Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge and express my gratitude to my supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Vo Dai Quang for his insightful comments and contructive supervision throughout my research. I especially wish to thank Ms. Nguyen Thai Ha for her valuable guidance, encouragement in the very first step of my thesis. I also wish to thank all the staff members of the Department of Post graduate, Hanoi University for providing me best conditions to fulfill my thesis. I would like to acknowledge and express my appreciation to the administrators of Long My high school for their constant support and concern while the work was in progress. My special thanks are also sent to my colleagues at Long My high school who have helped me with data collection for this study. Finally, I am deeply indebted to all the support and encouragement that my family has offerred me.
HANOI UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES THESIS THE EFFECTS OF METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES TRAINING ON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ ENGLISH LANGUAGE PERFORMANCE STUDENT: TRAN THU THAO HANOI - 2009 HANOI UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES THESIS THE EFFECTS OF METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES TRAINING ON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS’ ENGLISH LANGUAGE PERFORMANCE SUPERVISOR: ASSOC PROF DR VO DAI QUANG STUDENT: TRAN THU THAO HANOI - 2009 ACKNOWLEGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge and express my gratitude to my supervisor Assoc Prof Dr Vo Dai Quang for his insightful comments and contructive supervision throughout my research I especially wish to thank Ms Nguyen Thai Ha for her valuable guidance, encouragement in the very first step of my thesis I also wish to thank all the staff members of the Department of Post graduate, Hanoi University for providing me best conditions to fulfill my thesis I would like to acknowledge and express my appreciation to the administrators of Long My high school for their constant support and concern while the work was in progress My special thanks are also sent to my colleagues at Long My high school who have helped me with data collection for this study Finally, I am deeply indebted to all the support and encouragement that my family has offerred me ABSTRACT This study aims at examining the effects of metacognitive strategies training on the autonomy in language learning of high school students To serve this purpose, an experiment was carried out at a high school in Mekong Delta The participants were 60 students of grade 11 who were chosen from two random classes in this high school There were 30 students in the control group and the same number were in the experimental group Before the experiment, the MAI questionnaire was exploited to measure students’ metacognitive awareness which was utilized as the base for dividing students into groups Then, the experiment was carried out in 10 weeks During the experiment, the experimental group were trained with 10 metacognitive strategies organized by Oxford (1990) The ten strategies chosen for training are ‘overviewing and linking with already known material’, ‘paying attention’, ‘finding out about language learning’, ‘organizing’, ‘setting goals and objectives’, ‘identifying the purpose of a language task’, planning for a language task’, ‘seeking practice opportunities’, ‘self monitoring’, ‘self-evaluating’ The instruction was explicit and the training course was seperated from the main course of high school educational system The data collected from the MAI questionnaire, the invetory of metacognitive use and the tests in pre- and post-stage were computed and analyzed using paired-sample t-test, SPSS version 16.0.1 The major findings of the study showed that explicit metacognitive strategies training helped students improve their autonomy in language learning as well