like third-​person singular, or whether I  should use a different part of speech of certain words. And the tense  –​when I  should use simple present tense, or past tense, or present continuous. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Whether I have missed some details or quantifiers in the tasks given. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

 31

Knowledge system of high-proficiency students  31 Usually I  pay attention to the person, singular and plural, forms and so on. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Pay attention to the forms of third-​person singular. Past tense, simple present tense and regular and irregular changes. Original form after modal verbs. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I usually think about the tenses and forms I should use in my whole writing… and collocations of phrases. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Another aspect of language requirements frequently mentioned by these students is the importance of using, in their own words, “beautiful sentences” and words. By “beautiful sentences”, they meant the use of complex or compound sentences with clauses. Add some good words and sentences so that I make the composition “beautiful”. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Whether there are “beautiful sentences” like relative clauses. (Open-​ended questionnaire) And at the same time, I also consider whether I can use better sentence structures and some more “beautiful” sentences. (Open-​ended questionnaire) More importantly, the use of complex sentence structures is one of the assessment criteria. In other words, if the students are able to use a range of complex sentence structures, they are in a better position to perform well in tests and examinations: I’ll write the simplest forms and will think about better ways to express the sentences. And from the sentences, see whether I  can expand the sentences. The first reason is because I  want to get higher marks. The second reason is I want more words. (Interview) It was pointed out that accuracy and range of sentence structures are important indicators of successful English writing:

 32

32  Knowledge system of high-proficiency students Generally, I’ll pay attention to whether I have expressed clearly and whether there are better expressions and whether there are mistakes in terms of sentence structures, forms and whether I can add some sentences. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I’ll pay attention to the grammar structures and wrong sentences. (Open-​ended questionnaire) From the compositions which the students submitted, there was a clear intention to use complex sentences, despite a varying degree of accuracy. Below are four examples in their original forms: 1. That was make up really sleapy that I almost spent all time sleeping in plane. 2. I didn’t swim or dive because I was so young. 3. The views were so beautiful that we took a lot of photos. 4. When we arrived in Sansha, the weather was really wonderful that the sunshine were warm and the air were clean.

4.5  Task knowledge: organization-​related requirements While less frequently mentioned by the students, organization and coherence of writing are perceived to be important success criteria in English writing (five references). This group of students emphasized the importance of writing compositions which are “clearly structured and organized”. Regarding the essay structure, students said they would make sure they wrote in paragraphs and that the lengths of the paragraphs should be similar (“Whether I  have written paragraphs, whether there are too many words or too less words in a certain paragraph” –​open-​ended questionnaire). In the interview, the students described the ideal structure for a recount: “I will think about the ‘main idea-​elaborations-​main idea’ structure”. An approach adopted by the students to effectively organize their writing is “main idea-​ elaborations-​main idea”. In the writing sample in Figure  4.2, the student adopted this approach and divided her writing into four paragraphs. While the first and last paragraphs are included to identify the main ideas, the two body paragraphs provide details about her one-​day travel experience. Moreover, students understood the importance of writing cohesively (“Whether the composition is smooth”  –​open-​ended questionnaire).

 3

Knowledge system of high-proficiency students  33

Figure 4.2 Student’s writing sample 2

In order to increase cohesion, students suggested employing words and phrases to connect paragraphs (“Whether I can squeeze in a good sentence somewhere or a sentence that can act as a connecting link between the preceding and following paragraph” –​open-​ended questionnaire). Below are some examples of connecting words and phrases used by the students to enhance cohesion (words underlined). These expressions mainly functioned as time markers; sometimes, they were used to signify a new incident and describe results: 1. In the early morning, we left our school for the trip. 2. Luckily, the teacher took us to pick tea leaves after watching the boring show. 3. Later on, we climbed the mountain. 4. When I got to Chongqing, I saw lots of mountains. 5. When I woke, I felt very good, so I took a walk in the hotel’s park, then we had dinner at six o’clock.

 34

34  Knowledge system of high-proficiency students

4.6  Task knowledge: other domains of task knowledge This group of students referred to other requirements of English writing in their questionnaire responses and interviews. These requirements were mainly related to mechanics of writing, including spelling and punctuation: Spelling is the most important because spelling mistakes are the taboos in English writing. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Whether the lower and upper cases are right. Check the punctuation. (Open-​ended questionnaire) On the other hand, some students said that their teachers require them to write in a legible and neat manner. Students paid attention to this seemingly minor reminder because marks would be deducted if they did not write neatly: The most important is to see whether the writing is neat and beautiful because your personal characters are embedded in your handwriting. (Open-​ended questionnaire) The first is the neatness of the writing and don’t create “scars” on the paper (though it can’t be avoided). (Open-​ended questionnaire) Write neatly because it makes up 2 marks. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Apparently, writing enough words is also important to these students because, once again, their performance in writing assessments would be adversely affected if they did not write enough words (“pay attention to the word limit – whether it’s enough. If not enough, add some” –​open-​ended questionnaire). One student noted that marks would be deducted even if the student wrote more than required (“if you have exceeded the length of the paper, your marks will be deducted” –​open-​ended questionnaire).

4.7  Strategic knowledge: pre-​writing strategies Prior to writing, HP students contended that it is of paramount importance to read the writing question carefully and think about the different

 35

Knowledge system of high-proficiency students  35 requirements of the writing task, including content, vocabulary, sentence structures, and structure. When reading the question, students paid attention to the “traps” of the questions: Read the topic and read it very carefully because sometimes there will be some traps in the topic. It’s not very easy to spot the traps so you have to look at it very carefully. Then I will think about what I want to write. (Open-​ended questionnaire) In a post-​writing interview, a student gave an example of these “traps”. Because the topic requires students to describe a travel experience, the student pointed out that the past tense needs to be used when recounting the experience (“It’s generally all about past tense”). Additionally, students read the writing prompts carefully for the general instructions of the task: Read the topic carefully and check the requirements and the content. See whether there are some words that you must write or whether it has given you a beginning. Pay attention to the word limit and try to write as many words as you can. Don’t write less than the word limit. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Students felt that reading the writing question carefully meant that they would develop a better understanding of the topic and they would be less likely to include irrelevant information: Try to determine the topic of my composition… the most important thing is to have an understanding of the topic. Don’t go off topic when you’re writing because this will affect your writing later on and discourage yourself, then you will not have a clear mind. So reading the topic is the most important thing. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Moreover, reading the question carefully enables students to understand the requirements of the writing task, which are not always explicitly stated: Usually the first step is to read the question and pay attention to the details given. The second step is to try to analyse the meanings behind the task. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

 36

36  Knowledge system of high-proficiency students In the interviews, the students discussed the implicit requirement of the writing topic “recount a travel experience using the past tense”. While all the students were able to identify the need to include specific events in the recount, one student opined that it is also important to include one’s feelings about the trip. The student felt that the expression of feeling would be more convincing if the writer could compare his or her travel experience with previous ones: INTERVIEWER:  What ideas did you include in your writing? STUDENT:  Think about where I’ve been to… compared with

the different places I’ve been to and different experiences, and the different feelings I had. (Interview)

All students said that, having analyzed the question carefully, they would not start writing immediately but would spend some time thinking about the content, vocabulary, sentence structures, and structure of the composition: Content It’s writing about the past… So at the beginning, I thought about a festival. Then I thought about things we eat which are relevant to it. Then it’s zongzi (rice dumplings). Then I think about what zongzi (rice dumplings) means. It’s a symbol of good things. (Interview) Vocabulary and sentence structures I will think about some good sentences such as clauses, good phrases and words. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Structure Actually, it’s a beginning, and what you’ve done in the middle and your feelings in the end. (Interview) Simply “thinking” about the question requirements and what to include in the writing was not perceived as the best strategy by some students. Some students thought it is more effective to write an outline or mind map before writing (32 references):

 37

Knowledge system of high-proficiency students  37 More thinking. Thinking is using our brains to make a mind map. It’s good for our writing and it clears our minds. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Before writing in English, I will outline my ideas using a mind map because this can help you write more fluently, so that you will not be disrupted by other things. (Open-​ended questionnaire) In the outline, students would write down keywords and important information to ensure that they include those in their writing: STUDENT: I’ll

list out the key words… and I’ll list them out chronologically. INTERVIEWER:  Oh, chronologically. Can you give some examples? What ideas did you include? STUDENT:  First it’s on the bus, such as what I did on the bus, like chatting, singing, and when we arrived… it’s chronological. (Interview) In the face of routine writing tasks, students found it effective to search for some model essays and read them before they write. Students referred to these writing exemplars as “materials” which could improve the quality of their writing: The third thing is to collect materials. For example, some outstanding essays. I will try to collect them because they can help my writing. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I’ll try to read some model essays before the exam and try to use the ideas, the sentence structures, the words, phrases of the model essays. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Some students described different ways they helped themselves calm down and relieve pressure when attending an English writing examination; they believed that having peace of mind is a prerequisite to a clear mind:

 38

38  Knowledge system of high-proficiency students Try to relieve your pressure because if you have too much pressure, you will make grammatical mistakes easily, so we need to relieve the pressure such as by playing games. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I will rub my hands to relax. (Open-​ended questionnaire) First of all, I will relax myself to enable myself to have a clear mind to think about the topic. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

4.8  Strategic knowledge: while-​writing strategies This group of students reported a wide range of while-​writing compensatory strategies. When students face difficulties in the writing process, they mobilize resources around them, including their teachers, peers, and family members. I’ll ask my classmates. If they don’t know, I’ll ask the teacher. When I go home, I’ll ask my brother and my sister-​in-​law. (Interview) STUDENT:  And will ask at school. INTERVIEWER:  Who will you ask? STUDENT:  I’ll ask my classmates first then the teacher. INTERVIEWER:  When do you ask the teacher? STUDENT:  When the answer given by my classmates is ambiguous.

(Interview) Apart from human resources, these students effectively utilized technology to assist in their writing. Students reported the use of the translation website Baidu Translation and online dictionaries: I’ll use Baidu Translation at home. Basically I’ll use it because I don’t have to translate it slowly. I just have to look it up online. (Interview) When I go back home, I use Wangyiyun e-​dictionary. (Interview) Some students used language learning applications on their phones to look for the correct English words or expressions:

 39

Knowledge system of high-proficiency students  39 INTERVIEWER:  Ok.

Then how about when you are at home and when you have difficulties? STUDENT:  I will use the phone or computer. INTERVIEWER:  Do you use some apps or…? STUDENT:  Youdao translator. (Interview) In addition to utilizing external resources, these students perceived themselves as being capable of overcoming challenges during writing. They described the strategies they used: Refer to exercise books Sometimes I come up with a good sentence but don’t know how to write, then I will look up in my exercise book. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Use synonyms Usually I’ll see whether I can find some words to replace the ones I don’t know. If I can, I’ll continue to write. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Replace short sentences with more complex sentences If I’ve finished writing a sentence, I’ll think if there is a more “beautiful” sentence to replace the original one. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Monitor time and writing speed Whether there is enough time before handing in the paper; whether I should accelerate or reduce my speed of writing. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

4.9  Strategic knowledge: post-​writing strategies 4.9.1  Proofreading and revision Nearly half the students indicated that they would proofread and revise their work after they finished writing (19 references). Among these students, some of them adopted a more comprehensive approach to proofreading. In other words, these students would pay attention to all aspects of writing when reading their work: After writing, you have to read it one more time by yourself and check it. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

 40

40  Knowledge system of high-proficiency students I’ll read one more time and then I’ll revise it, and then read it again. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Other students were more focused and selective when they did their proofreading. These students focused on different areas of their writing: Focus on sentences I will check whether the sentence structures are correct, whether there are redundant sentences. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Focus on length I will write on my draft paper and see whether I have reached the word limit. If it is enough, then I will write it down on my exam paper. If it is not enough, I will try to add some descriptions. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Focus on content I will try to revise and check the content. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Focus on spelling and vocabulary After finishing writing, I  would take a rest first and relax myself. And then have a look at the composition and check the spelling of the words and whether I have written incorrect words. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Focus on grammar The last thing is to check what I have written –​whether there are some grammatical errors. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Some students indicated that they would proofread more than once because they would like to focus on one aspect of writing at a time to make the task more manageable: I’ll first of all check the writing whether it’s smooth. Then I’ll read it one more time to see whether the tense is correct, whether the third-​person singular is appropriate. Check whether I have satisfied all the requirements in the task. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

 41

Knowledge system of high-proficiency students  41 I’ll read twice. First time: whether the sentences are correct. The second time: refer to the task requirement. (Interview) 4.9.2  Self-​and peer assessment HP students reported appraising their own work after they finish their writing. One student described his approach to self-​assessment. For him, it is important to refer to the mind map he wrote at the outset and evaluate whether all the main ideas and expressions in the mind map were included in the writing: Then I will refer to the mind map and see whether the flow is clear or whether there are some incorrect expressions. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Some students mentioned that they would work with a partner after they finished writing to give feedback on each other’s work and discuss ways to improve the quality of their writing: I’ll check the English essay and work with my partner to give feedback to each other’s essay. Correct the errors and then revise. (Open-​ended questionnaire) If it’s daily writing, I  will communicate with my classmates and learn something from them to perfect my writing. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

4.10  Strategic knowledge: strategies for improving English writing 4.10.1  Learning beyond the classroom When asked about some sustainable strategies they have used to improve their English writing ability, these students reported an astonishingly long list of strategies, most of which have to do with learning beyond the classroom. To improve their vocabulary and sentence variety, students suggested watching English movies and television programs, listening to English songs, and reading English newspapers:

 42

42  Knowledge system of high-proficiency students We can watch more English movies, English TV series and listen to English songs, so we can increase our confidence in English and our vocabulary. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Watch more English movies and write down some new words to increase your vocabulary. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Watch more American TV series, foreign movies, listen to English songs and read English newspapers. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Watch more foreign movies and listen to more programs on BBC. (Open-​ended questionnaire) We can read more English books and English newspapers. From what we read, we can increase our vocabulary. We can also learn some new or old sentence structures. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Besides, students stressed the importance of practicing writing in English outside the classroom. Some found keeping an English diary an effective way to improve their writing skills because they could write every day on topics which are personal: Write daily life in English, maybe something about life. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I always write diaries in English every day and I  can feel that it really helps me with my English. (Open-​ended questionnaire) One student felt that writing dairies wholly in English may be too challenging for some students. As an alternative, the student suggested writing diaries in Chinese but “integrating some English into your diary” (open-​ended questionnaire). 4.10.2  Learning with a partner Some of the students emphasized the usefulness of having a learning partner (“Sometimes I ask those whose English is good” –​open-​ended

 43

Knowledge system of high-proficiency students  43 questionnaire). The students shared their practice of forming a learning community with some classmates: Share with your partners after writing each time and learn from the writings of others and try to revise your own mistakes. (Open-​ended questionnaire) These students explained that they would exchange their compositions every time they finished writing. They would read each other’s work and then give comments to each other. More importantly, they found this practice beneficial to their writing because they could learn from others’ strengths and mistakes before revising their own work. 4.10.3  The three “Rs” To complement their autonomous learning and cooperative learning, these students employed more “traditional” methods to improve their English writing skills. The students suggested the three “Rs”: “read”, “recite”, and “remember”. In terms of “reading”, the students would read model essays either written by their classmates or from textbooks. They believed that they could become good writers by being continuously exposed to high-​quality written English: We can also read good writings and learn something that we lack. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Read some excellent essays of others and try to appreciate the advanced sentences. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Read more “beautiful” articles. You will become better at dealing with the details of your own essay. (Open-​ended questionnaire) A student recommended reading model essays with more experienced others to get their feedback on the model essays and their own work: Sometimes you can read some English articles and ask some experienced people to give comments and try to correct your mistakes, if they agree. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

 4

5  Metacognitive knowledge system of average-​proficiency students

5.1  Person knowledge: perception of English writing The open-​ended questionnaire responses of students who are regarded as mediocre achievers by their teachers indicate that there is a divided view towards their perception of writing in English as a foreign language. While one group of students viewed English writing positively, another group of students indicated that they felt negatively about English writing. The two major reasons why some students with average English proficiency held a positive perception of English writing are identical to those reported in Section 4.1: intellectual satisfaction and usefulness of English. On the contrary, compared with HP students, quite a significant body of average-​proficiency (AP) students stated that English writing was a frustration to them because they were not good at it. 5.1.1  A positive impression of English writing Intellectual satisfaction is the most notable reason why AP students liked English writing. First, these students found that they could express their thoughts clearly using a variety of phrases and sentence structures: English writing can improve English proficiency and can improve expression abilities. It can combine SVO [subject–​ verb–​ object] together and give people a space to imagine. Unlike Chinese sentences, which are occasionally straightforward, sentences in English can be understood in various ways. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I like it because in English writing, I  can use many expressions. I think English writing is very interesting so I sometimes integrate

 45

Knowledge system of average-proficiency students  45 some English phrases and sentences into my diary. This is meaningful. So I like English writing. (Open-​ended questionnaire) A second dimension of intellectual satisfaction concerns the fact that writing in English is perceived as a means through which students can consolidate their understanding and knowledge of English. In the following examples, the students pointed out that English writing helps them practice the grammatical, lexical, and syntactic knowledge they learned in lessons. Another way for the students to consolidate their knowledge of English through writing is receiving feedback from their teacher about their performance in writing: I like English writing because English writing can test to what extent we have mastered the knowledge. In this way, we can have a better review of the previous knowledge and can strengthen our memory and can practice our grammar. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I like it because English writing can improve my familiarity with grammar. It can help me better remember the words and improve my expression. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Each time after writing, the teacher will mark and give verbal feedback publicly. We did gain a lot. Learning and application of knowledge have both been improved. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Intellectually, it is noted in the AP students’ questionnaire responses that English writing “can cultivate our [students’] logic ability of English”. In one of the focus group interviews with the AP students, four students illustrated the meaning of developing logical thinking through planning and structuring ideas in an English composition they just completed, which is about a trip they had. Specifically, Student 2 in the following excerpt justified why she sequenced her ideas in a particular way. She explained that her focus in the composition was her feelings and the events should follow the description of her feelings because they were treated as explanations for her feelings: INTERVIEWER: When

you are writing, how many points do you think you should include in your writing?

