探討高職學生社經地位、英語學習動機、後設認知單字學習策略，及英語單字學習之關係

全文

(1)國立台灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文 Master Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 探討高職學生社經地位、探討高職學生社經地位、英語學習動機、英語學習動機、後設認知單字學習策略，後設認知單字學習策略，及英語單字學習之關係. The Relationship Among Socio-economic Status, Learning Motivation, Use of Metacognitive Vocabulary Learning Strategies, and English Vocabulary Acquisition. 指導教授：指導教授：程玉秀博士 Advisor: Dr. Yuh-show Cheng 研究生：研究生：欉珊慈 Graduate: Stephanie Shan-tzu Tsung 中華民國一百零一年六月 June 2012 1.

(2) 中文摘要本研究探討家庭社經地位對於高職生英語學習動機(包含動機強度及種類)、後設認知單字學習策略運用、及單字成就的影響，並且探究在排除社經地位的影響之下，英語學習動機及後設認知單字學習策略使用對單字成就的解釋力何者較高。本研究共邀請 224 位來自彰化一所高職一年級的受訪者參與，請受訪者填寫三份問卷—基本資料問卷(包含社經地位項目)、學習動機問卷(包含動機強度及種類)、後設認知單字學習策略使用問卷—及一份單字成就測驗。收集到的資料運用多因子變異數分析、單因子變異數分析、及階層廻歸做統計分析以回應上述兩項研究目的。分析結果顯示社經地位對英語學習動機(包含動機強度及種類)、後設認知單字學習策略運用、及單字成就的影響皆不顯著，亦即不同社經地位的學生在這三個變項上的表現並沒有顯著差異。此外，當控制了社經地位對單字成就的影響時，英語學習動機強度是唯一能顯著地預測單字成就的自變項，其他的自變項如學習動機種類及後設認知單字學習策略運用則皆無法顯著預測高職學生的英語單字成就。由此可知，對高職學生來說，學習動機強度對英文單字成就的影響力遠勝於動機種類以及運用後設認知學習策略與否，因此，文末提出了和提升學生學習動機強度相關的教學建議給高職英語教師們參考。本研究盼能增進高職英語教師對學生英語學習的了解：(1)社經地位對英語學習的影響微乎其微，(2)學習動機強度對於單字學習有顯著的預測力。. 關鍵字：社經地位、英語學習動機、後設認知單字學習策略、單字學習成就。. 2.

(3) ABSTRACT The present study intends to reveal the role of socio-economic status (SES) in English learning motivation (including intensity and types), metacognitive vocabulary learning strategy use, and lexical achievement. It also explores the explanatory power of motivation and metacognitive strategy use for second language vocabulary acquisition, with the effect of SES controlled. A total of 224 participants were recruited and asked to complete four research instruments: a background information questionnaire that probed into parents’ socio-economic status, a motivational questionnaire, a metacognitive strategy use questionnaire, and a vocabulary test. Inferential statistics such as MANOVA, one-way ANOVA, and hierarchical regression were employed. The results uncovered an insignificant effect of SES on English learning motivation, metacognitive vocabulary learning strategy use, and lexical achievement. In addition, motivational intensity was found to be the only predictor that significantly explained vocabulary achievement while metacognitive strategy use and motive types did not account for lexical learning to a significant level. Some pedagogical suggestions for language teachers on how to enhance learners’ motivational intensity are provided at the end of the study.. Keywords: socio-economic status, English learning motivation, metacognitive vocabulary learning strategy, vocabulary achievement. 3.

(4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere and earnest gratitude for my advisor, Dr. Yuh-show Cheng, for this thesis would not have been possible without her patience and instruction throughout my writing process. It’s not only her heartily guidance on my research but the freedom of long-distance discussion she gave me that helped me produce the thesis successfully. In addition to the instruction on thesis writing, Dr. Cheng has also inspired me in terms of future career plan and family life. Such inspiration has supported me throughout the whole thesis writing process. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Hsi-nan Yeh and Dr. Li-yuan Hsu, who spent time meticulously reading my thesis and gave me valuable insightful comments to help me refine the thesis and make it complete. I also owe gratitude to all the professors who have instructed me in the past three years. Every course in NTNU was an adventure not only to SLA research but also to knowing myself better as both a researcher and an English teacher. If it had not been these teachers and their courses, this thesis would not have been started. Equally important to me are my classmates, especially Ting Fang, Hui-er Hu, and Yu-ting Lin. I would like to show my thankfulness to them because throughout the past three years they have been an encouragement and a role model to me, reminding me of endless possibilities I have as a student researcher and giving me courage to move on. My gratitude also goes to my colleagues who helped me implement this research and gathered information from their students. Their practical support has made my research vision come true and helped shed light on our students’ English learning. Last but not least, I am truly thankful for my parents, family, and my fiancé. They have given me full mental support throughout the whole writing process.. 4.