as their language performance It was concluded from the findings that metacognitve strategies were useful to high school students and the use of metacognitive strategies helped students improve their language performance TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEGEMENTS ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS LIST OF TABLES .8 LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 10 1.1 Background to the study 10 1.2 Aims and Objectives of the study 12 1.2.1 Aims 12 1.2.2 Objectives 12 1.3 Scope of the study 12 1.4 Significance of the study 13 1.5 Organization of the thesis 13 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .15 2.1 Language learning strategies 15 2.1.1 Definition 15 2.1.2 Classification 16 2.1.3 Metacognitive strategies 18 2.2 Language learning strategy instruction .21 2.2.1 The role of language learning strategies instruction 21 2.2.2 Studies related to metacognitive strategies instruction 21 2.2.3 Types of language learning strategy instruction 24 2.2.4 Models for language learning strategy instruction 25 2.2.5 Language issue in language learning strategy instruction .26 2.2.6 The role of teachers in language learning strategy instruction 27 2.3 Summary 27 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 29 3.1 Research questions and description of variables 29 3.1.2 Description of variables 29 3.2 Data collection instruments 30 3.2.1 Questionnaires 30 3.2.2 Tests 33 3.3 Subjects of the study 36 Description .36 Group assignment 37 3.4 Metacognitive strategy instruction .38 3.4.1 Ways of providing strategy instruction .38 3.4.2 Language of instruction 38 3.4.3 Model for language learning strategy instruction 38 3.4.4 The materials used in the experiment .39 3.4.5 The instructor 40 3.5 Data collection procedures 40 3.6 Data analysis 41 3.6.1 Questionnaire data analysis .42 3.6.2 Test data analysis 42 3.7 Coding scheme for the use of metacognitive strategies 42 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 43 4.1 The results and discussion of the questionnaires 43 4.1.1 The results of the MAI questionnaire 43 4.1.2 The results of the inventory of metacognitve use 48 4.1.3 Discussion of the results of the questionnaires 50 4.2 The results and discussion of the tests 51 4.2.1 The test results within groups 52 4.2.2 The test results between groups 55 4.2.3 Discussion of the test results .57 CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS .59 5.1 Implications .59 5.2 Limitations of the study and recommendations for further research .60 5.2.1 Limitations of the study .60 5.2.2 Recommendations for further research 61 5.3 Conclusions .61 REFERENCES 63 APPENDICES 70 APPENDIX 1: Oxford’ s Strategy Classification System (Source: Oxford, 1990) 70 APPENDIX 2: CODING SCHEME FOR THE USE OF METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES .72 APPENDIX THE MAI QUESTIONNAIRE (Vietnamese version) .74 APPENDIX THE MAI QUESTIONNAIRE (English version) 77 APPENDIX THE PRETEST 81 APPENDIX THE INVENTORY OF METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES USE (PRE-STAGE) 86 APPENDIX THE POST-TEST .88 APPENDIX THE INVENTORY OF METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES USE (POST-STAGE) 93 APPENDIX THE THE TEST RESULTS 96 APPENDIX 10 THE RESULTS OF THE MAI QUESTIONNAIRES 98 APPENDIX 11 THE RESULTS OF THE INVENTORY OF METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES USE .101 APPENDIX 12 TABLES 103 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CALLA: Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach CG: Control Group EG: Experimental Group ESL: English as a second language IMU: Inventory of Metacognitive Use LLS: Language learning strategy LLSI: Language learning strategy instruction LLSs: Language learning strategies L1: First language L2: Second language M: Mean MAI: Metacognitive Awareness Inventory MOET: Ministry of Education and Training P: Probability value SD: Standard Deviation SILL: Strategy