 46

46  Knowledge system of average-proficiency students STUDENT 5:  At least three. STUDENT 4:  Like what I played, what I saw and STUDENT 3: It depends. Three. My feeling,

what I ate. what I  saw and

experienced. STUDENT 2:  I wrote what I did and my feelings. INTERVIEWER:  Why did you write your feeling first? Then what you

saw second? STUDENT 2:  Because I wrote the events to explain my feelings. INTERVIEWER:  Why did you write reversely? STUDENT 2:  Because I  summarized. I  wrote five points: the place

I went, my feeling, how I went there, what I did there, and my feelings again. (Interview) Another major reason why AP students held a positive impression of English writing is that they recognized the usefulness of English writing. According to the questionnaire responses of this group of students, four types of usefulness were identified: 1. 2. 3. 4.

English writing is useful for improving other English skills. English writing is useful in examinations. English writing is useful in the workplace. English writing is useful if students plan to study abroad.

First, some AP students appreciated the fact that English writing is conducive to improving other English skills. These language skills include “language organization ability”, “expressions”, “thinking ability”, “vocabulary and sentences”, “oral English”, and “grammar” (open-​ ended questionnaire). To these students, English writing provides an avenue for them to put into practice and consolidate what they have learned in English lessons because when they write in English, “it is… the manifestation of your English abilities” (open-​ended questionnaire). Another way students can strengthen their general English abilities is through reflecting on their writing performance: I think it’s important because writing can make us aware of our shortcomings and identify our problems of grammar, vocabulary, and collocations. In this way, we can correct ourselves through writing, we can also improve our English proficiency. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Second, English writing is useful to these students because English is one of the main subjects in examinations. In particular, English writing

 47

Knowledge system of average-proficiency students  47 is an important component in the examination because of its heavy weighting: I think English writing is very important because in the English test, it can create a gap between you and other students, especially in Paper B. And English writing in Paper B is the part where you can create a huge gap between you and other students. It makes up 15 marks of the total 50 marks and in the future tests, you can also see the importance of English writing. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I think it’s [English writing is] very important because in all important tests, English writing is very important. It makes up a large proportion of the total mark, so it’s very important. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Third, the same group of students considered English writing as a useful tool in the workplace. In particular, these students thought that they would be asked to write in English in the future as an employee and that “English communication is also indispensable” (open-​ended questionnaire). Finally, one student in the AP group indicated that English writing is very important in this increasingly globalized and mobile world, and commented that it is crucial if students want to study abroad. 5.1.2  A negative impression of English writing Unlike the HP group, more than half of the AP students disliked English writing because they were not capable of doing it well and they perceived writing in another language as “troublesome” (22 references). To them, the most difficult aspects of English writing include grammar, vocabulary, and sentence patterns. Some of them even felt lost and helpless in the face of these difficulties: And often there are grammar, plural forms, vocabulary, phrases and so on. It’s [English writing is] too difficult! Troublesome! (Open-​ended questionnaire) I don’t like English writing. I don’t like it because my English is not so good. I don’t have a large vocabulary base and it’s easy for me to remember the wrong words. And I don’t know some words and

 48

48  Knowledge system of average-proficiency students grammar items or I’ll use them in a wrong way. Therefore, I don’t like English writing too much. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Sometimes, in order to enrich the contents, I  think about some words and sentences. However, I  have never written them before, so I feel I have lost myself and don’t know what to do. Therefore, I don’t like English writing. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Some of them described their helpless writing experience in the stimulated recall: Very difficult. because I forgot as I wrote. My mind was blank when I wrote. I didn’t know how to write at the beginning. My English is not good and every time I think, I’ll make it worse. I can’t express in English and don’t have ideas, and don’t know how to write grammatically. (Interview) In another interview, the students expressed a similar view that writing a recount using the past tense is difficult even though they learned how to do it in their English lessons: INTERVIEWER:  Do you think this kind of writing STUDENT 4: It’s difficult because I  haven’t

is difficult? recited all the

irregular verbs. difficult because I  don’t know how to describe. I can’t write some sentences. STUDENT 2:  I can’t remember the words which I learnt even in the morning. (Interview) STUDENT 3: It’s

One student claimed that she struggled with English writing because she cannot express herself clearly. This is especially the case when she attempts to quote traditional Chinese texts using English: I don’t like English writing because I think if I use English to write, sometimes I cannot express myself. When I read what I write, there is a lack of charm. So sometimes I  will be restricted in English writing. It is like some poems in Chinese, when I  put them in English, it will change the meaning. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

 49

Knowledge system of average-proficiency students  49 In the face of the aforementioned difficulties in English writing, some students responded bluntly by saying that they were not motivated to improve their writing skills because English writing is not as important as Chinese in their daily life: In our country, English is barely used except in our jobs. In our daily life, we barely write in English. We have to pay attention to the language of our own country. We should not forget our mother tongue. (Open-​ended questionnaire) The ability to write in English can be unimportant; it depends, because we barely use it very often in our daily life. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

5.2  Person knowledge: self-​assessment of English writing ability In Section 5.1.2, it is reported that students held a negative impression towards English writing because they perceived themselves as incapable writers. Upon further prompting, this group of AP students provided more detailed explanations regarding the challenging areas in English writing. In total, they identified five challenges when writing in English: Grammar makes English writing challenging I think writing in English is difficult… I don’t know how to change the word form like third-​person singular, the plural and singular forms of verbs, past tense and present tense. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Vocabulary and mechanics make English writing challenging It’s difficult because you have to improve your vocabulary and you have to pay attention to the change of the word form and then you have to pay attention to punctuations, capital letters and so on. If you do not pay attention, then you will “destroy” your composition. (Open-​ended questionnaire) There are no ideas to write about in English I don’t have so many key points to write so English writing is super difficult. It’s as difficult as climbing to the sky. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

 50

50  Knowledge system of average-proficiency students It is challenging to make the composition unique Most importantly, you have to write the essay correctly, and you also have to be different from others and not make your composition “bland” and you cannot write a direct narrative. (Open-​ended questionnaire) L1 interference makes English writing challenging Because the expressions of English and the order of the language are quite similar to Chinese, it is easy for us to transfer the writing habits of Chinese into English. It may lead to incorrect sentences. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Surprisingly, while the HP students’ self-​assessment of their English writing ability is entirely negative, six references in the coding scheme endorse the fact that some AP students think English writing is easy. First, these students find English writing easy because they are very familiar with the topics, which are often about everyday life (“It’s not difficult because you can use what you have learned in daily life to write your composition” –​ open-​ended questionnaire) and they can “make up something” (open-​ ended questionnaire) in their writing if they do not have any real examples to share. Second, some AP students were not worried about writing in English because they could practice and memorize words, grammatical rules, and sentence structures (“It’s not difficult, after all. English writing is a combination of various words and phrases. If you remember the words and phrases well, English writing will be very easy” –​open-​ended questionnaire). Finally, a number of AP students were confident with their ability to write in English because English writing was regarded as similar to Chinese writing, namely the shared word forms (nouns, verbs): English writing is similar to Chinese writing; it’s just that the order is different. For example, 我在学校打足球 (I play soccer at school). In Chinese, we will put “school” in front of “soccer”, but in English it is different. Maybe this will make us feel difficult, but when you have mastered the rules and grammar, you’ll find that it’s very similar to Chinese. There will be verbs and nouns, so English writing is not difficult. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

5.3  Task knowledge: content-​related requirements When completing English writing tasks, this group of AP students emphasized the importance of paying attention to the question

 51

Knowledge system of average-proficiency students  51 requirements (“whether I have finished writing all the requirements” –​ open-​ended questionnaire); many of them reiterated the fact that it is essential to write according to the topic by “read[ing] the topic very carefully and… not be[ing] off the topic” (open-​ended questionnaire). In the focus group interviews, students’ discussions mostly centered around what ideas are suitable to be included in their writing, which asks them to describe a trip using the past tense. In the four interviews, students shared their ideas included in their recount, which include “the weather”, “surrounding environment”, “food”, “what I saw and did”, going to a “museum”, “travelling”, “climbing the mountains”, staying in a “hotel”, “playing chess”, and “feelings”. The following is an interview extract, capturing students’ sharing of ideas which they perceived as appropriate based on the question requirements. Despite sharing their own ideas, there seemed to be diverse opinions regarding whether the question requires them to describe their feelings. As can be seen below, students did not provide reasons to justify the need to include feelings in the composition and this disagreement was not resolved: INTERVIEWER:  What were the points you wrote today? STUDENT 3:  What we ate at noon. But I wrote what everyone

did. For example, playing chess. STUDENT 5:  I wrote what we did at the place and my feelings. STUDENT 4:  Because I don’t like traveling. I wrote that I don’t like traveling in the whole essay. I  wrote I  don’t like climbing the mountains because there are many mosquitos. I don’t climb in the evening because it’s dark outside and the trees are like ghosts. Then, I only stayed in the hotel in the evening, and my feelings. STUDENT 2: I wrote what and how we ate. We went out to play because we like to eat. I didn’t write my feelings because I didn’t have enough time to write. STUDENT 1:  I wrote the process we went there and what we did. I didn’t write my feelings. (Interview)

5.4  Task knowledge: language-​related requirements The primary focus for this group of AP students was on the language-​ related requirements of English writing, with 44 references from the coding result which endorse this theme, as compared to 27 references for content. The most frequently mentioned grammatical items by the students which they deemed as important in English writing include verb-​related items (e.g., verb tenses, singular and plural verbs),

 52

52  Knowledge system of average-proficiency students noun-​related items (e.g., countable and uncountable nouns, singular and plural nouns, use of pronouns), word-​level items (e.g., collocations, word forms), and sentence-​level items (e.g., sentence structures): What kind of tense I should use according to the composition title, whether it’s simple present or past tense or present continuous and or future tense. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I will pay attention to handwriting, grammar, tense, sentence structures, plot, beginning, ending, the main idea of the title, the change of the word forms, third-​person, singular and plural forms of the verbs. (Open-​ended questionnaire) 1. Person: I, she, he, they, my, them… 2. The correspondent auxiliary verbs: do does. 3. Tense: present continuous, simple present, past tense. 4. Correspondent “am, is, are” of the person. 5. Verbs without “s”. 6.  Nouns: countable or uncountable. 7.  Grammar: “like to do something”. (Open-​ended questionnaire) In the process of English writing, I usually will pay attention to the words, the plural and singular forms of the nouns, the plural and singular forms of the verbs. Present continuous, the past form of the verbs. The irregular forms of the verbs, past tense. And some common sentence structures. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Pay attention to the third-​ person singular, the collocation of the verbs. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Interestingly, when referring to a specific writing task, the AP students focused on the use of the past tense in their focus group interviews but not other verb-​related, noun-​related, word-​level, and sentence-​level grammatical features mentioned in the open-​ended questionnaire responses: STUDENT 5:  Remind

myself to use past tense, and maybe there are “ing” forms. INTERVIEWER:  When I say past tense, what will you think of ?

 53

Knowledge system of average-proficiency students  53 STUDENT 2:  Go, went. STUDENT 3:  It, was. Irregular verbs. STUDENT 4:  It’s hard to remember the irregular verb forms. INTERVIEWER:  Can you give some examples of irregular verbs

you

wrote today? STUDENT 4:  Have, had. (Interview) The predominant focus on the use of past tense as a language-​related requirement in the focus group interviews is exemplified in the relatively high accuracy in using past tense verbs in students’ writing. The following is a recount written by one of the AP students about his holiday experience at Sanya, a city located on southern China’s Hainan Island. As shown in the piece of writing in Figure 5.1, the student was able to use the simple past tense quite accurately, an outcome which may be attributed to his perception that using the past tense is one of the requirements of this writing task.

5.5  Task knowledge: organization-​related requirements From the interviews and open-​ ended questionnaire responses, AP students elucidated two dimensions of organization-​ related

Figure 5.1 Student’s writing sample 3

 54

54  Knowledge system of average-proficiency students requirements when it comes to English writing: (1) paragraph structure and (2)  the use of connectives. First, to these students, it is of paramount importance to “pay attention to the parts of the writing structure” (open-​ended questionnaire) and, depending on the writing genre, the writing structure usually comprises three parts: beginning, middle, and ending. Although the students generally agreed that there are three parts, they failed to agree on what to include in each of them. In other words, the function of each paragraph is not apparent to these students. Some students described the time, place, and events in separate paragraphs whilst others began with their feelings before describing the events: I have a beginning, middle and an ending. I introduced my names first, then when I went there. In the middle, I wrote about the place. In the end, I wrote about how we ended the trip. (Interview) Since it [the question] requires us to use past tense, we have to talk about things happened in the past, like yesterday, last week, or last year. At the beginning we have to describe what our feelings are, like the air in the countryside was clean, and what we did there. Then how we communicated enthusiastically, which is different from the people from the city. The people in the countryside treated you with hospitality. I used paragraphs. (Interview) The AP students also focused on the use of different connectives to increase the cohesion and coherence of their writing. Below is an excerpt from one of the interviews which exemplifies how the students made use of time markers (a type of connectives) to structure their writing: INTERVIEWER: 

When you saw this topic, what will you pay attention to in terms of structure? STUDENT 5:  First, finally, then. STUDENT 4:  Time order. STUDENT 2:  Morning, afternoon. INTERVIEWER:  Why will you think about these words? STUDENT 3:  Because when you go out, you have to do something first, and other things second and third. (Interview)

 5

Knowledge system of average-proficiency students  55

Figure 5.2 Student’s writing sample 4

The composition in Figure 5.2 shows how one of the AP students used a range of time markers (circled) to provide a more natural transition and progression from one event to another. Even though these were not mentioned by students in the open-​ended questionnaire responses and interviews, the AP students were able to use other types of connectives, including subordinate conjunctions (e.g., “because”, “when”, “that”, “so”) (darker highlights) and coordinating conjunctions (e.g., “and”, “but”) (lighter highlights).

