Volume 6, Issue 1 (March 2024)
IEEPJ 2024, 6(1): 58-77 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Amirjalili F. (2024). An Investigation on Meta-cognitive Strategies Training and Pragmatic Knowledge in Online Contexts. IEEPJ. 6(1), 58-77. doi:10.22034/6.1.58
URL: http://ieepj.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-795-en.html
URL: http://ieepj.hormozgan.ac.ir/article-1-795-en.html
Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran , f.amirjalili@yazd.ac.ir
Abstract: (2319 Views)
Objective: Online learning is an area that reflects the integration of technology in education. Moreover, pragmatic knowledge, as an important part of EFL learning, cannot be neglected in EFL research. The pivotal role of meta-cognitive strategies is also undeniable in EFL learning.
Methods: This qualitative study sought to delve into the perceptions of EFL learners on the effectiveness of online meta-cognitive strategies training on their pragmatic knowledge. The participants included 20 conveniently selected female Iranian intermediate EFL learners who were studying EFL at a private language institute in Yazd, Iran. Data collection was done via a semi-structured interview. Data analysis was done through thematic analysis.
Results: The results uncovered the following perceptions: Improving productive skills, improving eagerness to learn English pragmatics, decreasing exhaustion, increasing learning control, increasing learning preservation, increasing self-esteem, changing self-concept, and improving class interaction. These findings have implications for EFL teachers, learners, and curriculum planners. EFL teachers can effectively incorporate online meta-cognitive strategies training into their pragmatics teaching strategies. EFL learners are recommended to take advantage of online meta-cognitive strategies training to have more agency in learning, learn pragmatics for a longer time, experience higher levels of self-esteem and self-concept and enjoy more interactions with their classmates.
Conclusions: EFL curriculum developers can integrate online meta-cognitive strategies training into future curricula, enriching pragmatics learning experiences of EFL learners.
Methods: This qualitative study sought to delve into the perceptions of EFL learners on the effectiveness of online meta-cognitive strategies training on their pragmatic knowledge. The participants included 20 conveniently selected female Iranian intermediate EFL learners who were studying EFL at a private language institute in Yazd, Iran. Data collection was done via a semi-structured interview. Data analysis was done through thematic analysis.
Results: The results uncovered the following perceptions: Improving productive skills, improving eagerness to learn English pragmatics, decreasing exhaustion, increasing learning control, increasing learning preservation, increasing self-esteem, changing self-concept, and improving class interaction. These findings have implications for EFL teachers, learners, and curriculum planners. EFL teachers can effectively incorporate online meta-cognitive strategies training into their pragmatics teaching strategies. EFL learners are recommended to take advantage of online meta-cognitive strategies training to have more agency in learning, learn pragmatics for a longer time, experience higher levels of self-esteem and self-concept and enjoy more interactions with their classmates.
Conclusions: EFL curriculum developers can integrate online meta-cognitive strategies training into future curricula, enriching pragmatics learning experiences of EFL learners.
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
Educational Psychology
Received: 2023/10/23 | Accepted: 2023/12/30 | Published: 2024/03/1
Received: 2023/10/23 | Accepted: 2023/12/30 | Published: 2024/03/1
References
1. Alemi, M. (2015). The impact of dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL students' writing self-assessment. TELL, 9(1), 145-169. [DOI:10.22132/tel.2015.53735]
2. Alibakhshi, G., & Sarani, A. (2014). Self-assessment impact on EFL learners' speaking fluency and accuracy: Does level of proficiency matter? Teaching English Language, 8(2), 119-143. [DOI:10.22132/tel.2014.53820]
3. Alibakhshi, G., & Shahrakipour, H. (2014). The effect of self-assessment on EFL learners' receptive skills. Journal Pendidikan Malaysia, 39(1), 9-17.