Inventory for Language Learning LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 The correlation of the control group and the experimental group Table 4.2 The metacognitive awareness of the control group in the pre- and post-stages Table 4.3 The differences in metacognitive awareness between pre-stage and post-stage of the control group Table 4.4 The metacognitive awareness of the experimental group in the preand post-stages Table 4.5 The differences in metacognitive awareness between pre-stage and post-stage of the experimental group Table 4.6 The total results of the MAI questionnaire between CG and EG Table 4.7 The differences in the resutls of the MAI questionnaire between CG and EG Table 4.8 The section results of the MAI questionnaire between the CG and EG Table 4.9.The diffrerences in the resuts of the MAI questionnaire between CG and EG Table 4.10 The results of the inventory of metacognitve use of the CG Table 4.11 The differences in the results of the inventory of metacognitve use between the pre-stage and post-stage of the CG Table 4.12 The results of the inventory of metacognitve use of the EG Table 4.13 The differences in the results of the inventory of metacognitve use between the pre-stage and post-stage of the EG Table 4.14 The results of the inventory of metacognitive use of CG and EG Table 4.15 The differences in the results of the inventory of metacognitve use between the pre-stage and post-stage of the EG Table 4.16 The test results of the control group Table 4.17 The differences in the test results between the pre-stage and poststage of the control group Table 4.18 The test results of the experimental group Table 4.19 The differences in the test results between the pre-stage and poststage of the experimental group Table 4.20 The test results of the CG and the EG Table 4.21 The differences in the test results between CG and EG LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 The results of the MAI questionnaire of the control group Figure 4.2 The results of the MAI questionnaire of the experimental group Figure 4.3 The results of the MAI questionnaire between CG and EG Figure 4.4 The section results of the MAI questonnaire between CG and EG Figure 4.5.The results of the inventory of metacognitve use of the CG Figure 4.6 The results of the inventory of metacognitve use of the EG Figure 4.7 The total results of the IMU questionnaire bettween CG and EG Figure 4.8 The results of the inventory of metacognitve use Figure 4.9 The test results of the control group Figure 4.10 The test results of the experimental group Figure 4.11 The overall test results between CG and EG Figure 4.12 The section test resuls between CG and EG CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study Since many years ago, with the integration and globalization policy of the government in order to keep up with the rapid development of the world, English subject has been considered very important in the field of education Recently, English subject has become compulsory for high school students It has also been an obligatory subject in the final exam, along with Mathematics and Literature In the acknowledgement of the importance of this subject, specialists in language teaching have paid much attention to discovering and applying new methods for teaching English as a foreign language with the hope of helping learners acquire and learn English more effectively However, the unexpected results, which were reported by the MOET in English subject in the final exams in the past few years, are of the visible evidences for the failure of high school students in acquiring English as a second language The causes may derive from many factors Rubin (1975) argues that many language teachers are so concerned with finding the best method or with getting the correct answer that they fail to pay attention to the learning process (Rubin, 1975) Vietnamese teachers may be in such a situation Dansereau (1978) also