 56

56  Knowledge system of average-proficiency students

5.6  Task knowledge: other domains of task knowledge In addition to writing requirements concerning content, language, and structure, this group of students alluded to other writing requirements related to mechanics, handwriting, and vocabulary. In terms of mechanics, 18 references support the fact that students paid attention to the use of upper and lower cases (“Upper and lower case” –​interview), spelling (“the spelling of the words” –​open-​ended questionnaire), and indenting (“Usually I would remember to indent” –​ open-​ended questionnaire). As far as handwriting is concerned, four references confirm that writing neatly and in a legible manner is a requirement emphasized by their English writing teachers (“At last, I will also pay attention to the handwriting” –​open-​ended questionnaire). Finally, regarding vocabulary, three references acknowledge the importance of using accurate words to describe the actions and events in English writing. In the recount writing task which they were asked to write, students brainstormed words related to the different destinations they went to on the trip, such as the food they ate in different locations: Because we wrote about what our trip, we have to write what we did in the first place and what we did in the second place and think about the words I’ll use beforehand. (Interview) Things to eat. We can use “ate” and “drank”. Because I just want to fulfil the word limit, I will write today I ate… yesterday I ate… last week I ate… so I have a lot to write in terms of food. Then I can write what we ate during the trip. (Interview)

5.7  Strategic knowledge: pre-​writing strategies The majority of the AP students employed two patterns of pre-​writing strategies, which begin with reading the writing question carefully (Figure 5.3). Some AP students provided an explanation for a close read of the writing question at hand, which they regarded as “the most important thing” (open-​ ended questionnaire). These students would read the writing prompt carefully or even multiple times to ensure that they had a thorough understanding of the meaning and the requirements of the question before they started writing:

 57

Knowledge system of average-proficiency students  57

Content

Think

Structure

Outline/Dra

Grammar

Read the wring queson

Figure 5.3 Two patterns of pre-​writing strategies employed by the AP students

I usually read the title carefully for many times. I think this helps me understand the title tremendously. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I’ll read the title carefully to understand the meaning and requirements and try to involve myself in the writing to understand the question more vividly, so that I can write more smoothly and concentrate. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Having read the writing question, a group of AP students opted for thinking about the various requirements of the writing task by drawing upon their TK (Section 5.3–​5.6). When thinking about what and how to complete the writing task, these students would focus on the content, language, and organization requirements of the task. For example, they would try to “understand what the composition is about, who the main character is, the place, reason, process, and result” (open-​ended questionnaire) and “recall some phrases and then make use of them” (open-​ended questionnaire): INTERVIEWER:  What

were the things you were thinking when you were given the topic? Content? Grammar? STUDENT 4: The first thing I  thought about is the content. The second is my feeling. INTERVIEWER:  So the first thing you thought about is the content. How about you? STUDENT 3:  Same, content. I thought about what I would write. STUDENT 2:  I have to first make sure the structure is right. First a summary, then describe specifically, at last a summary.

 58

58  Knowledge system of average-proficiency students STUDENT 1: 

I’ll first tell myself to pay attention to past tense. Then think about the place I’m going to write. (Interview)

Content Usually I’ll think about the topic in my brain. Then the main ideas that I’ll be writing about. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Language Pay attention to the tense (past tense, present continuous, future tense, present tense). (Open-​ended questionnaire) Organization Think about the structure and the transitional words, like first, then, after, all in all. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Alternatively, some AP students reflected that they would produce an outline after reading the writing question. This outline can be a mental one (“Think about the outline in the brain”  –​open-​ended questionnaire) or one that is written down. A written outline is usually more elaborate; these students usually include details related to the ideas to be included in the composition or a structural framework of their writing. In some cases, this outline would include tips and strategies which the students put down to remind themselves of while writing: Write an outline. There’s usually a title, like: My Family. At the same time, 1. Understand the words. 2. Think about what I should include. 3. Where I should start. 4. The beginning, the body and the end. 5. How to highlight the important part and the less important ones. 6. How to be vivid. And then list out all the things. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Instead of writing an outline, some students preferred to write a draft before copying the composition to the paper for submission. When asked about the reason for writing a draft, the students’ response was that they would like to write more neatly in the final version because their “handwriting is not very good” (interview). Another student

 59

Knowledge system of average-proficiency students  59 explained that he would write the draft in Chinese before writing it in English on the exam paper: I would write the composition in Chinese and try to use sentences that I know. Then I’ll write them in English. (Open-​ended questionnaire) A small group of AP students disclosed that they would do revision before completing a writing task. Such revision may focus on ideas and vocabulary. To ensure the quality of the ideas in their work, these students would memorize ideas from passages they read in lessons or daily life. Moreover, they would remember words learned in their English lessons so that they could use them in their compositions: Memorizing ideas INTERVIEWER:  What kind of content would you like to add to this essay? STUDENT 5:  Think about the readings I recited before. INTERVIEWER:  What ideas did you write today? STUDENT 5:  Farm. I recited it before. (Interview) Memorizing words I’ll remember words after class and when I encounter a word I don’t know, I don’t write it and use what I remember. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

5.8  Strategic knowledge: while-​writing strategies Through analyzing the AP students’ interviews, various types of while-​ writing strategies were noted that empower students to mobilize three types of resources: (1) human resources; (2)  technological resources; and (3) personal resources. The AP students mobilized human resources around them by asking their teacher, classmates, and parents when they encountered any difficulties while writing. Even though some students would approach their teacher when they needed help with their writing (“In class, I will ask the teacher” –​interview), a number of students hesitated to do so because they thought that it was embarrassing and that their teacher would scold them for not paying attention in class:

 60

60  Knowledge system of average-proficiency students INTERVIEWER:  Will

you ask the teacher if you encounter a difficulty in class? STUDENT: No, because it’s embarrassing. For example, when we are having a quiet class and you suddenly put up your hands to ask questions. It’s weird. (Interview) When she has taught something many times and you ask her, she will scold you. (Interview) Fearing that they would be scolded by their teacher, some students resort to asking their classmates for help because they feel less embarrassed (“I ask my classmates because they’re close to me”  –​interview). Besides, the advancement of technology has enabled these students to contact their classmates when they are at home. Using social network applications such as QQ and WeChat, these students are more willing to delegate difficulties they face in their writing to their peers. In some special circumstances, however, these students noted that they would still seek help from their teacher, for instance when their classmates do not know the answer (“Sometimes I ask the teacher when my classmates don’t know the answers” –​interview) or when it is an issue related to grammar (“But I ask the teacher about grammar sometimes” –​interview). If the writing task is to be completed at home, some students said that their family members, especially their parents, would be an appropriate target for inquiry because some of them “know English” (interview). Other while-​writing strategies adopted by the AP students include the utilization of technology, in particular the use of a machine translator (e.g., Baidu, Travelling Translator, Youdao) and online dictionaries: INTERVIEWER:  You

sometimes write in class and sometimes write at night after class. Do you have different ways to solve the problems in these two situations? STUDENT 2:  At home, I  can use Baidu [a translation website and mobile application] to check grammar. At school, I can ask the teacher. STUDENT 1:  At home, I use an English dictionary. (Interview) These students have been so accustomed to using a machine translator that they even devise strategies to ensure that the translation provided

 61

Knowledge system of average-proficiency students  61 by the website or mobile application is accurate. Their first strategy is to check the meaning of the English word provided by the machine translator using a dictionary: STUDENT 3: Just

type in the Chinese word, the English will

come out. INTERVIEWER:  How do you know it’s right? STUDENT 3:  Of course it’s right. INTERVIEWER:  Why are you sure it’s right? STUDENT 3:  I’ll check the dictionary again.

(Interview) The other strategy they employ to check the accuracy of the word given by the machine translator is to use translators which are more reliable: INTERVIEWER:  How about if the word is not in the textbook? STUDENT 2:  Then search on the phone. STUDENT 5: I’ll use an authoritative software, like Youdao

Translator. INTERVIEWER:  What’s the difference between Youdao and Baidu? STUDENT 5:  I think the explanations of Youdao are more specific.

(Interview) In addition to using human and technological resources, this group of students often tap into their own knowledge and experience when confronted with an obstacle during writing. First, when they come across an idea which requires them to use a difficult word to express, they attempt to replace the difficult word with a familiar word to minimize the risk of making errors: STUDENT 3:  I

don’t know whether the words I  wrote are correct, like “vacation”. INTERVIEWER:  How did you solve the problem? STUDENT 3:  Change the word. (Interview) Second, these students would venture to recall the knowledge they learned in English lessons from memory (“Sometimes I  also recall the sentences I  learnt from my English textbook, and I  will apply them to my own composition” –​interview) and by referring to their textbooks (“I’ll first see if I can find the sentence from the textbook” –​ interview).

 62

62  Knowledge system of average-proficiency students

5.9  Strategic knowledge: post-​writing strategies The majority of the AP students claimed that they would proofread and revise their work after they finished writing. Three types of proofreading strategies were described by these students: (1) general proofreading; (2) focused proofreading; and (3) multiple rounds of proofreading. Regarding (1), 11 references from the coding result confirm that students would proofread their work without a specific focus. According to the students who employed this strategy, they did not believe that it was the most effective strategy to improve the quality of their work but they were constrained by the time limit of the examination: I check by reading it [my writing] generally and correct where I feel it’s wrong. Usually during an exam, we don’t have so much time to read it a few times. I have to leave some time to check other parts. (Interview) I checked my essay in general one time, but I didn’t find any errors. (Interview) Usually I don’t check. I’ll just have a glimpse of it. If it’s something that I can spot, then I will revise. If I cannot spot it then I will not revise it because if I cannot spot it from the first sight, then I will think it’s right, but usually my intuition is wrong. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Another group of students adopted a more focused approach to proofreading. In their proofreading, they focused on one of the following areas: grammar (17 references), followed by content (six references), mechanics (six references), word limit (four references), handwriting (two references), and structure (two references). 5.9.1  Focus on grammar I checked whether I used the past tense. Then third-​person singular. I read it one time to check. (Interview) 5.9.2  Focus on content [I will check] whether the main idea is correspondent with the title. If there’s something inappropriate, I will revise. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

 63

Knowledge system of average-proficiency students  63 5.9.3  Focus on mechanics Usually, I’ll pay attention to the upper case and lower case of the words. I have to use capital letters at the beginning of a sentence. (Open-​ended questionnaire) 5.9.4  Focus on word limit I wrote more. I  feel the number of words is not enough. I  wrote “I like the trip very much” and I added “I hope to visit it again” because I think I ended the essay abruptly. (Interview) 5.9.5  Focus on handwriting I will check the handwriting. (Open-​ended questionnaire) 5.9.6  Focus on structure I will check the structure, content and word limit. (Open-​ended questionnaire) A third group of students reported proudly that they would check their work multiple times, each round focusing on a particular aspect of writing such as language, content, structure. From the data, it seems that the adoption of multiple-​round proofreading is a recommended practice by their teacher (“Because the teacher taught us to check forms in the first time, the second time check third-​person singular, the third time check capital letter” –​interview). In the following two examples, both students adopted the recommended practice and focused on different facets of writing features in the three rounds of proofreading: INTERVIEWER: 

What is the principle of checking? Do you check in general? STUDENT:  The first time I check the words, the second grammar, the third the change of word forms. The third time I read the sentence “I have so much fun”. Then I changed to “I has so much fun”. Then I reminded myself it’s in past tense so I changed to “I had so much fun”. (Interview)

 64

64  Knowledge system of average-proficiency students Usually I will read my work in general and see whether there are some points I  forget to write. I  will check whether the spelling is correct. After that, I  will read one more time in detail. I  read in such detail that I will pay attention to every punctuation. The third time I will see whether there is a problem in terms of the format and whether there is some poor handwriting. (Open-​ended questionnaire) There were, however, some students in the AP group who reported that they did not check their work but simply waited until the teacher collected their compositions (four references): INTERVIEWER:  After

writing and before coming here [to the interview], what did you do? STUDENT:  Wait for you to collect my paper. Anyway, I’ve finished writing. I don’t mind if it’s right or wrong. (Interview) I’ll wait for the teacher to collect my writing. (Open-​ended questionnaire) When commenting on a classmate’s writing performance, a student explained why his classmate did not check his writing again: “He writes slowly so when he finishes he doesn’t have time to check” (interview). He also added that the student wrote very slowly to ensure that he did not make any mistake while writing (“Because he’s very careful when writing” –​interview). Thus, it was not necessary for him to check his work before submission.

5.10  Strategic knowledge: strategies for improving English writing The AP students suggested three strategies they commonly use to improve their performance in English writing, all of which are related to working hard and spending more time learning about different English writing skills. First, this group of students believe that an effective way to improve their English writing is to make reading an everyday habit. Reading more is a very popular strategy adopted by the AP students (26 references). These students often read “English articles”, “English books”, “books about English writing”, and “textbooks” so that they can “strengthen…

 65

Knowledge system of average-proficiency students  65 [their] narrative ability”, “accumulate some extra-​curricular words and sentences”, “learn from the merits of others’ writing”, and “review the exercises… [they] have done before” (open-​ended questionnaire). Apart from working hard on reading English books or books about English writing, these students believe that they should memorize more words and sentence patterns in English. Some students gave examples of useful words in English which they should remember, including “words about playing, eating, animals, plants and so on” as well as connectives such as “so” and “because” (open-​ended questionnaire). In addition, they recommended their peers to learn how to write using “beautiful sentences” (open-​ended questionnaire) even though it was not apparent in their responses what the meaning of “beautiful sentences” is. Students also suggested being meticulous in practicing more. Some students emphasized the importance of practicing English speaking outside the classroom (“practice more outside the classroom… communicate in English more”  –​open-​ended questionnaire) while others advocated “writing more… [to] learn some writing techniques” (open-​ ended questionnaire). In addition to being diligent in their study, some students reported that they used other methods to improve their English writing skills, including attending private lessons and keeping a notebook. Some students have an impression that the writing skills taught by their English teacher at school are quite basic and they would like to acquire some advanced writing skills (“You can also attend private classes to know more about writing techniques and ideas”  –​open-​ended questionnaire). Only one student mentioned that she would keep a notebook to help her revise the knowledge and concepts learned in lessons. This student keeps a notebook which documents the grammatical mistakes she has made in the semester and she reviews it before she starts writing: make immediate revisions when you make some mistakes about the change of word forms and write them down in a special notebook, which is a collection of all your mistakes. (Open-​ended questionnaire) The aforementioned strategies used by AP students to improve their English writing skills focus primarily on putting additional effort into learning and practicing but less so on developing their interest in the target language. Only one student explicitly mentioned that she would cultivate her interest in English through listening to English songs. Despite underscoring the importance of being meticulous, these

 6

66  Knowledge system of average-proficiency students students do not seem to have a clearly defined learning goal in mind. While some students repeatedly mentioned the usefulness of these strategies in “practicing your feeling for English” (open-​ended questionnaire), they did not go on to clarify what they meant by “feeling for English”, which shows that these students may not possess a very concrete conception of English writing.

 67

6  Metacognitive knowledge system of low-​proficiency students

6.1  Person knowledge: perception of English writing 6.1.1  A positive impression of English writing The analysis of the questionnaire responses of 45 low-​proficiency (LP) students indicates that the main reason why LP students perceive English writing positively is because of its instrumental value. The majority of the responses show that these students “like” English writing because it is regarded as useful. Three types of usefulness were mentioned in the students’ questionnaire responses: (1) English writing is an important part of examinations; (2)  English writing improves students’ general English abilities and specific English skills; and (3)  English writing enables students to communicate with foreigners because English is an international language. First, 30 references derived from the thematic analysis using NVivo support the fact that English writing is useful because it is an important component in examinations. Some students remarked that the English writing component is worth ten marks in the midterm examination, which is perceived by students as a “big task” (open-​ended questionnaire). In this high-​stakes examination setting, students’ performance in English writing is particularly crucial because the results will have implications for which high school they are going to attend: In English examination, English writing is also very important. If we have mastered English writing, we can definitely get ten marks. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I think English writing is very important because it is worth ten marks in Zhongkao [Senior High School Entrance Examination],

 68

68  Knowledge system of low-proficiency students and the ten marks can decide whether we can go to a good high school, so I think it’s very important. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Second, the LP students found English writing useful because it can improve their English in general as well as specific English skills and knowledge, including speaking, grammar, and sentence formation. Generally speaking, students felt that English writing is “very important because writing can improve my language ability, and can also strengthen my application of language; it can also increase my comprehension of English words” (open-​ended questionnaire). The reason why English writing can improve students’ general English ability is that writing provides an avenue for students to put into practice what they have learned in English lessons (“We can make full use of what we have learned and connect some words together to form a sentence, and combine sentences together to write in English” (open-​ended questionnaire). Specifically, the responses of the LP students underscore that English writing is conducive to improving three types of English skills and knowledge –​speaking, grammar, and sentence formation. Speaking is improved as a result of repeated English writing practices because students can practice the usage of words: [English writing] is very important because when we have mastered English writing, we can improve our oral English, then we can have a smooth communication with others. (Open-​ended questionnaire) [English] writing is a person’s oral ability. If you cannot write any words during writing and you cannot apply it, that means your oral communication is bad. So writing is important. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Besides, writing in English can develop students’ grammatical knowledge (“[English writing is] very important because English writing can improve our grammar, and can also strengthen the application of English”  –​open-​ ended questionnaire). Equally importantly, the LP students acknowledged the value of English writing in cultivating their ability to express themselves in English using a variety of sentence structures (“It [English writing] can also be a great method to improve our expression ability. If there is a kind of writing in every unit in the textbook, it can be a great summary of the sentence structures of a specific unit” –​open-​ended questionnaire).