4. Alibeigloo, H., Ahmadi, H., & Azizmalayeri, F. (2021). The effect of flipped classroom on Iranian EFL learners' speech act production: Does flip type make a difference? Iranian Evolutionary and Educational Psychology Journal, 3(1), 100-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.52547/ieepj.3.2.118 [DOI:10.52547/ieepj.3.2.118]
5. Almajali, D., & Al-Lozi, M. (2016). Determinants of the actual use of E-learning systems: An empirical study on Zarqa University in Jordan. Journal of Social Sciences, 5 (2), 1-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.25255/jss.2016.5.2.172.200 [DOI:10.25255/jss.2016.5.2.172.200]
6. AlSmari, N.A. (2020). The effect of flipped classroom instruction on developing Saudi EFL learners' comprehension of conversational implicatures. International Journal of English Linguistics, 10(2), 107-127. [DOI:10.5539/ijel.v10n2p107]
7. Arono, A., Arsyad, S., Syahriman, S., Nadrah, N., & Villia, A. S. (2022). Exploring the effect of digital literacy skill and learning style of students on their meta-cognitive strategies in listening. International Journal of Instruction, 15(1), 527-546. [DOI:10.29333/iji.2022.15130a]
8. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
9. Ashraf, H., Motallebzadeh, Kh., & Ghazizadeh, F. (2016). The impact of electronic-based dynamic assessment on the listening skill of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Language Testing, 6 (1), 24-32.
10. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.
11. Beatty, K. (2003). Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning. Pearson Education Limited.
12. Bouhnik, D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance‐learning courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299-305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20277 [DOI:10.1002/asi.20277]
13. Carlsson, S., Keller, C., & Hrastinski, S. (2007). Studentsacceptance of e-learning environments: A comparative study in Sweden and Lithuania. Proceedings of the Fifteenth European Conference on Information Systems.
14. Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge University Press.
15. Deane, P., Odendahl, N., Quinlan, T., Fowles, M., Welsh, C., & Bivens‐Tatum, J. (2008). Cognitive models of writing: Writing proficiency as a complex integrated skill. ETS Research Report Series, 2008(2), 1-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2008.tb02141.x [DOI:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2008.tb02141.x]
16. Drachsler, H., & Greller, W. (2012). Translating learning into numbers: A generic framework for learning analytics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 42-57.
17. Ebadi, S., & Saeedian, A. (2016). Exploring transcendence in EFL learners' reading comprehension through computerized dynamic assessment. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 27-45 27. [DOI:10.30466/ijltr.2016.20376]
18. Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.x]
19. Esmaili Rad, N., Zargham Hajebi, M., Monirpour, N. (2021). The effectiveness of metacognitive skills on goal orientation and academic procrastination of 9-12 years old students with specific learning disabilities. Journal of Basic Research in Medical Sciences, 8(3), 8-17. http://jbrms.medilam.ac.ir/article-1-522-en.html
20. Fani, T., & Rashtchi, M. (2015). Dynamic assessment of reading comprehension ability: Group or individualized. Education Journal, 4(6), 325-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20150406.11 [DOI:10.11648/j.edu.20150406.11]
21. Feuerstein, R. Y. (2000). Mediated learning experience, instrumental enrichment, and the learning propensity assessment device. www.icdl.com/graduate/documents/Chapter22.pdf
22. Golshan, F., Moinzadeh, M., Haddad Narafshan, M., & Afarinesh, mohammad R. (2019). The efficacy of teaching English as a foreign language to Iranian students with autism spectrum disorder on their social skills and willingness to communicate. Iranian Journal of Child Neurology, 13(3), 61-73. [DOI:10.22037/ijcn.v13i3.16907]
23. Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunloky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1-23). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [DOI:10.4324/9781410602350-8]
24. Haghighi, M., Jafarigohar, H., Khoshsima, M., & Vahdany, F. (2018). Impact of flipped classroom on EFL learners' appropriate use of refusal: achievement, participation, perception. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(3), 261-293. [DOI:10.1080/09588221.2018.1504083]
25. Hessamy, G., & Ghaderi, E. (2014). The role of dynamic assessment in the vocabulary learning of Iranian EFL learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 98(4), 645-652. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.463]
26. Hone, K., Liu, X., & Tarhini, T. (2016). Examining the moderating effect of individual-level cultural values on users' acceptance of E-learning in developing countries: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(3), 306-328. [DOI:10.1080/10494820.2015.1122635]
27. Horton, W. (2011). E-learning by design. John Wiley & Sons. [DOI:10.1002/9781118256039]
28. Jarrahzade, Z., & Tabatabaei, O. (2014). Gender-based study of learners' reading ability through dynamic assessment (DA): Guthke's Lerntest approach in focus. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 2(7), 47-53.