recognizes that the over-emphasis on teaching methods may convey serious limitations such as inadvertent reinforcement of ineffective and non-transferable learner strategies Some additional problems can be found from the students’ part Firstly, Vietnamese students seem to train and to be trained so many skills for their language performance but the skill to self-direct themselves in language learning is not paid much attention to They may have very little of the ability of planning, arranging, focusing, and evaluating their own learning The view that Vietnamese students tend to be passive, obedient and quiet is also accepted by most of high school teachers Secondly, a large number of high school teachers of English acknowledge that students are highly interested in English 10 Table 4.4 The metacognitive awareness of the experimental group in the pre- and post-stages Paired Samples Statistics Metacognitive strategies Code MEA1 Stage Mean N Std Std Error Deviation Mean 30 10.69837 1.95325 39.0667 30 5.60747 1.02378 Pre-stage 24.4000 30 9.73299 1.77699 31.9000 30 4.65610 85008 Pre-stage 21.1000 30 15.11873 2.76029 45.0333 30 7.25631 1.32481 Pre-stage 11.0333 30 5.44238 99364 15.4333 30 3.80275 69428 Pre-stage 20.0333 30 7.97186 1.45546 23.2333 30 3.26616 59632 Pre-stage 10.1667 30 6.51303 1.18911 14.7333 30 2.92355 53376 Pre-stage 43.1333 30 15.91298 2.90530 56.8000 30 8.50720 1.55319 Pre-stage 53.4667 30 16.66864 3.04326 70.2000 30 10.23651 1.86892 Pre-stage 53.8000 30 19.21637 3.50841 59.3333 30 12.73153 2.32445 Pre-stage 2.9477 30 93.25962 17.02680 Post-stage Mean* 33.4000 Post-stage Total Pre-stage Post-stage MEC2 1.43337 Post-stage MEC1 7.85091 Post-stage MEB6 30 Post-stage MEB5 30.4667 Post-stage MEB4 1.79890 Post-stage MEB3 9.85300 Post-stage MEB2 30 Post-stage MEB1 24.2333 Post-stage MEA2 Pre-stage 3.8620 30 56.85760 10.38073 Pre-stage 2.8333 30 89648 16367 Post-stage 3.7133 30 56001 10224 Table 4.5 The differences in metacognitive awareness between pre-stage and post-stage of the experimental group Paired Samples Test Metacognitive strategies Code Paired Differences Sig (2-tailed) 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Stage Relationship Lower Upper MEA1 Pre-stage – Post-stage -6.23333 8.86949 1.61934 -9.54525 -2.92141 001 -2.53894 -3.849 29 t df -3.705 29 MEA2 Pre-stage – Post-stage -5.66667 8.37621 1.52928 -8.79440 MEB1 Pre-stage – Post-stage -7.50000 8.95872 1.63563 -10.84524 -4.15476 -4.585 29 000 MEB2 Pre-stage – Post-stage Pre-stage – Post-stage Std Error 12.82490 Std.2.34150 Deviation Mean 5.39859 98564 -28.72223 MEB3 -2.39333 Mean -4.40000 -19.14444 -10.221 29 000 MEB4 Pre-stage – Post-stage -3.20000 7.10221 MEB5 Pre-stage – Post-stage -4.56667 MEB6 Pre-stage – Post-stage MEC1 001 -6.41587 -2.38413 -4.464 29 000 1.29668 -5.85201 -.54799 -2.468 29 020 6.14022 1.12105 -6.85946 -2.27387 -4.074 29 000 -1.36667 11.71010 2.13796 -18.03929 -9.29404 -6.392 29 000 Pre-stage – Post-stage -1.67333 14.11513 2.57706 -22.00401 -11.46266 -6.493 29 000 MEC2 Pre-stage – Post-stage -5.53333 15.51136 2.83197 -11.32537 25870 -1.954 29 060 Total Pre-stage – Post-stage -9.14333 63.92004 11.67015 -115.30147 -67.56520 -7.835 29 000 Mean * Pre-stage – Post-stage -.88000 59908 10938 -1.10370 -.65630 -8.046 29 000 Table 4.8 The section results of the MAI questionnaire between the CG and EG Metacognitive Code Groups Std Mean MEA1 N Deviation Std Error Mean 34.1333 30 9.48223 1.73121 33.4000 30 10.69837 Control Group 25.2667 30 8.06839 1.47308 24.4000 30 9.73299 1.77699 Control Group 23.3000 30 11.74484 2.14431 21.1000 30 15.11873 2.76029 9.6667 30 6.41299 1.17085 11.0333 30 5.44238 99364 Control Group 19.8667 30 6.75039 1.23245 20.0333 30 7.97186 1.45546 Control Group 10.3667 30 5.52414 1.00856 10.1667 30 6.51303 1.18911 Control Group 42.8667 30 16.91507 3.08825 43.1333 30 15.91298 2.90530 Control Group 55.6000 30 19.04912 3.47788 53.4667 30 16.66864 3.04326 Control Group 52.8333 30 19.45655 3.55226 