 69

Knowledge system of low-proficiency students  69 Last but not least, this group of students emphasized the affordances of English writing as a communication tool with foreigners. A number of LP students recognized the international status of English and the importance of being able to communicate with foreigners in English on such occasions as travelling or studying abroad: It [English writing] can also help you to communicate better with foreigners. You can also publish some papers in English. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I think English writing is very important because I think English is a language, so we should practice more in our daily life, we should speak and write more. After all, English is a kind of international language. If we go abroad, we have to use English every now and then. If we cannot speak English, we may feel very embarrassed and we can make our country humiliated, let alone other things. (Open-​ended questionnaire) In addition to its perceived usefulness, the LP students valued English writing because of the influence of their teachers. Some blunt responses from the students indicate that they perceived English writing as an important language and life skill because they have to perform well to avoid being scolded by their teacher (“If our English is not good, our teacher will be very angry. So, English writing is very important” –​ open-​ ended questionnaire). In a similar vein, some students were determined to improve their English writing skills because they were concerned about the feelings of their teacher. They felt that “the teacher will also feel very relaxed when she teaches” if they become more capable English writers (open-​ended questionnaire). 6.1.2  A negative impression of English writing Quite surprisingly, very few LP students explicitly stated that they did not like English writing. Among the seven references from the data analysis which show students’ negative impression of English writing, five of them were related to the pressure of examinations while the other two were teacher-​related reasons. Despite the fact that the majority of the students identified English writing as important because it forms an important part of examinations, some students felt that the inclusion of English writing in their examinations made them feel stressed and helpless because they could not get a high mark due to their limited ability:

 70

70  Knowledge system of low-proficiency students I don’t like it [English writing] because it’s too complicated. The question is too difficult and the words are hard to understand and I can’t get a high mark every time. So my overall score will be influenced… I can’t find a way to improve my English writing. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I don’t like it [English writing] because it requires a lot of vocabulary… and the marks are strictly controlled. I cannot be careless. If I don’t pay attention to a letter or a punctuation, my marks will be deducted. (Open-​ended questionnaire) In particular, one of the responses captures the struggle and dilemma LP students face when they write in English. The following extract from a student’s questionnaire response shows that although she feels “sick” every time she attempts the English writing examination, she will try her best to complete the task because the examination is too important to her: Don’t like it [English writing] because it’s the last part of Paper B of each English examination and I  feel very nervous. Every time I  finish writing, I  only get ten marks out of the total 15 marks. Although I’m sick of it each time I think about it and don’t even want to do it, I  still write earnestly each time. This is a kind of contradictory psychology. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Another reason why some LP students disliked English writing is because of their teachers. Two of the students revealed that the personalities and teaching styles of their English teachers made them hesitant to put effort into improving their writing: Although my English is very good, my English teacher isn’t friendly to us. If I make a small mistake, my English teacher will be very angry. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I don’t like it because English is a little bit boring for me and our English teacher is a little bit bad-​tempered and so I  can’t speak English too much. Therefore I don’t care about learning English. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

 71

Knowledge system of low-proficiency students  71

6.2  Person knowledge: self-​assessment of English writing ability One of the unanticipated findings from this group of students is that quite a substantial body of LP students were of the opinion that English writing is not difficult (19 references). They found English writing not challenging because they were confident in using simple words, basic grammatical items, and different sentence structures in their writing. Besides, they were not worried about their writing performance because the length of English writing tasks is usually short. Furthermore, the topics of English writing are not difficult for the students because they are usually related to everyday life: It’s [English writing is] not so difficult because when you have mastered the basic sentence structures and most common words, then it will not be too difficult to write. (Open-​ended questionnaire) It’s [English writing is] not so difficult. After all, I  only don’t know how to write some words, or write them incorrectly and I make some mistakes in terms of prepositions. I think I’m ok in other aspects. I think, in English writing, you don’t have to spend too much time on it because the word limit is only around seventy or eighty words. (Open-​ended questionnaire) It’s [English writing is] not difficult because during junior high school, writing in English is about the accumulation of our daily life experience and the teaching of the teacher. Writing does not require a lot of techniques. We just have to pay attention to how we can get the marks, it should be ok. Writing is also a kind of expression of our emotions. We just need to express our emotions, then we have to pay attention to spelling and grammar. (Open-​ended questionnaire) As expected, other members of the group, who were regarded as less proficient English writers, found English writing difficult. In particular, they identified three challenges in writing in English: (1) writing accurate sentences (14 references); (2) having adequate vocabulary (13 references); and (3) the inability to express themselves in English (three references). To the LP students, the most challenging aspect of English writing lies in the ability to form correct sentences. Not only is accuracy

 72

72  Knowledge system of low-proficiency students important in sentence formation, but these students also recalled the reminder of their teacher concerning the importance of writing “beautiful” sentences, a term which was used by the HP students (Chapter 4) to refer to complex and compound sentences: English writing tests a lot of your knowledge. You have to consider how to construct a sentence in very correct way; you have to also consider how to make the sentence “beautiful” and whether the sentence is right. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Still [English writing is] relatively difficult because when I want to write a good sentence, it will usually be an incorrect sentence. (Open-​ended questionnaire) As well as struggling with constructing grammatically accurate sentences in English, the LP students were concerned about their lack of vocabulary, which restrains them from expressing themselves in English with clarity. Even though some of them ventured to remember some English words before doing the writing task, they still found it difficult to remember them, let alone use them in writing: When we write at home, we can look up the words in the dictionary or on the Internet so it’s not very difficult. But when you write at school, you cannot look up the words, it will be very difficult… When you’re having a test, you cannot look up the words, so it’s difficult. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I think English writing is very difficult because I cannot remember the words. I  cannot write the words, how can I  write an essay? I don’t know how to write an essay, so it’s very difficult. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Because of their lack of confidence in writing accurate sentences and using a variety of lexical items, LP students found it difficult to express their ideas vividly in English writing (“I think it’s [English writing] a little bit difficult because sometimes when I  think about writing something, I just don’t know how to express myself ” –​open-​ ended questionnaire). Even when these students attempted to use the words and sentences they had learned, their expressions would sound “unnatural”:

 73

Knowledge system of low-proficiency students  73 Sometimes it’s difficult because in the process of most writings, we cannot use English to express what we want to express because we haven’t learned enough sentence structures and some words. So sometimes we can only use what we have learned to write in a very unnatural way. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

6.3  Task knowledge: content-​related requirements The questionnaire responses and focus group interviews with the LP students revealed two areas of content-​related TK which these students focus on: ideas (18 references) and question requirements (three references). Regarding the ideas they include in their writing, the LP students emphasized the importance of not “going off topic” and trying not to “write things unimportant and irrelevant” (open-​ended questionnaire). When asked what they included in their recount writing task about a recent trip they took, some students gave very elaborate responses: There are so many things you can write in a trip. Then you can say what you did during the trip, what you saw, or what you ate. Then in the end, you could summarize what you have gained from this trip and your feeling of this trip, whether you are happy or such alike. (Interview) To write what you have seen and heard at the place. Add something that you think are innovative. For example, you can write about some special features that other places don’t have. (Interview) Although these LP students mentioned the importance of writing according to the question requirements, it is not clear from their limited responses what those requirements are. Some students simply stated that they have to check whether they have “followed all the requirements of the task” (open-​ended questionnaire) while others described in general that they have to use “the words and pictures given in the task” (open-​ ended questionnaire). However, on reading their written work, it is clear that all of the students were able to follow the question requirement and what they wrote did not deviate from the topic. Figure  6.1 shows an example written by an LP student about a school trip.

 74

74  Knowledge system of low-proficiency students

Figure 6.1 Student’s writing sample 5

6.4  Task knowledge: language-​related requirements As shown in the coding results, the LP students exhibited the highest awareness in language-​ related TK among all the other writing task requirements (44 references). Despite frequently mentioning the importance of writing with accurate language, the LP students were not able to clearly explain what the language-​related requirements are in an English writing task. The majority of the responses used the overarching term “grammar” to indicate the importance of language accuracy in an English writing task without giving examples of what “grammar” entails; others used another ambiguous term “Chinglish” to refer to a type of English which they were discouraged to use in writing without any clarification: Pay attention to whether the grammar is correct. This is very important. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

 75

Knowledge system of low-proficiency students  75 Whether there are grammatical errors. What to write next. Use accurate grammar. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Try to avoid using Chinglish, which is what our teacher said. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Try not to use Chinglish. (Open-​ended questionnaire) In the focus group interviews, when students were asked what the language requirements of the recount writing task were, they almost unanimously mentioned the importance of using the past tense to describe past events. Nevertheless, when prompted further, the LP students did not seem to possess a very comprehensive understanding of the grammatical rules related to the past tense (e.g., irregular verbs). In the following example, the five LP students struggled to give an example of a past tense verb. Eventually, they gave the same example, “was”. INTERVIEWER:  How about grammar? Anything to pay attention to? STUDENT 3:  Past tense. INTERVIEWER:  How do you understand past tense? What did the

teacher teach you? STUDENT 3:  The thing I did before. INTERVIEWER:  Can you give one example STUDENT 3: (thinking) STUDENT 4:  It was. STUDENT 5:  The trip was so STUDENT 2:  It was great. STUDENT 1:  The trip was.

from your writing?

interesting. (Interview)

The composition in Figure  6.2 shows that the LP students struggled with operationalizing their awareness of writing grammatically during writing. In this piece of writing, while the student was able to change most of the verbs to their past tense form, quite a number of the sentences formed by this student were grammatically inaccurate (the underlined parts). For instance: • Yesterday morning I went to the Beijing. • I with my family saw Tian An Men. • In the afternoon I with the guide. • Because there has so many people.

 76

76  Knowledge system of low-proficiency students

Figure 6.2 Student’s writing sample 6

6.5  Task knowledge: organization-​related requirements The importance of writing with structure and format was repeatedly mentioned by the LP students (14 references). As was the case with their understanding of language-​related TK, these students were only able to describe the organization-​related requirements of English writing in a shallow manner. Although such words as “structure” and “format” were mentioned, the LP students did not provide any explanation or elaboration as to what these refer to: Pay attention to the structure of the essay. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Whether the format is correct. (Open-​ended questionnaire) To write it clearly, in a structured and well-​ordered way. (Interview) In the focus group interviews, when asked about how they structured their recount writing, some students were able to mention the importance of paragraphing. They were able to describe an effective approach

 7

Knowledge system of low-proficiency students  77

Figure 6.3 Student’s writing sample 7

to paragraphing using the “main idea-​elaboration-​main idea” approach mentioned by some HP students in Chapter  4. Nonetheless, some acknowledged that they did not structure their writing in this way when they were completing the task: STUDENT 4:  If

I can really divide, I’ll use “main idea-​elaboration-​ main idea” structure”. INTERVIEWER:  But did you really do this? STUDENT 4:  No, because I just came up with this. STUDENT 3:  I didn’t divide into paragraphs either. (Interview) Figure 6.3 shows a piece of writing by one of the above students who understood the importance of paragraphing but failed to do it in his writing.

6.6  Task knowledge: other domains of task knowledge Quite differently from the HP and AP students, the LP students mentioned the importance of mechanics in English writing, which includes spelling, punctuation, and upper and lower cases (25 references): There are lots of words I cannot spell. (Interview)

 78

78  Knowledge system of low-proficiency students I have to use capital letters at the beginning of the sentence, and remember to use punctuations. These are all basics. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Pay attention to uppercase, lowercase and punctuations. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Like the other two groups of students, the LP students also said that it is essential to write in a legible manner (six references): and the handwriting of the composition. I’ll try my best to write it neatly. Handwriting is also an important component of your marks. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Pay attention to my handwriting. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Similar to the HP students, the LP students paid much attention to observing the word limit of the writing task (five references): Whether the number of words is enough. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Whether you have reached the word limit. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

6.7  Strategic knowledge: pre-​writing strategies The most common pre-​writing strategy adopted by this group of LP students is to “think” about what to write (27 references). The majority of these students concentrate on the content that they are going to write and the sentence structures they are going to use: I’ll think about the main idea of the composition and the contents in my heart. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I firstly thought about what the event is. Then what grammar I would use. Then thought about the verbs and adverbs. (Interview)

 79

Knowledge system of low-proficiency students  79 First I’ll think about it [the topic] and think about what and how I  should write. Think about the spelling and the use of sentence structures. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I’ll read the topic and think about the meaning behind the question, and think about the sentence structures that I should use. (Open-​ended questionnaire) The “thinking” process usually took place after the LP students read the writing question and its requirements carefully (26 references): First, I’ll read the topic and analyse the meanings behind so that I don’t write off topic. Then I’ll think about the main events in the task given and decide on the content I want to write. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I will read the requirements of the composition and then I will read the topic and think about whether I  can use the knowledge that I have learned in this composition and I will pay attention to using grammar. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Only very few students in the LP group mentioned that they would write a draft (nine references) or an outline (eight references) prior to writing. Some students found it useful to write on a draft paper first because they could check whether their thinking was right before writing on the examination paper; others preferred making an outline containing main ideas. As indicated in the third quote below, the production of a draft and outline may occasionally be used in tandem to help LP students crystalize their thinking process and write according to the question requirements: I’ll find the main idea of the composition. Then I’ll write on the draft paper first and check whether my thinking is right. Then I’ll try to revise my composition and enrich my expressions. (Open-​ended questionnaire) First draw an outline about what I should answer. Then combine the sentences then write on the paper. (Interview)

 80

80  Knowledge system of low-proficiency students First I’ll read carefully and understand the requirements of the composition and write an outline on the draft paper. Then I’ll go over the whole composition in my brain one time. If there are some changes to the word forms, I’ll write on the draft paper first and then I’ll begin to write. (Open-​ended questionnaire) In the context of a writing test or examination, quite a number of the LP students said that they would prepare well for the writing task by doing revision and reciting vocabulary and expressions. Strategically, they would memorize words and sentence structures in the past exam papers and textbooks because they are the most important: I’ll go over the past papers and see whether there are some words that I can use. Try to use the ones in the past papers. (Open-​ended questionnaire) I’ll go over the words and sentences in the textbook and the words that have been tested in the exam paper. Then I’ll recite them one more time. The key words, sentences and structures are the most important. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Remember more sentence structures and remember the important words. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

6.8  Strategic knowledge: while-​writing strategies Like the AP students, the LP students used three types of resources while they were writing: (1) technological and instructional resources; (2) human resources; and (3) personal resources. Most notably, this group of students relied most heavily on searching information online (“At home I’ll search online” –​interview) (19 references), followed by asking teachers for assistance (“Usually at school, if I encounter something or I can’t write, I’ll ask the teacher” –​interview) (13 references). Usually, students used the Internet to resolve difficulties they faced during the writing process. For instance, a student recalled her practice of looking for new vocabulary and expressions: “If I  encounter some words and sentences that I cannot write, I will search online” (open-​ended questionnaire). In one of the focus group interviews, a student shared a mobile application she used to inquire about writing-​related issues:

 81

Knowledge system of low-proficiency students  81 INTERVIEWER:  Which website will you use? STUDENT:  I usually look up on my phone,

an application called Zuoyebang [Homework Helper]. First download, then install, and click then type in what you want to search. You can also take a picture. It can automatically search the answers for you. (Interview)