(5) TABLE OF CONTENTS 中文摘要................................................................................................................ 2 ABSTRACT........................................................................................................... 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................... 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... 5 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. 8 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 10. Background .................................................................................................. 10 Socioeconomic Status and Language Learning ................................... 11 Motivation and Language Achievement .............................................. 14 Metacognitive Strategies and Language Achievement ........................ 15 Purpose of the Present Study ....................................................................... 17 Significance of the Study ............................................................................. 17 Definition of Terms ...................................................................................... 18 Socio-economic Status ......................................................................... 18 Motivation ............................................................................................ 18 Metacognitive Vocabulary Learning Strategies ................................... 19 CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................... 20. Socioeconomic Status .................................................................................. 20 SES and Learning Achievement .......................................................... 20 SES and Learning Motivation .............................................................. 23 SES and Use of Learning Strategy....................................................... 24 Motivation .................................................................................................... 27 Definition of Motivation ...................................................................... 27. 5.

(6) Empirical Studies on Motivation and Language Achievement ............ 34 Metacognitive Strategies .............................................................................. 35 Definition of Metacognition ................................................................ 35 Importance of Metacognitive Strategies .............................................. 38 Metacognitive Strategies and Vocabulary Learning ............................ 38 CHAPTER THREE METHODS ...................................................................... 46 Participants ................................................................................................... 46 Instruments ................................................................................................... 47 Background Information Questionnaire .............................................. 47 Motivational Questionnaire ................................................................. 48 Metacognitive Strategy Questionnaire ................................................. 50 Vocabulary Knowledge Test ................................................................ 52 Procedure ..................................................................................................... 53 Data Collection Procedure ................................................................... 53 Data Analysis Procedure ...................................................................... 54 CHAPTER FOUR. RESULTS ........................................................................... 56. Reliabilities of the Instruments .................................................................... 56 Participants’ Overall Performance on Instruments ...................................... 57 Effects of SES on Motivation, Metacognitive Strategy Use, and Vocabulary Acquisition ................................................................................................... 59 Explanatory Power of SES, Motivation, and Metacognitive Strategy in Vocabulary Acquisition ................................................................................ 63 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION.................................. 67 The Effect of Socio-economic Status........................................................... 67 Socio-economic Status and Motivation ............................................... 67 Socio-economic Status and Metacognitive Vocabulary Strategy......... 71 6.

(7) Socio-economic Status and Vocabulary Achievement ......................... 72 Explanatory Factors in Vocabulary Achievement ........................................ 75 Metacognitive Strategies and Vocabulary Achievement ...................... 75 Motivation and Vocabulary Achievement ............................................ 77 Pedagogical Implications ............................................................................. 79 Suggestions for Future Research ................................................................. 81 Limitations ................................................................................................... 83 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 83 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 85 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 97 Appendix A: Background Information Questionnaire ................................. 97 Appendix B: Questionnaire on Motivation .................................................. 99 Appendix C: Questionnaire on Metacognitive Vocabulary Strategies ....... 101 Appendix D: Vocabulary Knowledge Test ................................................. 102. 7.

(8) LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Gu and Johnson’s Vocabulary Learning Metacognitive Strategies ......... 41 Table 2 Organization of the Motivational Questionnaire and Item Distribution..49 Table 3 Item Distribution in the Metacognitive Strategy Questionnaire ............. 52 Table 4 Reliability Results in the Pilot Study …………………………………..56 Table 5 Reliability Results in the Formal Study .................................................. 57 Table 6 Means on the Instruments by All the Participants................................... 58 Table 7 Distribution of Participants Based on SES ............................................. 59 Table 8 Descriptive Statistics of the Motivation Questionnaire by SES.............. 60 Table 9 Descriptive Statistics of the Metacognitive Strategy Questionnaire and the Vocabulary Test by SES ....................................................................... 61 Table 10 MANOVA Results ................................................................................. 62 Table 11 One-way ANOVA of Metacognitive Vocabulary Strategy by SES Group …………………………..………………………………………...63 Table 12 One-way ANOVA of Vocabulary Achievement by SES Group ............ 63 Table 13 Model Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis ......................... 64 Table 14 Coefficients of Hierarchical Regression Analysis................................. 65. 8.