Experimental Group 53.8000 30 19.21637 3.50841 Control Group Groups Mean 1.95325 Experimental Group MEC2 Control Group Metacognitive Code 1.79890 Experimental Group MEC1 9.85300 Experimental Group MEB6 30 Experimental Group MEB5 24.2333 Experimental Group MEB4 1.92961 Experimental Group MEB3 10.56893 Experimental Group MEB2 30 Experimental Group MEB1 25.7667 Experimental Group MEA2 Control Group POST-STAGE PRE-STAGE Paired Samples Statistics MEA1 N Std Deviation Std Error Mean 8.78217 1.60340 39.0667 30 5.60747 1.02378 Control Group 25.0000 30 6.15322 1.12342 31.9000 30 4.65610 85008 Control Group 31.1000 30 8.49077 1.55019 45.0333 30 7.25631 1.32481 9.8000 30 5.30062 96776 15.4333 30 3.80275 69428 Control Group 16.9000 30 5.13507 93753 23.2333 30 3.26616 59632 8.0333 30 4.89534 89376 14.7333 30 2.92355 53376 Control Group 42.3000 30 13.76440 2.51302 56.8000 30 8.50720 1.55319 Control Group 59.1667 30 11.36869 2.07563 Experimental Group MEC2 35.3333 30 Experimental Group MEC1 Control Group Experimental Group MEB6 1.43337 Experimental Group MEB5 7.85091 Experimental Group MEB4 30.4667 30 Experimental Group MEB3 1.80671 Experimental Group MEB2 9.89578 Experimental Group MEB1 16.2667 30 Experimental Group MEA2 Control Group 70.2000 30 10.23651 1.86892 Control Group 40.1000 30 15.97703 2.91699 Experimental Group 59.3333 30 12.73153 2.32445 Control Group Control Group Table 4.9.The diffrerences in the resuts of the MAI questionnaire between CG and EG Paired Differences Sig (2tailed) 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference PRE-STAGE Lower Control – Experimental Group 1.53333 MEA2 Control – Experimental Group 73333 MEB1 Control – Experimental Group Mean 86667 MEB2 Control – Experimental Group 2.20000 13.25194 MEB3 Control – Experimental Group -1.36667 MEB4 Control – Experimental Group MEB5 8.93553 t df 1.63140 -1.80325 4.86991 940 29 355 10.69300 Std Error 1.95227 Std Deviation Mean 7.86408 1.43578 -3.25950 4.72616 376 29 710 -2.06983 3.80316 604 29 551 2.41946 -2.74835 7.14835 909 29 371 5.78633 1.05643 -3.52732 79398 -1.294 29 206 -.16667 6.69577 1.22247 -2.66691 2.33357 -.136 29 892 Control – Experimental Group 20000 5.29411 96657 -1.77685 2.17685 207 29 838 MEB6 Control – Experimental Group -.26667 11.39550 2.08052 -4.52182 3.98848 -.128 29 899 MEC1 Control – Experimental Group 2.13333 15.95194 2.91241 -3.82322 8.08989 732 29 470 MEC2 POST-STAGE MEA1 Upper Control – Experimental Group -.96667 14.05527 2.56613 -6.21499 4.28166 -.377 29 709 MEA1 Control – Experimental Group -1.42000 9.65044 1.76192 -17.80353 -10.59647 -8.059 29 000 MEA2 Control – Experimental Group -3.73333 8.44019 1.54096 -6.88495 -.58172 -2.423 29 022 MEB1 Control – Experimental Group -6.90000 7.42015 1.35473 -9.67073 -4.12927 -5.093 29 000 MEB2 Control – Experimental Group -1.39333 8.75700 1.59880 -17.20325 -10.66342 -8.715 29 000 MEB3 Control – Experimental Group -5.63333 5.00678 91411 -7.50289 -3.76377 -6.163 29 000 MEB4 Control – Experimental Group -6.33333 5.31318 97005 -8.31731 -4.34936 -6.529 29 000 MEB5 Control – Experimental Group -6.70000 4.45785 81389 -8.36459 -5.03541 -8.232 29 000 MEB6 Control – Experimental Group -1.45000 12.06805 2.20332 -19.00629 -9.99371 -6.581 29 000 MEC1 Control – Experimental Group -1.10333 13.58875 2.48095 -16.10745 -5.95921 -4.447 29 000 MEC2 Control – Experimental Group -1.92333 14.96129 2.73155 -24.81997 -13.64670 -7.041 29 000 Table 4.10 The results of the inventory of metacognitve use of the CG Paired Samples Statistics Questions Stages Mean Question Std Deviation Std Error Mean N 5333 30 50742 09264 6667 30 47946 08754 Pre-stage 1000 30 30513 05571 2667 30 44978 08212 Pre-stage 2000 30 40684 07428 3667 30 49013 08949 Pre-stage 2333 30 36515 06667 4667 30 43417 07927 Pre-stage 5000 30 49130 08970 7000 30 46609 08510 Pre-stage 2000 30 33733 06159 1833 30 38245 06982 Pre-stage 4500 30 24033 04388 3833 30 31303 05715 Pre-stage 8167 30 35920 06558 9167 30 26533 04844 Pre-stage 