Exploring the Link between Metacognitive Beliefs and EFL Learner Autonomy

1
Exploring the Link between Meta-cognitive Beliefs
and EFL Learner Autonomy
2
Context

• Context EFL in Chinas University setting

3
Context

• Context EFL in Chinas University setting
• Challenge Increasing number of postgraduates

4
Context

• Context EFL in Chinas University setting
• Challenge Increasing number of postgraduates
• Crisis Reduced EFL teaching hours

5
Context

• Context EFL in Chinas University setting
• Challenge Increasing number of postgraduates
• Crisis Reduced EFL teaching hours
• Opportunities Developing Learner Autonomy

6
Research Purposes

• Explore the link between meta-cognitive beliefs
  and EFL learner autonomy
• Identify any change of meta-cognitive beliefs via
  ALP
• Seek cultural alternative geared to EFL reform in
  Chinas university setting

7
Research Questions

• 1. Whether meta-cognitive beliefs change
• according to experimental conditions?

8
Research Questions

• 1. Whether meta-cognitive beliefs change
• according to experimental conditions?
• 2. What impact can meta-cognitive beliefs
• have on the autonomous learning
• behaviour of EFL learners?

9
Research Questions

• 1. Whether meta-cognitive beliefs change
• according to experimental conditions?
• 2. What impact can meta-cognitive beliefs
• have on the autonomous learning
• behaviour of EFL learners?
• 3. Whether EFL academic writing proficiency
• changes according to experimental
• conditions?

10
Constructs

• Agency /self-efficacy
• Sense of responsibility
• Attitudes/attributions
• Effort /outcome / strategic awareness
• Perceived importance/interests
• Perceived usefulness
• Intrinsic / extrinsic motivations

11
Research Objectives

• To identify the particular characteristics
• of EFL learners in Chinas university
• setting
• 2. To examine the attitudes and
• achievements of EFL learners via the
• Autonomous Learning Platform (ALP)
• 3. To establish a possible theoretical
• framework of EFL learner autonomy in
• a non-Western cultural context

12
Hypotheses

• H1 If the subjects in IG are interested in
• autonomous learning, they will show
  positive
• attitudes towards their EFL learning, and
  this
• will result in greater use of the ALP.

13
Hypotheses

• H1 If the subjects in IG are interested in
• autonomous learning, they will show
  positive
• attitudes towards their EFL learning, and
  this
• will result in greater use of the ALP.
• H2 If the subjects in IG use the autonomous
• platform outside class and it works to
• their advantage, they will score higher in
  the
• academic measurement (in this case, EFL
• writing) compared with those in CG.

14
Research design (1)

• G 1 Normal classroom EFL teaching, plus
• extra study time, with traditional
• textbooks.
• G 2 Normal classroom EFL teaching, plus
• extra study time, with the intervention
  
• of ALP.
• G 3 Normal classroom EFL teaching, without
• extra study time (free).

15
Variables

• Dependent variables
• 1. Attitudes and beliefs
• 2. Academic achievements

16
Variables

• Dependent variables
• 1. Attitudes and beliefs
• 2. Academic achievements
• Independent variables
• Treatment with ALP
• Treatment with Textbooks

17
Sampling Strategy

• Stratified sampling strategy
• employed with the concern of the
• proportion of male students and
• female students
• Selection criteria
• -- guarantee respect for homogeneity
• -- representativeness of the population
• -- tightly defined groups based on the
• national EFL examinations

18
Subjects

• Population EFL postgraduates majoring in
  science and technology
• 90 EFL postgraduates majoring in science and
  technology, Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT)
  China

19
Methods

• Both qualitative and
  quantitative research methods are used.
• Data are collected by the following
  research instruments
• ---Rating-scale questionnaires (probe
• meta-cognitive beliefs of the subjects)
• ---Semi-structured interviews (clarify and
• certify some key ideas)
• ---Pre-test and post-test (measure the
• academic achievements of the subjects)
• ---Order ranking (triangulate data).

20
EFL Autonomous Learning Platform
21
The Autonomous Learning Platform

• E1 course
  independent learning Intrapersonal Tasks
  
• (Individual cognitive development)
• 
  E2 self-monitoring and feedback

22
The Autonomous Learning Platform

• 
  E1 course independent learning Intrapersonal
  Tasks
• (Individual cognitive development)
• 
  E2 self-monitoring and feedback
• 
  E3 forum peers interaction
• Interpersonal Tasks
• (Interaction in social context )
• 
  E4 revisions native speakers

23
Possible Patterns

• 1. Highly motivated EFL learners
• 2. Resource poor EFL learners
• 3. Exam oriented learning victims
• 4. Internal attributors
• 5. Alternative solution hunters
• 6. Regular feedback seekers
• 7. English scaffolding seekers
• 8. E-learning resources explorers
• 9. Responsibility sensitive learners
• 10. Possible self-regulated learners

24
Significance

• To create a novel context of transfer for EFL
  learning
• To empower EFL learners to develop learner
  autonomy
• outside the classroom
• To seek cultural alternative and develop EFL
  learners
• voice
• To develop communicative competence, geared to
  the
• Chinas EFL teaching and learning reform at
  tertiary
• level.