29. Kapa, E. (2001). A metacognitive support during the process of problem solving in a computerized environment. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47, 317-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1015124013119 [DOI:10.1023/A:1015124013119]
30. Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics, in Spencer-Oatey, H. (ed.) Culturally speaking (pp. 316-341). Continuum. [DOI:10.5040/9781350934085.ch-014]
31. Katchamat, P. (2019). The effect of flipped classroom instruction on appropriacy of English apology by Thai EFL learners. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (IJPTE), 2, 113-124. [DOI:10.20961/ijpte.v2i0.25142]
32. Kattoua, T., Al-Lozi, M., & Alrowwad, A. A. (2016). A review of literature on E-learning systems in higher education. International Journal of Business Management & Economic Research, 7(5), 754-762.
33. Khodabandeh, F., & Tahririan, M. H. (2020). Exploring the impact of blended, flipped, and traditional teaching strategies for teaching grammar on Iranian EFL learners through English newspaper articles. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 39(1), 89-129. [DOI:10.22099/jtls.2020.38443.2883]
34. Khoshsima, H., & Farokhipours, S. (2016). On the role of different models of dynamic assessment on promoting speaking. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 2(4), 586-600. [DOI:10.11648/j.ijll.20160405.13]
35. Knox, S., & Burkard, A. W. (2009). Qualitative research interviews. Psychotherapy research, 19(4-5), 566- 575. [DOI:10.1080/10503300802702105]
36. Leech, G. (1983). The principles of pragmatics. Longman.
37. Maqableh, M., Rajab, L., Quteshat, W., Masa'deh, R. E. M., Khatib, T., & Karajeh, H. (2015). The impact of social media networks websites usage on students' academic performance. Communication and Network, 7(4), 159-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/cn.2015.74015 [DOI:10.4236/cn.2015.74015]
38. Martin, B.N. (2005). Do gender and learning style play a role in how online courses should be designed? Journal of Online Interactive Learning, 4(2), 67-81.
39. Martínez-Fernández, J. R., Corcelles, M., Bañales, G., Castelló, M., & Gutiérrez-Braojos, C. (2016). Exploring conceptions about writing and learning: undergraduates' patterns of beliefs and the quality of academic writing. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 14(38), 107-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.38.15045 [DOI:10.25115/ejrep.38.15045]
40. Marzban, A., & Mahmoudvand, M. (2013). The impact of doing problem-solving tasks on willingness to communicate, self-perceived communication competence, and communication apprehension among Iranian EFL learners. Applied Linguistics, 6(13), 125-145. http://jal.iaut.ac.ir/article_523998_99aeb5ff19393e8da837beb8490e1edf.pdf
41. McBrien, J. L., Cheng, R., & Jones, P. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International review of research in open and distributed learning, 10(3), 112-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.605 [DOI:10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.605]
42. Méndez, R., Balanzá‐Martínez, V., Luperdi, S. C., Estrada, I., Latorre, A., González-Jiménez, P., Bouzas, L., Yépez, K., Ferrando, A., Reyes, S., & Menéndez, R. (2021). Long‐term neuropsychiatric outcomes in COVID‐19 survivors: A 1‐year longitudinal study. Journal of Internal Medicine, 291(2), 247-251. [DOI:10.1111/joim.13389]
43. Merisuo-Storm, T. (2007). Pupils' attitudes towards foreign language learning and the development of literacy skills in bilingual education. Teaching and Teacher Education. 23(2), 226-235. [DOI:10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.024]
44. Miri, M., Alibakhshi, G., Kushki, A., & Bavarsad, P. S. (2017). Going beyond one-to-one mediation in zone of proximal development (ZPD): Concurrent and cumulative group dynamic assessment. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.32601/ejal.461025 [DOI:10.32601/ejal.461025]
45. Mohamadpour, P., Talebinejad, R., & Tabatabaei, O. (2019). Impact of metacognitive strategy instruction on Iranian EFL learners' listening anxiety. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 7(26), 57-68.