1500 30 35111 06410 Post-stage Total Pre-stage Post-stage Question 10 08510 Post-stage Question 46609 Post-stage Question 30 Post-stage Question 3000 Post-stage Question 08510 Post-stage Question 46609 Post-stage Question 30 Post-stage Question 3000 Post-stage Question Pre-stage 0833 30 26533 04844 Pre-stage 3.4833 30 2.17938 39790 Post-stage 4.3333 30 2.40091 43834 Table 4.11 The differences in the results of the inventory of metacognitve use between the pre-stage and post-stage of the CG Paired Samples Test Questions Paired Differences Stage Relationship Sig (2-tailed) 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper 09589 -.19612 19612 t 000 df 29 1.000 62881 Std .11480 Std Error -.16667 Deviation 46113 Mean 08419 Mean -.36813 10147 -1.161 29 255 -.33886 00552 -1.980 29 057 09689 -.36482 03149 -1.720 29 096 43018 07854 -.39397 -.07270 -2.971 29 006 -.20000 50172 09160 -.38735 -.01265 -2.183 29 037 Pre-stage – Post-stage 01667 35920 06558 -.11746 15079 254 29 801 Question Pre-stage – Post-stage 06667 34072 06221 -.06056 19389 1.072 29 293 Question Pre-stage – Post-stage -.10000 38056 06948 -.24210 04210 -1.439 29 161 Question 10 Pre-stage – Post-stage 06667 28567 05216 -.04001 17334 1.278 29 211 Total Pre-stage – Post-stage -.85000 1.79150 32708 -1.51896 -.18104 -2.599 29 015 Question Pre-stage – Post-stage 00000 52523 Question Pre-stage – Post-stage -.13333 Question Pre-stage – Post-stage Question Pre-stage – Post-stage -.16667 53067 Question Pre-stage – Post-stage -.23333 Question Pre-stage – Post-stage Question Table 4.12 The results of the inventory of metacognitve use of the EG Paired Samples Statistics Mean Question Std Deviation N Std Error Mean 6000 30 49827 09097 9667 30 18257 03333 Pre -stage 0333 30 18257 03333 9667 30 18257 03333 Pre -stage 1667 30 37905 06920 1.0000 30 00000 00000 Pre -stage 4333 30 48660 08884 7667 30 25371 04632 Pre -stage 5667 30 48660 08884 7667 30 40965 07479 Pre -stage 2500 30 38841 07091 4667 30 39246 07165 Pre -stage 4333 30 28567 05216 7500 30 31486 05749 Pre -stage 8333 30 35558 06492 9167 30 23057 04210 Pre -stage 2667 30 44978 08212 Post-stage Total Pre -stage Post-stage Question 10 07860 Post-stage Question 43052 Post-stage Question 30 Post-stage Question 7500 Post-stage Question 08949 Post-stage Question 49013 Post-stage Question 30 Post-stage Question 3667 Post-stage Question Pre -stage 2667 30 43018 07854 Pre -stage 3.9500 30 2.24127 40920 Post-stage 7.6167 30 1.72549 31503 Table 4.13 The differences in the results of the inventory of metacognitve use between the pre-stage and post-stage of the EG Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Questions Sig (2tailed) 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Stage Relationship Lower Upper Question Pre-stage – Post-stage -.38333 63901 11667 -.62194 -.14472 -3.286 t df 29 003 Question Pre-stage – Post-stage -.36667 49013 08949 -.54969 -.18365 29 000 Question Pre-stage – Post-stage -.93333 25371 04632 -1.02807 -.83860 -20.149 29 000 Question Pre-stage – Post-stage -.83333 Question Pre-stage – Post-stage Question Pre-stage – Post-stage 37905 06920 Std Std Error -.33333 44204 08071 Mean Deviation Mean -.20000 44721 08165 -.97487 -.69179 -12.042 29 000 -.49840 -.16827 -4.130 29 000 -.36699 -.03301 -2.449 29 021 Question Pre-stage – Post-stage -.21667 33946 06198 -.34342 -.08991 -3.496 29 002 Question Pre-stage – Post-stage -.31667 35920 06558 -.45079 -.18254 -4.829 29 000 Question Pre-stage – Post-stage -.08333 32386 05913 -.20426 03760 -1.409 29 169 Question 10 Pre-stage – Post-stage 00000 34740 06343 -.12972 12972 000 29 1.000 Total Pre-stage – Post-stage -3.66667 1.64701 30070 -4.28167 -3.05166 -12.194 29 000 -4.097 Stage Questions Groups Std PRE- STAGE Mean Question Control Group N Std Error Deviation Mean 3000 30 46609 08510 3667 30 49013 30 50742 09264 6000 30 49827 30 30513 05571 0333 30 18257 03333 2000 30 40684 07428 1667 30 37905 06920 2333 30 36515 06667 4333 30 48660 08884 