25
Validity

• The extent to which an account accurately
  represents the social phenomenon to which it
  refers.
• Internal validity the extent to which
  observations and measurements are authentic
  representations of some social reality.
• External validity the degree to which such
  measures can be compared justifiably to other
  groups.

26
Reliability

• Inter- Observer Reliability
• degree of consistency with which instances are
  assigned to the same category by different
  observers
• Intra- Observer Reliability
• same observer on different occasions

27
Philosophical basis

• Constructivism, more characterised by the
  stance of social constructivism.
• Cognitive constructivism
• Piagets cognitive theory prioritises
  individual cognitive development.
• Social constructivism
• Vygotsky emphasises social-cultural
  influences and social interactions in learning

28
Application

• ????
• ????
• ????
• ????

29
Application
?????????????????????? ???????????
30
ANOVAs for Band 4 and Essay Pre-test Scores
reliability value between raters
31
ANOVAs for Essay Post-test Scores reliability
value between raters
32
Essay Pre- and Post-test Mean Scores for Raters
1, 2 3 IG Group
33
Essay Pre- and Post-test Mean Scores for Raters
1, 2 3 CGA Group
34
Essay Pre- and Post-test Mean Scores for Raters
1, 2 3 CGB Group
35
Essay Mean Gain Scores
36
Bonferroni t-tests for mean gain scores
37
Bonferroni t-tests for mean gain scores
38
Bonferroni t-tests for mean gain scores
39
Bonferroni t-tests for mean gain scores
40
Bonferroni t-tests for mean gain scores
41
Bonferroni t-tests for mean gain scores
42
IG GROUP
43
Pre and Post t-tests IG GROUP
44
IG GROUP Significant differences
45
Low scores indicate agreement with statement
IG GROUP Significant differences
46
Low scores indicate agreement with statement
IG GROUP Significant differences
47
Low scores indicate agreement with statement
IG GROUP Significant differences
48
Low scores indicate agreement with statement
IG GROUP Significant differences
49
Low scores indicate agreement with statement
IG GROUP Significant differences
50
Low scores indicate agreement with statement
NOTE this means less agreement here showing
greater autonomy
IG GROUP Significant differences
51
Low scores indicate agreement with statement The
contrast here is that feedback becomes more
important
IG GROUP Significant differences
52
Low scores indicate agreement with statement
IG GROUP Significant differences
53
Low scores indicate agreement with
statement This construct has the strongest
association with essay performance gains
IG GROUP Significant differences
54
Low scores indicate agreement with statement
IG GROUP Significant differences
55
CGA GROUP
56
Pre and Post t-tests CGA GROUP
57
CGA GROUP Significant differences
58
Low scores indicate agreement with statement
CGA GROUP Significant differences
59
CGB GROUP
60
Pre and Post t-tests CGB GROUP
61
CGB GROUP Significant differences
62
Low scores indicate agreement with statement
CGB GROUP Significant differences
63
Low scores indicate agreement with statement
CGB GROUP Significant differences
64
Low scores indicate agreement with statement
CGB GROUP Significant differences
65
(No Transcript)
66
Correlations Essay Mean Gain and 12
Questionnaire constructs, pre-test
67
Correlations Essay Mean Gain and 12
Questionnaire constructs, post-test
68
Correlations Essay Mean Gain and 12
Questionnaire constructs, post-test
69
Significant Correlations Essay Mean Gain and 4
Questionnaire constructs, post-test
70
Step-wise Regression Model Predicting Essay Mean
Gain from 4 Questionnaire constructs, post-test
71
Step-wise Regression Model Predicting Essay Mean
Gain from 4 Questionnaire constructs, post-test
72
Step-wise Regression Model Predicting Essay Mean
Gain from 4 Questionnaire constructs, post-test
73
Scattergram Essay Mean Gain vs construct 10
ICT, pre-test
74
Scattergram Essay Mean Gain vs construct 10
ICT, post-test IG becomes more positive (low
C10 score) CGA more negative (high C10 score)
75
Step-wise Regression Model Predicting Essay Mean
Gain from 4 Questionnaire constructs, post-test
76
Scattergram Essay Mean Gain vs construct 03,
pre-test
77
Scattergram Essay Mean Gain vs construct 03,
post-test
78
Summary
79
Essay Mean Gain Scores
80
(No Transcript)
81
(No Transcript)
82
Thank you very much
Universities of Reading, Manchester and Hull,
U.K.