When asked about how they determine the reliability of the answers they searched on the Internet or using mobile applications, these LP students did not seem to be aware of the problem that some information given online can be incorrect: STUDENT: At

home, I’ll use Baidu [a search engine] and after searching it, I’ll also try to remember the words. INTERVIEWER:  Do you believe what you have searched is right? STUDENT:  I have not thought about this. (Interview) Here is another example to show that even when some students suspected that the information provided on the Internet may be unreliable, they did not do any follow-​up work on it, such as cross-​checking the information using the textbook or asking their teacher or parents: INTERVIEWER:  Do

you think the words and sentences given by the Internet are reliable? Have you ever thought about it? STUDENT:  Sometimes the answers it gave are totally different from what we know or what we have been taught. So sometimes I’m afraid to write it down. INTERVIEWER:  What will you do? Will you check? STUDENT:  Don’t know. INTERVIEWER:  Then you don’t use the word? STUDENT: Um… (Interview) Another common while-​writing strategy used by this group of students is to approach their English teachers for help. Some students explained that they would prefer to seek help from their English teachers because teachers would not only answer their queries but also provide examples of how a word or sentence is used. Moreover, they felt that they had developed a close relationship with their teachers so that they trust their teachers’ judgment and professional advice:

 82

82  Knowledge system of low-proficiency students At school, I ask the teacher because she can help me to improve my English. Because the teacher not only tells you the spelling of the words but also the usage of the words. She can also point out the incorrect parts of your essay. (Interview) INTERVIEWER:  Which

one is more helpful? Asking the teacher in the class or using the mobile application? STUDENT: Asking the teacher in class because the mobile application is not of great help for me. After all, it’s not alive, but the teacher knows you better after almost two semesters. She knows more about your shortcomings and weaknesses to help you to correct. (Interview) Other than searching for information online and asking their English teacher, the LP students utilized other instructional resources to help them overcome difficulties in the process of writing, including checking words in a dictionary (“At home, I’ll look up in words in the dictionary”  –​interview) and referring to the textbook (“At school, I usually try to find from the textbook” –​interview). In terms of the use of human resources, these students relied heavily on the assistance of an expert other, namely parents (“At home, can ask parents and search online”  –​interview), classmates (“If at school, I’ll ask the teacher or the classmates” –​interview), and private tutors (“I also ask my private tutor. We are in the same private tutorial class”  –​interview). With respect to personal resources, taking into account their limitations, the LP students employ a range of compensatory strategies while they are writing. These strategies include replacing words they do not know with familiar words (“At school, for example, if I don’t know how to write ‘Internet’, I’ll find another way to express it”  –​interview), replacing sentences which they are unsure of with familiar ones (“If it’s an exam, I’ll try to guess or change another sentence” –​interview), and spelling a word which they forget by relying on their phonetic knowledge (“If I  can only remember a few letters of a word, then I’ll try to spell the rest of the letters according to its pronunciation”  –​interview). An interesting discovery from the data analysis is that, unlike the HP and AP students, in lieu of checking their work after they finish writing, some LP students claimed that they would proofread and revise their work during the writing process. In the following example, the students explained that they would check the use of verb tenses, capital letters, and paragraphing during the writing process:

 83

Knowledge system of low-proficiency students  83 STUDENT 3:  I’ll

see whether there are some words which I  wrote incorrectly and I’ll check this as I write, to see whether the sentence structure is incorrect. STUDENT 2:  Change some verbs into past tense. STUDENT 1:  Pay attention to capital letters, and where to end and start a new paragraph. (Interview)

6.9  Strategic knowledge: post-​writing strategies Post-​writing strategies reported by the LP students include proofreading their work (42 references), anticipating marks (two references), and erasing pencil writing (two references). Almost all the LP students professed that they would check their work once they finish writing. Specifically, they would check the accuracy of sentence formation, grammar, and content: Read the sentences and see whether they are smooth. and see where I forgot to use past tense. I changed “there” to “countryside”. (Interview) Try to avoid some Chinglish expressions like some names of places. I cannot have a clear understanding of the difference between “there are” and “there have”. They all have the same meaning and I later understand that “there have” means a person owns something and “there are” means there exists something in a place. (Interview) Read one more time and see what I can add to the content. If there is something, I’ll add. (Interview) Very few students, nevertheless, mentioned that they would proofread their work multiple times (eight references): I’ll also check a few times where the words were wrongly written. If time permits, I’ll also add some sentences I learnt outside the classroom to enrich my essay. (Interview) Check whether the sentences are smooth and whether the words I wrote are correct. Read the whole writing and see whether there are mistakes. Read it one more time and check it one more time. (Interview)

 84

84  Knowledge system of low-proficiency students In addition to strategies which aim to improve the quality of their written work, the LP students used other strategies, including reflecting on their performance by anticipating the mark they would get (“predict how many points I can get and see whether there’s a difference in marks when I get the feedback from the teacher” –​open-​ended questionnaire) and erasing writing in pencil (“I’ll use pencil to write first then I’ll use a pen. At last I’ll erase the words I  wrote using pencil  –​open-​ended questionnaire).

6.10  Strategic knowledge: strategies for improving English writing This group of LP students documented some strategies which they commonly use to improve their English writing in their daily life; these strategies can be divided into three types: working hard, developing their interest, and seeking help from their English teacher. Being meticulous is vital to LP students and the majority of them recalled their experience of improving their English writing through reading more model essays, English books, magazines, newspapers, and sentences in English (44 references), reciting and memorizing more words, sentences, and grammatical rules (29 references), and practicing writing and translating more frequently (22 references). To many of them, the most effective way to improve their English writing is to “learn English through rote-​learning” (open-​ended questionnaire). Reading more Read more full-​mark English writing to improve writing ability. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Try to read more English books or magazines. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Read more English beautiful sentences. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Read more books, read more newspapers, eat less hotpot and sleep more. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Reciting and memorizing more Remember more words and phrases at school. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

 85

Knowledge system of low-proficiency students  85 Try to copy good writing of others and try to memorize them. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Memorize more grammatical items and sentence structures. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Practicing more Practice more writing in daily life. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Translate some short Chinese essays into English. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Do more English exercises to improve your English proficiency. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Developing an interest in English seems to be another useful strategy to increase their motivation to write well. Usually, these students develop their interest in English through watching movies (“Watch more American and English movies, and cultivate your interest in English and so you can love English” –​open-​ended questionnaire) (17 references), listening to songs (“Maybe listening to more English songs can improve my writing” –​open-​ended questionnaire) (seven references), and playing games (“Maybe playing more English games can improve my English writing” –​open-​ended questionnaire) (two references). Finally, the LP students were reliant on their English teacher, with many of them reporting that asking teachers for help or being attentive in class is a useful strategy to improve their English writing in the long run (16 references). Considering the help English teachers can give to the students, the most valuable form of teacher assistance is feedback given by teachers after students finish writing. In addition, the LP students believed that paying close attention in class and doing what the teacher asks them to do are crucial ways to improve their English writing: Listen to the feedback given by the teacher and actively ask the teacher for feedback. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Write more and ask the teacher to give feedback. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

 86

86  Knowledge system of low-proficiency students Listen to the teacher carefully in class and accumulate more words, sentences and phrases. (Open-​ended questionnaire) Listen to the teacher carefully in class and try to obey what the teacher says. (Open-​ended questionnaire)

6.11  Conclusion Chapters 4 to 6 provide an overview of the MK systems of a group of EFL junior secondary students with different English proficiency levels. In the next chapter, I venture to compare and contrast the three MK systems and their components and make informed recommendations regarding the learning and teaching of EFL writing. Implications vis-​ à-​vis researching metacognition and MK of language learners will also be made.

 87

7  Comparison of metacognitive knowledge systems and implications

7.1  A summary of the metacognitive knowledge systems of high-​proficiency, average-​proficiency, and low-​proficiency students 7.1.1  Metacognitive knowledge system of high-​proficiency students Chapter 4 reports on the MK system of students who are proficient in English writing. With regards to their PK, these students hold a positive impression of English writing and they perceive it as useful and the process enjoyable and relaxing. In general, they are motivated to write in English because they feel a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction, both intellectually and emotionally, when they complete a writing task successfully. As far as their TK is concerned, this group of students seem to demonstrate a holistic understanding of the assessment requirements of English writing, including content development, grammatical accuracy, coherence and cohesion, mechanics, and range of vocabulary and sentences. In terms of their STK, they reported an impressive repertoire of strategies they employ in the various stages of writing (pre-​ writing, while-​writing, post-​writing). Two distinct features are found in the STK of students with high writing proficiency: first, when asked about the strategies they employ in the writing process, they are able to present multiple strategies (DK) and describe how the strategies can be operationalized (PRK). Additionally, some offer explanations as to why certain strategies are needed at a particular writing stage (CK). Second, in addition to strategies pertaining to the writing process, these students describe sustainable strategies they employ in their daily life to improve their English writing skills. These strategies which students use outside the classroom are closely related to their interests and are more long term. This shows that this group of students perceive improvement of English writing as a developmental process which requires a significant

 8

88  Comparison of MK systems and implications amount of time and effort to master. At the same time, they acknowledge the importance of utilizing not only their knowledge and experience, but also people and technology as learning resources. Figure 7.1 summarizes the MK system of HP students diagrammatically. 7.1.2  Metacognitive knowledge system of average-​proficiency students Chapter  5 provides a detailed description of three types of MK of a group of AP students: PK, TK, and STK. In respect of AP students’ PK, opinions are divided regarding students’ impression of English writing. While some students perceive English writing in a positive light because of the intellectual satisfaction they gain through writing and the usefulness of English writing in examinations, the workplace, and studying abroad, quite a significant number of AP students hold a negative perception towards English writing because they regard themselves as unskilled English writers. This group of students identified five challenges which they think make writing in English an unsurmountable task. These challenges pertain to grammar; vocabulary and mechanics; idea development; novelty and uniqueness of writing; and L1 interference. Some also point to the fact that English writing is less important than its Chinese counterpart in daily life. A few students, nonetheless, perceive English writing as easy because it shares a lot of similarities with Chinese writing. As far as AP students’ TK is concerned, they identify a range of expectations for English writing, which are content-​ related, language-​related, and organization-​related, although they focus predominantly on language-​ related standards (verb-​ related, noun-​ related, word-​level, and sentence-​level). As for their STK, this group of AP students report some strategies which they usually use in the three stages of writing, namely pre-​writing, while-​writing, and post-​writing (DK). In terms of PRK, these students are able to describe how they use these strategies effectively in relatively general terms instead of detailing steps they take when enacting these strategies. Finally, AP students’ CK is illustrated through their introduction of one of the while-​writing strategies, seeking help from teachers and classmates. Some students are able to make clear the conditions in which they would approach their teacher and classmates respectively. For instance, a student noted that she would usually approach her classmate prior to her teacher; however, when she has queries related to grammar, she would always seek assistance from her teacher because the teacher is perceived as the authority in the classroom. Figure 7.2 presents the MK system of AP students in a diagram.

newgenrtpdf

 89

Mechanical

Difficult

Vivid descripon

Grammar

Structure

Mechanics

Posive impression

Negave impression

Selfassessment

Content

Language

Organizaon

Others

Emoonal sasfacon

Exam pressure

On topic

Complex or compound sentences

Connecves

Handwring

Usefulness

Figure 7.1 MK system of HP students

Read queson

Outline

Pre-wring

Read model essays

Calm down

Technological & instruconal resources

Human resources

While-wring

Personal resources

General proofreading

Focused proofreading

Post-wring

Mulpleround proofreading

Self-and peer assessment

Learning beyond the classroom

Learning with a partner

General

Read, recite, remember

Comparison of MK systems and implications  89

Intellectual sasfacon

Strategic Knowledge

Task Knowledge

Person Knowledge

newgenrtpdf

 90

Strategic Knowledge

Task Knowledge

Intellectual sasfacon

Low selfconcept

Not difficult

Queson requirements

Word-level

Paragraphing

Posive impression

Negave impression

Selfassessment

Content

Language

Organizaon

Others

Usefulness

Low importance of English wring

Difficult

Sentence-level

Connecves

Handwring

Figure 7.2 MK system of AP students

Mechanics

Vocabulary

Think

Dra‡/outline

Technological & instruconal resources

Human resources

Pre-wring

While-wring

Revise

Personal resources

General proofreading

Focused proofreading

Post-wring

Mulpleround proofreading

Do nothing

A’end private lessons

Read, recite, pracce

General

Keep a notebook

90  Comparison of MK systems and implications

Person Knowledge

 91

Comparison of MK systems and implications  91 7.1.3  Metacognitive knowledge system of low-​proficiency students Chapter 6 describes the three knowledge types of the LP students in their MK system: PK, TK, and STK. The PK of the LP students shows that the majority of the students perceive English writing as useful because it plays a determining role in examinations, improves students’ general English ability, and empowers students to communicate with foreigners using an international language. Some students also mention the influence of their English teacher as a reason for having a positive impression of English writing. On the other hand, a few students report having a negative feeling about English writing. Among these students, they struggle with the pressure of English writing examinations while finding their teachers’ personality discouraging and their teaching style uninspiring. When the LP students are asked to evaluate their own English writing ability, it is surprising to see that many of them view English writing as not difficult, while some are troubled by their dearth of sentence patterns and vocabulary which makes expressing ideas in English difficult. In respect of the LP students’ TK, these students focus predominately on the language-​related requirements although the majority of their responses are fraught with ill-​defined expressions such as “grammar” and “Chinglish”. This group of students also pay attention to content requirements in English writing, especially the importance of not writing off topic. Additionally, organization-​related requirements are mentioned by the LP students, focusing on writing with a clear structure and format despite a lack of clear explanation of the latter. Other requirements in an English writing task, including spelling, punctuation, and upper and lower cases, are discussed by the students. Strategy-​wise, LP students mostly “think” about what to write prior to writing, with very few of them claiming that they would write an outline or a draft. During the writing process, they make use of a range of technological, human, and personal resources to overcome challenges. Most notably, these students search for information on the Internet or learning applications on mobile phones without being aware of the reliability of the information they receive. Another typical while-​writing strategy used by these students is to ask their English teacher questions and be attentive in class. After they finish their writing, almost every LP student would check their work, while a few of them would predict their marks and erase their pencil marking on the paper. Generally speaking, the LP students recommend several ways to improve their English writing in their daily life, which include working hard, developing their interest, and asking for teacher feedback. A quick review of the strategies mentioned by the LP students reveals that these students focus mostly on the declarative facet of STK

 92

92  Comparison of MK systems and implications but not the procedural and conditional because they do not describe the specific steps they took when enacting the strategies and fail to discuss the suitability of the strategies in different scenarios. Figure 7.3 illustrates the MK system of LP students.