5000 30 49130 08970 5667 30 48660 08884 2000 30 33733 06159 2500 30 38841 07091 4500 30 24033 04388 4333 30 28567 05216 8167 30 35920 06558 Experimental Group 8333 30 35558 06492 Question Control Group 1500 30 35111 06410 10 Experimental Group 2667 30 44978 08212 Total Control Group 3.4833 30 2.17938 39790 Experimental Group Question Control Group Experimental Group Question Control Group Experimental Group Question Control Group Experimental Group Question Control Group Experimental Group Question Control Group Experimental Group Question Control Group Experimental Group Question Control Group Experimental Group Question Control Group Groups Std Mean 09097 1000 Questions 08949 5333 POST-STAGE Table 4.14 The results of the inventory of metacognitive use of CG and EG Question N Std Error Deviation Mean 46609 08510 7500 30 43052 07860 Control Group 6667 30 47946 08754 9667 30 18257 03333 Control Group 2667 30 44978 08212 Experimental Group 9667 30 18257 03333 Control Group 3667 30 49013 08949 1.0000 30 00000 00000 Control Group 4667 30 43417 07927 Experimental Group 7667 30 25371 04632 Control Group 7000 30 46609 08510 Experimental Group 7667 30 40965 07479 Control Group 1833 30 38245 06982 Experimental Group 4667 30 39246 07165 Control Group 3833 30 31303 05715 Experimental Group 7500 30 31486 05749 Control Group 9167 30 26533 04844 Experimental Group 9167 30 23057 04210 Control Group 0833 30 26533 04844 Experimental Group Question 30 Experimental Group Question 3000 Experimental Group Question Control Group 2667 30 43018 07854 4.3333 30 2.40091 43834 Experimental Group Question Question Question Question Question Question 10 Total Control Group Groups Std Mean Experimental Group 3.950 N 30 Std Error Deviation Mean 2.24127 40920 POST-STAGE Stage Questions Questions Groups Std Mean Experimental Group 7.6167 N 30 Std Error Deviation Mean 1.72549 31503 Table 4.15 The differences in the results of the inventory of metacognitve use between the pre-stage and post-stage of the EG Paired Samples Test Stages Paired Differences df 95% Confidence Interval of Questions Mean PRE-STAGEE t Std Std Error Deviation Mean the Difference Lower Sig (2tailed) Upper Control – Experimental Group -.06667 73968 13505 -.34287 20953 -.494 29 625 Question Control – Experimental Group -.06667 69149 12625 -.32487 19154 -.528 29 601 Question Control – Experimental Group 06667 36515 06667 -.06968 20302 1.000 29 326 Question Control – Experimental Group 03333 49013 08949 -.14969 21635 372 29 712 Question Control – Experimental Group -.20000 63788 11646 -.43819 03819 -1.717 29 097 Question Control – Experimental Group -.06667 73968 13505 -.34287 20953 -.494 29 625 Question Control – Experimental Group -.05000 49741 09081 -.23573 13573 -.551 29 586 Question Control – Experimental Group 01667 33434 06104 -.10818 14151 273 29 787 Question Control – Experimental Group -.01667 42514 07762 -.17542 14208 -.215 29 831 Question 10 Control – Experimental Group -.11667 58255 10636 -.33420 10086 -1.097 29 282 Total POST-STAGE Question Control – Experimental Group -.46667 2.70674 49418 -1.47738 54405 -.944 29 353 Question Control – Experimental Group -.45000 59234 10815 -.67118 -.22882 -4.161 29 000 Question Control – Experimental Group -.30000 53498 09767 -.49977 -.10023 -3.071 29 005 Question Control – Experimental Group -.70000 46609 08510 -.87404 -.52596 -8.226 29 000 Question Control – Experimental Group -.63333 49013 08949 -.81635 -.45031 -7.077 29 000 Question Control – Experimental Group -.30000 46609 08510 -.47404 -.12596 -3.525 29 001 Question Control – Experimental Group -.06667 59789 10916 -.28992 -.611 29 546 Question Control – Experimental Group -.28333 52000 09494 -.47751 -.08916 -2.984 29 006 Question Control – Experimental Group -.36667 39246 07165 -.51321 -.22012 -5.117 29 000 Question Control – Experimental Group 00000 37139 06781 -.13868 13868 000 29 1.000 Question 10 Control – Experimental Group -.18333 54903 10024 -.38835 