46. Mohammadimoghadam, M. (2015). Effects of mediation on an EFL learner's grammar development: A case study of an EFL beginner student. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 101-106. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.015]
47. Mokhtari, K., Dimitrov, D., & Reichard, C. (2018). Revising the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory and testing for factorial Invariance. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 219-246. [DOI:10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.3]
48. Moranski, K., & Kim, F. (2016). Flipping lessons in a multi-section Spanish course: Implications for assigning explicit grammar instruction outside of the classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 100 (4), 830-852. [DOI:10.1111/modl.12366]
49. Naeini, J. (2015). A comparative study of the effects of two approaches of dynamic assessment on the reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 4(2), 120-131. [DOI:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.2p.54]
50. Nurawalia, A. (2021). Effectiveness of using CALL for teaching writing. Journal of English Education and Applied Linguistics,10(1),101-122.
51. Olyaei, S., Zamanian, M., & Afraz, Sh. (2020). Exploring the effects of incorporated personal response system (PRS) on Iranian learners' motivation and participation. Journal of Language and Translation, 10(3), 35-46. [DOI:10.30495/ttlt.2020.678753]
52. Perveen, A. (2016). Synchronous and asynchronous e-language learning: A case study of virtual university of Pakistan. Open Praxis, 8(1), 21-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.8.1.212 [DOI:10.5944/openpraxis.8.1.212]
53. Racheva, V. (2018). Social aspects of synchronous virtual learning environments. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2048(1), 20-32. [DOI:10.1063/1.5082050]
54. Sadri, Z., Allami, H., & Rezai, M.J. (2018). Telephone conversation closing strategies used by Persian speakers: Rapport management approach. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching & Research, 6 (21), 21-40.
55. Seibert Hanson, A. E., & Brown, C. M. (2020). Enhancing L2 learning through a mobile-assisted spaced- repetition tool: an effective but bitter pill. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(1-2), 133-155. [DOI:10.1080/09588221.2018.1552975]
56. Somenarain, L., Akkaraju, S., & Gharbaran, R. (2010). Student perceptions and learning outcomes in asynchronous and synchronous online learning environments in a biology course. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 353-356.
57. Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49. [DOI:10.1080/1463631022000005016]
58. Tajeddin, Z., & Tayebipour, F. (2012). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL learners' acquisition and apology. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 4(2), 87-118. [DOI:10.22099/jtls.2012.499]
59. Teoh, M. L., Ansarian, L., Tik, O. L., & Nair, A. B. (2019). The effects of problem-based language learning on the listening comprehension skills of Malaysian undergraduate students. Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(3), 996-1004. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.3.16.996 [DOI:10.18823/asiatefl.2019.16.3.16.996]
60. Turmudi, D. (2020). Utilizing a web-based technology in blended EFL academic writing classes for university students. Journal of Physics: Conference Serie, 1517(1), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1517/1/012063 [DOI:10.1088/1742-6596/1517/1/012063]
61. Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-181. [DOI:10.1080/13670050608668639]
62. Yamini, M., Rashidi, N., & Shafiei, E. (2010). On the relationship between EFL learners' oral communication apprehension and self-esteem. Ferdowsi Review, 1, 33-55.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