7.2  Comparison of metacognitive knowledge systems of high-​proficiency, average-​proficiency, and low-​proficiency students 7.2.1  Comparison of person knowledge of high-​proficiency, average-​proficiency, and low-​proficiency students All three groups of students perceive English writing as a positive skillset because they regard English writing as useful. HP, AP, and LP students hold the belief that English writing is useful in different ways: for improving their English proficiency in general, for performing better in national and international English tests and examinations, and for communicating with foreigners. Nevertheless, only HP and AP students hold the perception that English writing is useful in the workplace, especially when they work in foreign corporations. Moreover, HP and AP students like English writing because it gives them intellectual satisfaction. HP students regard English writing as an intellectually stimulating and rewarding learning opportunity; even though they acknowledge the challenges they may face in the process of excelling in English writing, they demonstrate readiness to overcome these difficulties. Some of them even describe the challenges as exciting and rewarding. Another intellectual satisfaction for both HP and AP students is that English writing provides a channel for them to express their ideas. For the AP students, English writing is intellectually rewarding because it can consolidate their understanding and knowledge of English. The HP students are the only group of students who report that they find the English writing process emotionally satisfying. These students describe English writing as enjoyable, interesting, and relaxing because they find English writing less restrictive than Chinese writing and the former allows more flexibility and freedom in what they write and how they write. A finding particular to LP students is that some of them claim to like English writing because of their English teachers. Some say that they are “forced” to like English writing because of their demanding English teachers; others are more compassionate to their teachers and want to perform better in writing to lessen the teachers’ burden. Some HP, AP, and LP students point out that they are negative towards writing in English for a number of reasons. Specifically, both

newgenrtpdf

 93

Usefulness

Exam pressure

Not difficult

Ideas

Grammar

Structure

Spelling

Posive impression

Negave impression

Selfassessment

Content

Language

Organizaon

Others

Influence of teacher

Teacher’s style and personality

Difficult

Requirements

Chinglish

Format

Punctuaon, upper and lower case

Figure 7.3 MK system of LP students

Think

Dra‡/outline

Technological & instruconal resources

Human resources

Proofread

Predict marks

Develop interest

Read, recite, pracce

Pre-wring

While-wring

Post-wring

General

Revise

Personal resources

Erase pencil wring

Seek teacher feedback

Comparison of MK systems and implications  93

Strategic Knowledge

Task Knowledge

Person Knowledge

 94

94  Comparison of MK systems and implications HP and LP students feel that they are under a lot of pressure because of the high-​stakes school and national examinations. Despite enjoying the process of writing in English, these students state that it is difficult for them to perform well in these examinations and English writing is one of the papers with a heavy weighting. Each group of students has their own reasons why they find English writing such an unpleasant experience. A few of the HP students reveal that they dislike the mechanical way of learning how to write in English, including reciting sentences, while LP students are influenced by the teaching styles and personalities of their English teachers. Some of them profess that the lessons by their teachers are boring and their teachers are unkind. As for the AP students, they report two different reasons why they dislike writing in English. First, they have a low self-​concept and think that they are not capable of writing well in English. Second, they ascribe low importance to writing in English because English writing is not as important as Chinese writing in their daily life. Regarding their self-​assessment of their ability to write in English, it is interesting to find that HP students find English writing difficult despite the fact that they are relatively more competent writers. Although both AP and LP students have a divided opinion towards whether English writing is difficult, a surprising finding is that the majority of the LP students think that English writing is not difficult. A  possible explanation why all HP students regard English writing as an insurmountable task is because of their focus on using advanced vocabulary items and sentence structures. Moreover, from the findings in Chapter 4, it is clear that HP students set an ambitious goal of writing error-​free compositions in English. In contrast, most of the LP students do not view English writing as a major obstacle because they set a much lower goal for themselves, that is, to complete the writing task using simple words and basic grammatical items. Rather than to improve the quality of their English writing, the emphasis of the LP students is to fulfil the minimum requirement of the writing task, most notably the word limit. 7.2.2  Comparison of task knowledge of high-​proficiency, average-​proficiency, and low-​proficiency students In terms of the content-​related requirements of English writing, the HP, AP, and LP students mention the importance of writing in accordance with the question requirements and of not derailing from the topic. Nevertheless, the three groups of students show different degrees of understanding vis-​ à-​ vis what question requirements entail. When discussing the question requirements of the recount writing task they

 95

Comparison of MK systems and implications  95 completed, only the HP students are able to explain specifically that they have to include vivid description of events and feelings. On the other hand, the AP and LP students show a more limited understanding of question requirements. Although the AP students state that they have to write following the topic, there is no consensus during some of the interviews as to what the topic requires students to write (e.g., whether students need to include their feelings). Like the AP students, the LP students simply articulate the importance of not including ideas which are irrelevant, without giving examples of what ideas are regarded as relevant and irrelevant. With regards to language-​related requirements in English writing, the three groups of students are able to assert that grammatical accuracy is of utmost importance. Yet the depth of understanding of the notion of grammatical accuracy differs among the three groups. While both the HP and AP students are able to give examples of grammatical items such as verb tenses, verb forms, third-​person singular, collocations, and singular and plural nouns, the AP students focus mostly on word-​level grammatical items while the HP students describe both word-​level and sentence-​level grammatical items. In Chapter 4, the latter expound that it is crucial to use a range of sentence structures, especially compound or complex sentences. Some AP students also mention the importance of constructing accurate sentence structures but they fail to define what sentence structures mean. Moreover, in the focus group interviews with the AP students, their discussion on language-​ related requirements in English writing centers around the use of the past tense but not sentence structures. As for the LP students, while they manage to mention the importance of paying attention to grammar and avoiding Chinglish, they fail to offer a concrete definition of what they mean by “grammar” and “Chinglish”, which is used by this group of students as an ambiguous umbrella term to mean “language”. Organization-​wise, all three groups of students discuss how essential it is to structure their writing in English. While the HP and AP students give an example of how they would divide their writing into three parts to include a beginning, a body, and an ending, LP students are less successful in their attempts to give an example of what a typical structure looks like in English writing. Despite mentioning the three-​ part structure, some in the interviews acknowledge that this structure is not used in their recount writing task. Moreover, only the HP and AP students mention the use of connectives as a cohesive device to improve cohesion and transition between sentences and paragraphs. In particular, these two groups of students are able to give a variety of time markers which they used when completing the recount writing task.

 96

96  Comparison of MK systems and implications Student participants, regardless of their English proficiency levels, report additional TK for English writing. The most common requirement mentioned by all three groups of students is mechanics, which includes spelling words correctly, using punctuations accurately, and writing in upper and lower cases appropriately. Both HP and AP students raise the importance of having neat handwriting whilst only the AP students refer to the necessity to pay attention to word choice. Specifically, these students acknowledge that it is vital to use accurate words to describe actions and events in English writing. 7.2.3  Comparison of strategic knowledge of high-​proficiency, average-​proficiency, and low-​proficiency students Before beginning the writing process, the three groups of students employ a range of strategies. The HP, AP, and LP students all mention that they would write a draft or an outline prior to writing which could help them think about the logic, key words, and structure of their writing. However, compared with the HP and AP students, only a very few LP students claim that they would adopt such a strategy. In a similar vein, all three groups of students describe what preparation they would do before the writing task. Both AP and LP students would memorize ideas and words learned from passages they read in their English lessons or from past exam papers; on the contrary, the HP students would study and analyze model essays to imitate the good features in the writing exemplars. Both AP and LP students report that they would think about what the question requirements are, what they would write, and whether what they plan to write aligns with the writing topics. A  unique pre-​ writing strategy adopted by HP students is that they would help themselves to calm down and stay focused. They believe that having peace of mind would enable them to think clearly and critically. Concerning the three aspects of STK, all three groups of students demonstrate a similar understanding of DK in that they are able to list out similar strategies used before writing in English. HP and AP students seem to demonstrate a higher understanding of PRK because they are able to provide details related to how they enact a particular strategy. For instance, when describing how they would write their outline, the HP students report that they would put down key words and important information while the AP students would include tips and strategies to remind themselves during writing. In stark contrast, the LP students who claim that they have written an outline before writing fail to mention what elements they would include in their outlines. As far as CK is concerned, it is difficult to gauge the CK of the three groups of students because

 97

Comparison of MK systems and implications  97 none of them mentioned explicitly the specific conditions in which they would employ a particular strategy. For instance, the AP students do not make clear when they will create a mental outline and when they will draw one. In terms of while-​writing strategies, students with different English proficiency levels introduce a range of ways to help them overcome difficulties they face in the process of writing. These strategies can be divided into three types: human resources (e.g., asking teacher, classmates, parents, private tutors), technological and instructional resources (e.g., searching online, using mobile applications, checking a dictionary), and personal resources (e.g., compensatory strategies, monitoring strategies). Despite the similarities shown in the types of strategies employed by the three groups of students, there are some noted differences. With regards to human resources, HP students seldom approach others for help although they would seek help from their teacher, peers, and family members. More AP students would seek help from their teacher, classmates, and parents; however, some of them are quite hesitant about asking their teacher questions because they feel embarrassed to do so. On the contrary, the majority of the LP students prefer to approach their English teacher for help because the teacher can give a detailed response to their queries. As shown in Chapter  6, this group of students trust their teacher’s judgment and professional advice more than the other two groups. The second type of while-​writing strategies are related to technology and instructional materials. All three groups of students are skillful at searching for information on the Internet or using mobile applications. One of the popular websites which all of the students visit is Baidu, which provides translation from Chinese to English. Additional technological resources used by AP students include social networking applications such as WeChat to ask their classmates questions. Other instructional materials referred to by all three groups of students include textbooks and exercises. As for personal resources, while all three groups of students report using a range of compensatory strategies, including replacing difficult words with simple and familiar words, monitoring strategies are used by HP and LP students. In an examination setting, HP students would monitor the time, their writing speed, and the diversity of sentence patterns used. On the other hand, LP students would check their work frequently even before they finish writing. Delving into the three facets of STK, the DK of the three groups of students is identical when it comes to mobilizing human and technological resources because they would approach different groups of people and utilize various resources to solve writing problems. However, HP students seem to demonstrate a more advanced

 98

98  Comparison of MK systems and implications DK in terms of personal resources because they not only employ a range of compensatory strategies like the other groups, but also monitor their writing progress and the range of language features used. As far as PRK is concerned, the three groups of students exhibit a similar level of understanding because they are able to describe the steps involved in utilizing a specific strategy. Nevertheless, when it comes to the usage of technological resources, HP and AP students seem to be more apt than LP students. The former are able to describe the additional steps they take to ensure the accuracy of the information they receive from online sources (e.g., through cross-​checking unknown English words in a dictionary); conversely, when asked about what steps are taken to ensure accuracy of online information, LP students respond honestly that they have not perceived accuracy as an issue. CK-​wise, in their responses, HP and AP students are able describe the priority in which they use the strategies. For example, HP students give an account of how they would first approach their classmates for answers. Only when the answers provided by their peers are ambiguous would they seek help from their English teacher. Similarly, AP students report that they would often refer to the textbook prior to consulting their teacher. Chapters  4 to 6 document an array of post-​writing strategies used by the three groups of EFL junior secondary learners. The prevalent strategy adopted by all students is proofreading. All three groups of students report that they would proofread their work generally to identify grammatical errors, improve choice of words, or enrich content. In addition to general proofreading, HP and AP students utilize two other strategies of proofreading: focused proofreading and multiple-​round proofreading. In focused proofreading, the students focus on a particular requirement of English writing when checking their work (e.g., relevance of ideas). In multiple-​round proofreading, these two groups of students check their work two to three times, with each time focusing on an area of writing. Distinctive strategies used by the three types of students include conducting self-​and peer assessment for HP students, and predicting marks and erasing pencil marking for LP students. A  number of AP students also claim that they would do nothing after finishing writing. Regarding the DK, PRK, and CK of the three groups of students, HP and AP students show a more sophisticated understanding of the three types of knowledge because they are able to describe different types of proofreading approaches in detail, while very few LP students are able to describe how they conduct proofreading after they finish writing and what they focus on when checking their work. Additionally, HP and AP students are able to specify how they decide to use a particular proofreading approach. For example, some

 9

Comparison of MK systems and implications  99 students mention that they would proofread their work multiple times to make the check more thorough and precise when the writing task is not done in a timed setting, such as during an examination. General strategies students adopt to improve their performance in English writing are characterized by the prevalence of hard work and rote learning. All three groups of students report using rote-​learning strategies including reading more, reciting more, and practicing more. These students would read textbooks, books about English writing, fiction, newspapers, and articles to improve their writing. In the process of reading, they would memorize useful words and phrases which they can recycle in their own writing. Both HP and LP students focus on the cultivation of interest in English and English writing through watching English movies, listening to English songs, and even playing games. At the same time, there are strategies representative of each ability group. First, HP students describe their experience of learning with a partner so that they can exchange their compositions and give comments to each other. Second, AP students would attend private lessons to gain additional knowledge and skills about English writing. Some also suggest keeping a notebook which helps facilitate the revision process. Lastly, LP students would actively seek the teacher’s feedback after completing each writing task and be more attentive in lessons, which is in alignment with their more teacher-​reliant behavior in the previous sections. The DK of the three groups of students is at a similar level because all of them are experienced at incorporating different types of strategies in their daily life to improve their English writing, despite the fact that the strategies used by AP students are more focused on working hard and memorizing information. Having said that, the findings suggest that HP and AP students demonstrate a higher level of PRK. For instance, HP students are able to point out what specifically they would do when reading model essays. One student recommends reading model essays with more experienced others so as to obtain feedback from them on the essays. As for the AP students, they manage to spell out the types of words which they would memorize, such as words about eating, animals, plants, and playing. Finally, similar to the situation with PRK, the CK of HP and AP students exhibits more depth because they are able to articulate why a particular strategy is used. HP students, for example, point to the fact that they would read sample essays to learn more about advanced sentence structures and they would watch more English movies and listen to English songs to develop their confidence in English and their vocabulary. In a similar fashion, AP students mention that keeping a notebook is a preferred strategy when they would like to review their errors. To improve their narrative ability, AP students would read novels and articles in English.

 10

100  Comparison of MK systems and implications

7.3  Pedagogical and theoretical implications From the analysis of the characteristics of the MK systems of the HP, AP, and LP students above, it is noted that LP students differ from HP and AP students in terms of their PK because the former mostly perceive English writing as instrumental to academic success and fail to acknowledge its relevance to real-​world situations. As for TK, LP students are only able to describe a limited range of task requirements of English writing, focusing predominantly on grammar. Lastly, in relation to STK, LP students exhibit an overt reliance on teachers’ support and feedback as well as demonstrating a less sophisticated understanding of how and when a strategy should be used to mitigate problems in the process of writing. In view of the above, I put forward an approach to writing instruction for young EFL learners which I term “exemplar-​based writing instruction” (Chong, 2019), which complements the more traditional approaches to EFL writing instruction, namely a product approach (Badger & White, 2000), a process approach (Pennington, Brock, & Yue, 1996), and a genre approach (Hyland, 2007). “Exemplar-​based writing instruction” (EWI) is defined as teachers’ purposeful and strategic use of writing samples (exemplars) of various levels, often produced by learners, to illustrate dimensions of assessment standards as well as to develop learners’ understanding of quality. While some may argue that writing exemplars are commonly used in the three traditional approaches of writing (e.g., as model essays), the purpose of using writing exemplars in EWI is to provide students with a concrete understanding of assessment standards and, thus, students’ evaluative judgment can be developed (Tai, Ajjawi, Boud, Dawson, & Panadero, 2018). A concrete understanding of writing assessment standards is important to students who have to attend high-​stakes language examinations such as IELTS and TOEFL. As for the group of EFL young learners in my study, they report facing immense examination pressure when they write because English writing is a crucial component in their school and national examinations. Notwithstanding, the standards of these high-​stakes language tests are often expressed in opaque statements filled with abstract words and linguistic jargon in English, making it impossible for young learners to understand the assessment requirements. In fact, assessment standards are regarded as a kind of tacit knowledge (Sadler, 2010) which can hardly be articulated clearly through writing and speaking; it is proposed that the best way to develop such tacit knowledge is through “two developmental stages: a stage of ‘systematic exploration’ of ‘examples’ of such knowledge or understanding using dialogic and reflective tasks and a stage where students gradually construct their own ‘interpretative framework’ about the knowledge” (Chong, 2019, pp.  752–​753; Polanyi, 1958; 1962). In

 10

Comparison of MK systems and implications  101 addition to developing students’ understanding of assessment standards, it is equally essential to cultivate students’ evaluative judgment, which is defined by Tai et al. (2018) as “the capability to make decisions about the quality of work of oneself and others” (p. 467), a lifelong learning skill which is essential not only in learning but in the workplace. When using exemplars, it is suggested in the literature that the most effective approach is to engage students in assessment dialogues in which students and their teacher exchange views on the exemplars in relation to a rubric (Carless & Chan, 2017). Through co-​constructing assessment dialogues with their teacher, students begin to appreciate and recognize the active role they play in the assessment and feedback process –​a benefit which is reminiscent of engaging students in peer assessment (Chong, 2017). While the notion of using exemplars to develop students’ understanding of standards germinates from the higher education assessment literature (O’Donovan, Price, & Rust, 2008), the approach of EWI described here is fine-​tuned to suit the readiness and needs of young EFL learners. The following example of using EWI in junior secondary English classrooms is based on a teacher workshop which I facilitated for the English teachers at the school where I conducted this study. This example is based on a writing question used by the school: In the PE lesson last week, there was a student who broke his leg when playing basketball. This had led to a renewed awareness of PE lesson safety in the school. Your teacher has asked you to discuss about this. Using the topic “How to keep safe in PE class”, write a speech in approximately 80 words. In the workshop, I introduced three steps for EFL secondary teachers to develop teaching materials using an EWI approach: (1) develop a rubric; (2) collect and/​or write up exemplars to illustrate dimensions of quality; and (3) design evaluative and dialogic tasks based on the exemplars. 7.3.1  Developing a rubric Broadly speaking, there are two types of writing rubrics: holistic and analytic rubrics. While holistic scales provide a general description of writing performance of learners distinguished by scores or levels, analytic rubrics aim to compartmentalize writing performance into different domains or categories (e.g., content, language, organization, mechanics) (Knoch, 2017). It is advised that analytic writing rubrics be developed for effective implementation of EWI because they enable

 102

102  Comparison of MK systems and implications a more fine-​grained and systematic understanding of different facets of assessment standards by the students. By using an analytic writing rubric, it is also easier for the teacher to select suitable writing exemplars to illustrate a specific standard; it is often difficult, if not impossible, to choose a writing exemplar which exemplifies good qualities in all areas of writing. Besides, teachers are advised to modify the rubric based on the language proficiency levels of their students. For example, in an EFL primary or junior secondary school context, it is preferred that the rubric be simplified or written in simple English or even in the learners’ first language so that language does not become a barrier when students use the rubric to evaluate writing exemplars. Figure 7.4 is an example Assessment domain

Descriptor

Content

Relevance of content: the content in the speech is related to the topic of “safety in PE classes” and includes (1) some safety problems students encounter during PE classes (their reasons, description of an experience, and consequences) and (2) some suggestions for avoiding these problems. Logical development of ideas: students should start their speech by identifying the problems faced by students in PE classes before providing solutions. Examples/​descriptions should be included, whenever appropriate. Students are able to use the past tense when recounting what happened. Students are able to use basic connectives to increase clarity of their suggestions. Students are able to use modal verbs when giving suggestions. Students demonstrate the ability to use a range of common and more sophisticated vocabulary related to the writing topic. Speech: start with greetings, include a hook, use first-​person and second-​person pronouns, end with a “thank you”. Purpose: propose suggestions to avoid safety problems in PE classes. Writer identity: a student. Tone: caring, empathetic, informative. Students are able to spell thematically related words (i.e. health and first aid) correctly. Students are able to use question marks, periods, and commas correctly. Write at least 80 words.