02168 -1.829 29 078 Total Control – Experimental Group -3.28333 2.77515 50667 -4.31959 -2.24708 -6.480 29 000 15659 Table 4.19 The differences in the test results between the pre-stage and post-stage of the experimental group Paired Samples Test Test Sections Paired Differences Sig (2-tailed) 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Stage Relationship Lower Upper Section Pre-test – Post-test -.45833 47834 08733 -.63695 -.27972 -5.248 29 000 Section Pre-test – Post-test 02500 31725 05792 -.09346 14346 Pre-test – Post-test -.41667 -.59570 -.23763 Section Pre-test – Post-test -1.24626 -.62041 -6.100 29 000 Section Pre-test – Post-test 47946 08754 Std -.93333 83803 Std Error 15300 Mean Deviation Mean -.17500 46028 08403 df 29 29 669 Section t.432 -4.760 -.34687 -.00313 -2.082 29 046 Total Pre-test – Post-test -1.95000 -2.63177 -1.26823 -5.850 29 000 1.82582 33335 000 Table 4.20 The test results of the CG and the EG Paired Samples Statistics Stages Test Sections Groups PRE-TEST Mean Section 9750 30 53478 09764 1.0333 30 39246 07165 Control Group 3750 30 29177 05327 Experimental Group 4500 30 33088 06041 Control Group 1.2500 30 38841 07091 Experimental Group 1.3917 30 47199 08617 Control Group 1.4417 30 58972 10767 Experimental Group 1.2750 30 66095 12067 Control Group 3083 30 38103 06957 Experimental Group 3167 30 34699 06335 Control Group 4.3167 30 1.46501 26747 Experimental Group 4.4833 30 1.65302 30180 Control Group 1.1417 30 47653 08700 Experimental Group 1.4917 30 35649 06509 Control Group 2333 30 21709 03963 Experimental Group 4250 30 27189 04964 Control Group 1.4083 30 38553 07039 Experimental Group 1.8083 30 41358 07551 Control Group 1.8583 30 51979 09490 Experimental Group 2.2083 30 73133 13352 Control Group 1667 30 22102 04035 Experimental Group 4917 30 39655 07240 Control Group 4.8833 30 1.41837 25896 Experimental Group 6.4333 30 1.82291 33282 Experimental Group Section Section Section Section Total POST-TEST Control Group N Std Deviation Std Error Mean Section Section Section Section Section Total Table 4.21 The differences in the test results between CG and EG Paired Differences PRE-TEST Stages Test Sections Sig (2tailed) 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Group Relationship Lower Upper Control – Experimental Group -.05833 67493 12322 -.31036 19369 -.473 29 639 Section Control – Experimental Group -.07500 44115 08054 -.23973 08973 -.931 29 359 Section Control – Experimental Group -.14167 59337 10833 -.36323 07990 -1.308 29 201 Section Control – Experimental Group 16667 80498 14697 -.13392 46725 1.134 29 266 Section Control – Experimental Group -.00833 50208 09167 -.19581 17915 Control – Experimental Group -.16667 2.20631 40282 -.99052 65718 -.091 t -.414 df29 29 928 Total POST-TEST Section Section Control – Experimental Group -.35000 -.14548 -3.500 29 002 Control – Experimental Group -.31097 -.07236 -3.286 29 003 Section Control – Experimental Group 10000 Std Error 05833 Mean 09097 -.55452 Section 54772 Std -.19167 31950 Mean Deviation -.40000 49827 -.58606 -.21394 -4.397 29 000 Section Control – Experimental Group -.35000 96624 17641 -.71080 01080 -1.984 29 057 Section Control – Experimental Group -.32500 42115 07689 -.48226 -.16774 -4.227 29 000 Total Control – Experimental Group -1.55000 2.18675 39924 -2.36655 -.73345 -3.882 29 001 682 ... acquisition via the application of metacognitive strategies 1.3 Scope of the study This study focuses only on metacognitive strategies for high school students as indicated in the tittle of the thesis... purpose of the study, examining the effect of metacognitive strategies training on the autonomy in language learning of high school students, the independent variable of this experiment is the metacognitive. .. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 The results of the MAI questionnaire of the control group Figure 4.2 The results of the MAI questionnaire of the experimental group Figure 4.3 The results of the MAI