Language

Vocabulary Genre and structure

Spelling and punctuation

Length

Figure 7.4 An analytic writing rubric co-​developed with the teachers

 103

Comparison of MK systems and implications  103 of an analytic writing rubric which I developed with the EFL teachers during the workshop for the writing question on p. 101. 7.3.2  Collecting and/​or writing up exemplars to illustrate dimensions of quality In contrast to the use of writing samples as models in the traditional approaches to writing instruction, advocates of EWI believe in the value of showcasing writing exemplars of different levels of achievement; the discussion of mediocre and outstanding writing exemplars with students can develop their understanding of assessment standards across the continuum of quality. For outstanding writing exemplars, since it is sometimes difficult to find one by students which embodies good features (especially in the context of EFL junior secondary schools), the teacher can either write it him/​ herself or use the model essay provided in the textbook. As for the mediocre writing exemplars, they can be selected from a piece by one of the students in the class or by students from the previous cohort. In either case, it is important to remove any identifiers to protect the privacy of the student. 7.3.3  Designing evaluative and dialogic tasks based on the exemplars This stage is informed by a task-​based approach to language teaching (TBLT). In TBLT, a “task” is defined as a purposeful activity which requires learners to utilize the target language (in this case, English) with a primary focus on meaning and communication, usually with teacher input (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Ellis, 2009; Nunan, 1991). On the instructional level, the innovative practices of ESL and EFL teachers incorporating TBLT into their own classrooms are well-​ documented in TBLT research (Carless, 2007; 2009; González-​Lloret & Nielson, 2015). In primary schools, Carless (2004) reports how three English teachers in Hong Kong employ a range of pedagogical tasks in their speaking classes, including “an open pair work dialogue” between the teacher and the class (Carless, 2004, p. 649), “teacher-​fronted, whole class discussion” (ibid., p.  51), and a group drawing activity which focuses on descriptive language. Focusing on young children, Shintani (2014) describes how TBLT is adopted in the English classes in her own private language school in Japan. With single vocabulary as its language focus, the task described in the article is a “listen-​and-​do” task in which students do certain actions to show their understanding of the teachers’

 104

104  Comparison of MK systems and implications instructions. In the secondary school context, the teacher participants in Carless’ (2009) study describe a “pedagogical task” which integrates speaking and writing skills. In the task, students are asked to conduct a questionnaire on the favorite foods of their schoolmates. In groups, they then present their findings orally in a presentation and write a report on it. Below is the task sequence I introduced to the English teachers in the teacher training workshop which prepares students to understand the assessment standards of writing a speech on the topic “How to keep safe in PE class”: Materials to be distributed to students: an assessment rubric (simplified and/​ or in learners’ L1), a “good” exemplar (don’t tell students it is a good one), a “mediocre” exemplar (don’t tell students it is not a very good one). Task 1: Ask students to read and try to understand the rubric by highlighting some words they think are important. Task 2: Students read the “good” exemplar and highlight elements they like and dislike using two colors. Task 3: Students sit in groups to discuss what they like and dislike about the “good” exemplar. While students are discussing, the teacher roams around the classroom to facilitate their discussions by (1)  asking students to give reasons to support their claims; (2)  reminding students to refer to the rubric when evaluating the exemplar; and (3) requiring students to refer to a specific portion of the exemplar when giving their opinions (e.g., a word, a phrase, a sentence, a paragraph). Task 4: Students present their collective viewpoint in groups. The teacher writes down students’ opinions on the blackboard. The teacher should refrain from giving his/​her views at this point. Task 5: Students read the “mediocre” exemplar and repeat Tasks 2–​4. The teacher may want to regroup the students so that students can listen to opinions from different students. Task 6: The teacher explains the key words in the rubric to the students. The teacher evaluates and compares the two

 105

Comparison of MK systems and implications  105 exemplars in front of the students. At this point, it is important for the teacher to: • focus on not only the presence or absence of certain elements, but their quality; • always give reasons and refer to the students’ opinions when giving his/​her opinion; • consolidate declarative knowledge of students (e.g., some grammar concepts, useful vocabulary, phrases); and • remind students not to copy from the exemplars and emphasize that these exemplars are examples but not model compositions.

7.3.4  Developing EFL young learners’ metacognitive knowledge system through EWI EWI has the potential to develop PK, TK, and STK of EFL young learners with different language proficiency levels. First, students’ PK can be developed. All three groups of students (HP, AP, LP) in the study claim that they suffer from examination pressure because they do not understand the assessment standards and they have low self-​ concept regarding their ability to write in English. Through the analysis of writing exemplars, students can develop a much more solid understanding of examination requirements and their confidence can be built through giving feedback to written work produced by the teacher, the publisher, and their peers. EWI has direct relevance to the development of students’ TK because it provides a comprehensive and concrete understanding of assessment standards through the evaluation of examples at different levels. In particular, EWI is especially useful in developing TK of LP students because, according to the findings, this group of students possess a very shallow understanding of the different requirements of writing in English; most of them mention the importance of grammar and the danger of writing in Chinglish without a clear conception of “grammar” and “Chinglish”. Through showing students examples of different grammatical features and characteristics of Chinglish, students will be empowered to utilize a range of grammatical features accurately and minimize L1 interference.

 106

106  Comparison of MK systems and implications As for STK, through an improved ability to evaluate or judge quality of written work, students are in a better position to devise relevant strategies to overcome challenges they face in the process of writing. For instance, students in the study report that they would refer to model essays, textbooks, exercises, the Internet, or mobile applications to look for additional information while writing; with the introduction of annotated exemplars and writing rubrics, students become more resourceful when searching for information and examples during writing, especially information which is directly related to the assessment requirements. Another example concerns post-​writing strategies. One of the most commonly used post-​writing strategies is proofreading. While some students report that they proofread their work several times, with each focusing on a particular aspect of writing, others regard their proofreading strategy as general because they fail to discern the areas which are important in the assessment. With a better understanding of assessment standards (e.g., the use of modal verbs in the example above), their proofreading strategy can be more focused. To strengthen the DK, PRK, and CK of students’ STK, teachers can teach the related language-​learning strategies (LLS) and test-​taking strategies (TTS) through the identification of problems and weaknesses in the exemplars using strategies-​ based instruction (Oxford, 1990), which refers to the explicit teaching on the DK (the what), PK (the how), and CK (the when and why) of a set of predetermined LLS and TTS. Examples of LLS include memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, and social strategies (for a comprehensive discussion of LLS, refer to Oxford, 1990). With respect to TTS, three types of strategies are identified by Xu and Wu (2012, p. 176): •

• •

Language Learner Strategies: The ways that learners operationalize their basic skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing, as well as the related skills of vocabulary learning, grammar, and translation. Test-​management Strategies: Strategies for meaningfully responding to testing tasks. Test-​wiseness Strategies: Learners’ capacity to take advantage of the characteristics and formats of the test to achieve a high score.

7.3.5  Theoretical implications The present study contributes to research on MK in learning how to write in English, especially in the EFL junior secondary context. Despite

 107

Comparison of MK systems and implications  107 the confirmation by Schoonen et al. (2003) about the possession of deep MK as one of the indicators of successful EFL writers, most of the studies focus on MK systems of EFL learners in language skills other than writing (e.g., reading in Dabarera et  al., 2014; listening in Goh, 2008; speaking in Tan & Tan, 2010). Moreover, most of the studies conducted in the area of S/​FL writing focus on university students (Chenoweth & Hayes, 2001; Victori, 1999). In studies which focus on the MK system of young language learners, only a few focused on the three types of MK, namely PK, TK, and STK. For example, in the study by Raphael, Englert, and Kirschner (1989) on 140 fifth and sixth graders, they only examined students’ TK (which is termed declarative knowledge) and STK (which is termed procedural and conditional knowledge) before, during, and after an intervention program. The findings of the present study resemble some of the findings reported in earlier studies. For instance, the present study supports Victori’s (1999) study focusing on four undergraduate students in Spain which found that more successful EFL writers had a more comprehensive and complex understanding of their own writing problems (PK), the requirements of writing tasks (TK), and their ways of attending to challenges they face in different stages of writing (STK). Nevertheless, this study also sheds new light on MK systems, specifically for young EFL learners with different English proficiency levels. For instance, it is prevalent across the three ability groups that they face immense pressure in English writing because of the high-​ stakes language assessment locally and nationally and the majority of them perceive their ability at writing in English as low because they cannot attain a high score in the examination (PK). Besides, their understanding of writing requirements is more or less identical (despite the difference in depth) because their source of knowledge is from their teacher. Unlike the university EFL writers in the study by Victori (1999), there is a lack of personalized view on the task requirements of English writing. Furthermore, these students, particularly the LP students, regard their English teacher as one of the major human resources which they would rely on in the while-​writing stage (STK). The contributions of the present study are twofold. First, after reviewing prevailing models of MK (see Chapter 2), it presents a more holistic conceptual framework of MK. The introduction of a holistic conceptual framework is conducive to future research on MK. Future qualitative studies on MK can adopt this framework as an analytical lens to guide their thematic analysis. This MK framework is also likely to inform the development of surveys in quantitative studies on MK, especially in providing evidence for construct validity. Second, the findings from this phenomenological study of a group of EFL young writers in

 108

108  Comparison of MK systems and implications China provide ecological validity to the proposed MK framework and throw new light on the MK systems of young language learners with diverse language abilities and possible pedagogical interventions which can be adopted by EFL writing teachers. Two possible research directions are suggested based on the findings of this study. First, adopting an ecological approach to language learning, longitudinal and ethnographic studies can be conducted to trace the development of MK systems of EFL learners across several years (e.g., from junior secondary to senior secondary) to identify similarities and differences in their MK systems, as well as to unravel personal and contextual factors which affect such development or changes (van Lier, 2004). Second, adopting a quasi-​ experimental research design, mixed methods studies can be conducted to examine the effectiveness of writing programs developed to cultivate MK of young EFL learners, such as an EWI writing program.

 109

References

Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153–​160. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–​101. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-​regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–​116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. New York: Routledge. Carless, D. (2004). Issues in teachers’ reinterpretation of a task-​based innovation in primary schools. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 639–​662. Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-​based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System, 35(4), 595–​608. Carless, D. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT versus PPP debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 19,  49–​66. Carless, D., & Chan, K. K.  H. (2017). Managing dialogic use of exemplars. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 930–​941. Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18(1),  80–​98. Chong, I. (2017). How students’ ability levels influence the relevance and accuracy of their feedback to peers: A case study. Assessing Writing, 31,  13–​23. Chong, S. W. (2018). Three paradigms of classroom assessment: Implications for written feedback research. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(4), 330–​347. Chong, S. W. (2019). The use of exemplars in English writing classrooms: From theory to practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5), 748–​763. Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 10

110  References Connole, H., Smith, B., & Wiseman, R. (1993). Issues and methods in research: Study guide. Adelaide, South Australia: University of South Australia. Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System, 42, 462–​473. Deng, L., Chen, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Developing EFL learners’ generic competence in reading and writing: A process genre approach. In L. Deng, Q. Chen, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Developing Chinese EFL learners’ generic competence (pp. 31–​50). Switzerland: Springer. Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-​regulation, and self-​regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391–​409. Dollah, S., Abduh, A., & Rosmaladewi, M. (2017). Benefits and drawbacks of NVivo QSR application. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Education, Science, and Technology. Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York: Routledge. Ellis, A. K., Denton, D. W., & Bond, J. B. (2014). An analysis of research on metacognitive teaching strategies. Procedia-​Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4015–​4024. Ellis, R. (2009). Task-​ based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–​246. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–​developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–​911. Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–​445. Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: Theory, practice and research implications. RELC Journal, 39(2), 188–​213. Goh, C., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal, 60(3), 222–​232. González-​Lloret, M., & Nielson, K. B. (2015). Evaluating TBLT: The case of a task-​based Spanish program. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 525–​549. Hacker, D. J., Keener, M. C., & Kircher, J. C. (2009). Writing is applied metacognition. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 154–​172). Abingdon: Routledge. Hadley, G. (2017). Grounded theory in applied linguistics research: A practical guide. New York: Routledge. Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148–​164. Inaba, M. (2019). Second language literacy practices and language learning outside the classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kim, S. H. (2013). Metacognitive knowledge in second language writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

 1

References  111 Knoch, U. (2017). What can pronunciation researchers learn from research into second language writing. In T. Isaacs & P. Trofimovich (Eds.), Second language pronunciation assessment: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 54–​71). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Knospe, Y. (2018). Metacognitive knowledge about writing in a foreign language: A case study. In A. Haukås, C. Bjørke, & M. Dypedahl (Eds.), Metacognition in language learning and teaching (pp. 121–​138). New York: Routledge. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–​232. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178–​181. Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary school. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17,  69–​85. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-​Hall. Li, J., & Ka, C. (2012). Assessing the roles of metacognitive knowledge and vocabulary size in EFL reading comprehension. Journal of Asia TEFL, 9(4),  1–​26. Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-​by-​step guide for learning and teaching scholars. AISHE-​J: All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 9(3), 3351–​33514. Martin, N. D., Nguyen, K., & McDaniel, M. A. (2016). Structure building differences influence learning from educational text: Effects on encoding, retention, and metacognitive control. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46(5),  52–​60. Miller, P. H., Kessel, F. S., & Flavell, J. H. (1970). Thinking about people thinking about people thinking about…: A study of social cognitive development. Child Development, 41(3), 613–​623. Moshman, D. (1982). Exogenous, endogenous, and dialectical constructivism. Developmental Review, 2(4), 371–​384. Negretti, R., & Kuteeva, M. (2011). Fostering metacognitive genre awareness in L2 academic reading and writing: A case study of pre-​service English teachers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 95–​110. Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 279–​295. O’Donoghue, T. (2019). Planning your qualitative research thesis and project: An introduction to interpretivist research in Education and the Social Sciences. New York: Routledge. O’Donovan, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2008). Developing student understanding of assessment standards: A nested hierarchy of approaches. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(2), 205–​217. Ong, J. (2014). How do planning time and task conditions affect metacognitive processes of L2 writers? Journal of Second Language Writing, 23,  17–​30. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.

 12

112  References Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction, 1,  15–​51. Pennington, M. C., Brock, M. N., & Yue, F. (1996). Explaining Hong Kong students’ response to process writing: An exploration of causes and outcomes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(3), 227–​252. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–​225. Polanyi, M. (1958/​ 1962). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-​ Critical Philosophy. London: Routledge. Punch, K. (1988). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: SAGE. Raphael, T. E., Englert, C. S., & Kirschner, B. W. (1989). Students’ metacognitive knowledge about writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(4), 343–​379. Ruan, Z. (2014). Metacognitive awareness of EFL student writers in a Chinese ELT context. Language Awareness, 23(1–​2),  76–​91. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–​550. Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing. Language Learning, 46(1), 137–​168. Schellings, G. (2011). Applying learning strategy questionnaires: Problems and possibilities. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 91–​109. Schneider, W., Lingel, K., Artelt, C., & Neuenhaus, N. (2017). Metacognitive knowledge in secondary school students: Assessment, structure, and developmental change. In D. Leutner, J. Fleischer, J. Grünkorn, & E. Klieme (Eds.), Competence Assessment in Education (pp. 285–​302). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Schoonen, R., & de Glopper, K. (1996). Writing performances and knowledge about writing. In G. Rijlaarsdam, H. van den Bergh, & M. Couzijn (Eds.), Theories, models and methodology in writing research (pp. 87–​107). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press. Schoonen, R., Hulstijn, J., & Bossers, B. (1998). Metacognitive and language-​ specific knowledge in native and foreign language reading comprehension: An empirical study among Dutch students in grades 6, 8 and 10. Language Learning, 48(1), 71–​106. Schoonen, R., van Gelderen, A., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53(1), 165–​202. Schraw, G. (2009). A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1),  33–​45. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–​371. Shintani, N. (2014). Using tasks with young beginner learners: The role of the teacher. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 279–​294.

 13

References  113 Soodla, P., Jõgi, A., & Kikas, E. (2017). Relationships between teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and students’ metacognitive knowledge and reading achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32, 201–​218. Surat, S., Rahman, S., Mahamod, Z., & Kummin, S. (2014). The use of metacognitive knowledge in essay writing among high school students. International Education Studies, 7(13), 212–​218. Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76(3), 467–​481. Tan, Y., & Tan, S. (2010). A metacognitive approach to enhancing Chinese language speaking skills with audioblogs. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(7), 1075–​1089. Teng, F. (2019). Tertiary-​ level students’ English writing performance and metacognitive awareness: A group metacognitive support perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,  1–​18. Tobias, S., & Everson, H. T. (2009). The importance of knowing what you know: A knowledge monitoring framework for studying metacognition in education. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 119–​140). New York: Routledge. Tseng, W., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-​regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78–​102. Usher, R. (1996). A critique of the neglected epistemological assumptions of educational research. In D. Scott & R. Usher (Eds.), Understanding educational research (pp. 9–​32). London: Routledge. Van Hout-​Wolters, B. (2000). Assessing self-​directed learning. In P. R. J. Simons, J. van der Linden, & T. Duffly (Eds.), New learning (pp. 83–​101). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. Van Lier, L. (2004). The semiotics and ecology of language learning: Perception, voice, identity and democracy. Utbildning & Demokrati, 13(3), 79–​103. Van Steensel, R., & Oostdam, R. (2016). The role of word decoding, vocabulary knowledge and meta-​cognitive knowledge in monolingual and bilingual low-​achieving adolescents’ reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 39(3), 312–​329. Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning, 53(3), 463–​496. Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-​ Wolters, B. H., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1),  3–​14. Victori, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: A case study of two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27(4), 537–​555. Wei, Z. F., Shang, H. F., & Briody, P. (2012). The relationship between English writing ability levels and EFL learners’ metacognitive behavior in the writing process. The International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 1(4), 154–​180.

 14

114  References Wenden, A. (1982). The processes of self-​directed learning: A study of adult language learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University. Wenden, A. (1983). The process of intervention: Review essay. Language Learning, 33(1), 103–​121. Wenden, A. (1987). Metacognition: An expanded view on the cognitive abilities of L2 learners. Language Learning, 37(4), 573–​597. Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. London: Pearson. Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–​537. Xu, Y., & Wu, Z. (2012). Test-​taking strategies for a high-​stakes writing test: An exploratory study of 12 Chinese EFL learners. Assessing Writing, 17(3), 174–​190. Zeng, Y. (2007). Metacognitive Instruction in Listening: A Study of Chinese Non-​ English Major Undergraduates. Unpublished MA thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Zhang, D., & Goh, C. C. M. (2006). Strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use: Singaporean students’ awareness of listening and speaking strategies. Language Awareness, 15(3), 199–​219. Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’ knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 320–​353. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-​regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-​regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 1–​37). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 15

Index

Abduh, A. 21 actions (Flavell’s cognitive monitoring framework) 8 activity theory model (Leont’ev) 8 Ajjawi, R. 100, 101 Alexander, P. A. 2, 7 analytic writing rubrics 101–​103 Artelt, C. 2 assessment requirements, preparing students for 100–​101 average-​proficiency (AP) students 44–​66, 88, 90 Badger, R. 15, 100 Bloom’s Taxonomy, Krathwohl’s revision of 11–​12, 13 Bond, J. B. 14 Bossers, B. 1, 12–​13 Boud, D. 100, 101 Bransford, J. D. 4 Braun, V. 21 Briody, P. 3 Brock, M. N. 100 Brown, A. L. 4, 9, 13 Bygate, M. 103 Carless, D. 101, 103 Chan, K. K. H. 101 Chen, Q. 15 Chenoweth, N. A. 107 China, context of education in Sichuan Province 18 “Chinglish,” avoiding writing in 74–​75, 83, 91, 93, 95, 105 Chong, I. 101

Chong, S. W. 14, 100 Clarke, V. 21 Cocking, R. R. 4 coding methods, deductive and inductive 21 cognitive monitoring theory (Flavell) 7–​9, 13 Cohen, A. D. 4 conditional knowledge (CK) 5, 10, 13, 16, 21, 98, 106; in average-​ proficiency (AP) students 88; in high-​proficiency (HP) students 87; in low-​proficiency (LP) students 91–​92; in teaching 106 Connole, H. 19 consent (for research participation) 19 content, in English writing tasks: high-​proficiency (HP) students 29–​30; average-​proficiency (AP) students 50–​51; low-​proficiency (LP) students 73–​74 content analysis 19, 22 Dabarera, C. 107 data: analysis 21–​22; collection 20–​21 Dawson, P. 100, 101 de Glopper, K. 1, 15–​16 declarative knowledge (DK) 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 21, 87; in high-​ proficiency (HP) students 97–​98; in low-​proficiency (LP) students 91–​92; in teaching 105, 106, 107 deductive coding methods 21 Delahunt, B. 21

 16

116  Index Deng, L. 15 Denton, D. W. 14 Dinsmore, D. L. 2, 7 Dollah, S. 21 Dörnyei, Z. 1, 4

grammar use, in English writing tasks: high-​proficiency (HP) students 30–​32; average-​proficiency (AP) students 51–​53; low-​ proficiency (LP) students 74–​76

ecological approach (to language learning) 108 educational context, Sichuan Province (China) 18 Ellis, A. K. 14 Ellis, R. 103 endogenous constructivism 7 Englert, C. S. 107 English as a Second Language (ESL) 4, 16, 103 English writing tasks 24; exemplar-​ based writing instruction (EWI) 100–​106; negative impression of 27–​28, 47–​49, 69–​70, 92–​94; organization in 32–​33, 53–​55, 76–​77; positive impression of 23–​27, 44–​47, 67–​69, 92; use of content in 29–​30, 50–​51, 73–​74; use of grammar in 30–​32, 51–​53, 74–​76 ethical approval 18 Everson, H. T. 7 evidence base for metacognition and language learning 1–​5 examination standards, preparing students for 100 exemplar-​based writing instruction (EWI) 100–​106 exogenous constructivism 7

Hacker, D. J. 4 handwriting see legibility (of English writing) Hayes, J. R. 107 high-​proficiency (HP) students 23–​43, 87–​88, 89 Hirose, K. 15 holistic writing rubrics 101 Hulstijn, J. 1, 12–​13, 15–​16 Hyland, K. 100 improvement strategies (in English writing) 41–​42, 64–​66, 84–​86, 87–​88, 98–​99 Inaba, M. 8 inductive coding methods 21–​22 interpretive methodology 1–​2, 3, 19 interviews 3, 19, 20 Jõgi, A. 16

feedback, as writing strategy 101, 105; in average-​proficiency (AP) students 45; in high-​proficiency (HP) students 24, 41, 43; in low-​ proficiency (LP) students 84, 85, 91, 93, 99, 100 Flavell, J. H. 1, 3–​4, 4, 7–​9, 12, 13, 15 focus groups 20

Ka, C. 1 Keener, M. C. 4 Kessel, F. S. 7 Kikas, E. 16 Kim, S. H. 15 Kircher, J. C. 4 Kirschner, B. W. 107 Knoch, U. 101 Knospe, Y. 4, 4–​5 knowledge category (Bloom’s Taxonomy), refining of 11–​12 Krathwohl, D. R. 11–​12, 13 Kuhn, D. (metacognitive theory) 11, 13 Kummin, S. 16 Kuteeva, M. 15

Glaser, B. G. 22 goals (Flavell’s cognitive monitoring framework) 8 Goh, C. 1, 16, 107 González-​Lloret,  M.  103 Google Translate 10

language learning: ecological approach to 108; English as a Second Language (ESL) 4, 16, 103; language-​learning strategies (LLS) 108; significance of metacognition 3–​5, 14, 15–​17, 106; task-​based

 17

Index  117 language teaching (TBLT) 103–​105 Lee, I. 2 legibility (of English writing) 34, 56, 78 Leont’ev, A. N. 8 Li, J. 1 Lingel, K. 2 Loughlin, S. M. 2, 7 low-​proficiency (LP) students 67–​86, 91–​92, 93 Macaro, E. 4 Maguire, M. 21 Mahamod, Z. 16 Martin, N. D. 1 McDaniel, M. A. 1 metacognition: definitions and theories of 7–​12, 13; metacognitive experiences 7–​8 metacognitive knowledge (MK): in average-​proficiency (AP) students 44–​66, 88, 90; Chong’s conceptual framework of 2, 14, 107; comparison of students’ MK systems 92, 94–​108; definitions of 2, 4, 12–​14; in high-​proficiency (HP) students 23–​43, 87–​88, 89; importance of understanding 1; in low-​proficiency (LP) students 91–​92, 93; significance in Flavell’s cognitive monitoring framework 8–​9; significance in language learning 3–​5, 14, 15–​17, 107; theoretical basis of 12–​17, 13 metastrategic control (Kuhn) 11 methodology 3, 108 Miller, P. H. 7 Moshman, D. 7, 9–​11, 11, 13 Negretti, R. 15 Neuenhaus, N. 2 Nguyen, K. 1 Nielson, K. B. 103 Nunan, D. 103 NVivo analysis software 21 observations 19 O’Donoghue, T. 19 O’Donovan, B. 101

Ong, J. 2, 3, 16 Oostdam, R. 16 organization, in English writing tasks: average-​proficiency (AP) students 53–​55; high-​proficiency (HP) students 32–​33; low-​ proficiency (LP) students 76–​77 Oxford, R. 106 paired learning 42–​43 Panadero, E. 100, 101 participants 18–​19 pedagogy, implications of research 100–​106 peer assessment of English writing 41 Pennington, M. C. 100 person knowledge (PK) 4, 8–​9, 12, 14, 21, 107; in average-​proficiency (AP) students 44–​50, 88, 90; comparison of all students 92–​94, 100; development of 105; in high-​ proficiency (HP) students 23–​29, 87, 89; in low-​proficiency (LP) students 67–​73, 91, 93 Pintrich, P. R. 1, 4, 14 Polanyi, P. R. 100 Price, M. 101 procedural knowledge (PRK) 5, 9, 10, 11, 16, 21, 98, 106; in average-​ proficiency (AP) students 88; in high-​proficiency (HP) students 87; in low-​proficiency (LP) students 91–​92 proofreading 39–​41, 62–​63, 83, 89, 90, 98–​99, 106 Punch, K. 19 punctuation, in English writing 34, 77–​78, 91, 96, 102 qualitative methodology 1–​2, 3, 19 quasi-​experimental research design 108 questionnaires 3, 20 Rahman, S. 16 Raphael, T. E. 107 read, recite and remember (‘three R’s’), as improvement strategy 43, 99

 18

118  Index research into metacognition and language learning 1–​5 research study design 17, 19 Rosmaladewi, M. 21 rote-​learning strategies  43, 99 Ruan, Z. 13 rubric, development of 101–​103, 102 Rust, C. 101 Ryan, S. 4 Sadler, D. R. 100 sample selection 1, 2, 18–​19 Sasaki, M. 15 Schmitt, N. 1, 4 Schneider, W. 2 Schoonen, R. 1, 12–​13, 15–​16, 107 Schraw, G. 7, 9–​11, 13 Schraw and Moshman’s metacognitive theory 9–​11, 13 second and/​or foreign language (S/​FL) see language learning secondary learners: justification for studying 2; unique challenges of 107; using exemplar-​based writing instruction with 101 self-​assessment of writing ability 41, 94; high-​proficiency (HP) students 28–​29; average-​proficiency (AP) students 49–​50; low-​proficiency (LP) students 71–​73 self-​regulatory learning  4–​5 self-​reporting instruments, reliance on 3 Shang, H. F. 3 Shintani, N. 103 Simis, A. 15–​16, 106 Skehan, P. 103 Smith, B. 19 Snellings, P. 15–​16, 106 Soodla, P. 16 spelling, in English writing 34, 56, 77 Stevenson, M. 15–​16, 106 stimulated recall sessions 3, 20 strategic knowledge (STK) 4, 8–​9, 12, 14, 16, 21, 22, 107; in average-​ proficiency (AP) students 56–​66, 88, 90; comparison of all students 96–​99, 100; development of 105–​107; in high-​proficiency (HP)

students 34–​43, 87, 89; in low-​ proficiency (LP) students 78–​86, 91–​92, 93 structure, in English writing tasks 32–​33, 53–​55, 76–​77 students: average-​proficiency (AP) 44–​66; high proficiency (HP) 23–​43; low-​proficiency (LP) 67–​86; as study sample 1, 2 Surat, S. 16 Swain, M. 103 Tai, J. 100, 101 Taib, Y. 1 Tan, Y. 107 task-​based language teaching (TBLT) 103–​105 task knowledge (TK) 4, 8–​9, 12, 14, 16, 21, 22, 107; in average-​ proficiency (AP) students 50–​56, 88, 90; comparison of all students 94–​96, 100; development of 105; in high-​proficiency (HP) students 29–​34, 87, 89; in low-​proficiency (LP) students 74–​78, 91, 93 Teng, F. 15 test-​taking strategies (TTS) 106 thematic analysis 21 theoretical implications of research 106–​108 thick description 3 ‘three R’s’, as improvement strategy 43, 99 Tobias, S. 7 translation of data, into English 21 Tseng, W. 1, 4 Usher, R. 19 Van Gelderen, A. 15–​16, 106 Van Hout-​Wolters, B. 3 Van Lier, L. 108 Van Steensel, R. 16 Vandergrift, L. 1 Victori, M. 15, 107 Wei, Z. F. 3 Wenden, A. 1, 4, 12–​14, 15 White, G. 15, 100 Wiseman, R. 19

 19

Index  119 word limit, as English writing strategy: in average-​proficiency (AP) students 56, 62, 63; in high-​proficiency (HP) students 34, 35, 40; in low-​ proficiency (LP) students 71, 78, 94 writing in English: exemplar-​based writing instruction (EWI) 100–​106; post-​writing strategies 39–​41, 62–​64, 83–​84, 99; pre-​writing strategies 34–​38, 56–​59, 57, 78–​80, 96–​97; while-​writing strategies 38–​39, 59–​61, 80–​83, 97–​98 writing proficiency, role of metacognitive knowledge (MK) 2, 4–​5, 14, 15–​17

Wu, Z. 106 Xu, Y. 106 young learners: and metacognitive knowledge 2, 3, 16, 107–​108; using exemplar-​based writing instruction with 101 Yue, F. 100 Zeng, Y. 3 Zhang, D. 16 Zhang, L. J. 1, 3, 13, 107 Zhang, Y. 15 Zimmerman, B. 11

 120