(9) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Representation of Motive Types in Self-determination Theory ……... 35. 9.

(10) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background Learner variables have been acknowledged by many researchers as the core factor in second language acquisition. Two decades ago, in their review of characteristics of language learners, Gardner and MacIntyre (1992, 1993a) synthesized learner factors verified as crucial in the process of language acquisition, classifying them into two types: cognitive and affective factors. The former refers to aptitude, intelligence, and strategy, while the latter comprises attitude, motivation, anxiety, and self-confidence. Among these characteristics, motivation and strategy constitute the major concern of the present study, for not only has the researcher observed that most of her low-achievement students lack the drive to learn the target language but ELT research (e.g., Gan, Humphreys, & Hamp-Lyons, 2004) has demonstrated that one of the decisive factors in distinguishing more successful learners from less successful ones is the ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate one’s learning process, namely, the use of metacognitive strategies. Therefore, it is hoped that this investigation could help the researcher and English teachers in similar teaching situations locate the assets and liabilities of students with respect to language learning motivation and use of metacognitive strategies, and provide pedagogical suggestions to improve the disadvantaged. Apart from cognition (i.e., use of metacogntive strategy) and affect (i.e., motivation) of language learners, the researcher also intends to broaden the scope of the investigation by taking social context, specifically learners’ socio-economic status, into consideration when examining students’ language learning outcomes because, for 10.

(11) one thing, learners’ socio-economic status is believed to be an integral part of language learning process (Chang et al., 2004) and its relation to other learner variables has been suggested for further research (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1992; Kan, 2004). For another, in view of the wide variation of learners’ prior English learning experiences, the researcher conjectures that such variation might associate with the wide dispersion of learners’ economic and social status. Accordingly, in order to have a fuller understanding of students’ language learning, the researcher argues that a scrupulous look into such a socio-contextual factor and its relation to learning outcomes as well as both affective and cognitive learner variables is in demand. In other words, the present inquiry will not only look into types and intensity of learning motivation students possess, the frequency they employ metacognitive strategies, and the level of socio-economic support they have but also the relationship among the above-mentioned three factors and their respective contribution to the core of language learning: vocabulary acquisition. The rationale of conducting such a study stems from the following research. Socioeconomic Status and Language Learning The contribution of one’s socio-economic background to his or her learning outcome has been recognized by researchers in Taiwan. Invited to review and analyze the severe bimodal score distribution of test takers’ English achievement in the Basic Competence Test, Chang et al. (2004) found out that students in urban areas, such as those from Northern Taiwan, performed significantly better on the BCT English test than those in rural areas like Southern and Eastern Taiwan. Also, their report revealed that the more years students had received English exposure, the higher their BCT scores were. Most importantly, the researchers validated that English achievement was related to learners’ economic background. Those with higher family income did perform significantly better on the BCT English test than lower-income students. 11.

(12) These findings supported Chang’s (2002) contention that the severe bimodal distribution of learners’ English competence in Taiwan stems primarily from the imbalanced distribution of learning resources between urban and rural areas as well as family’s capability to offer students with early English exposure. Despite the fact that city dwellers might also be economically disadvantaged, it is reasonable to infer that on average, people in urban districts have higher income than those in rural regions. In line with the study by Chang et al. (2004), a few researchers in Taiwan have attempted to corroborate the effect of SES on English achievement across ages, from kindergarten children to senior high school graduates (e.g., Chen, 2004; Hsu, 2009; Lee, 2009; Nieh, 2004). In general, they have all validated that the higher SES, the higher English learning outcome. Such a finding can be explained by Elias and Long’s (1984) observation that parents relatively short of education and income are compelled to earn a living by laborious jobs that inhibit them from sparing attention to children’s educational upbringing. They are even not aware of the impact of parental support on children’s academic learning. In these cases, children usually suffer from insufficient parental support, irrespective of mental or material support, and accordingly, are unlikely to develop healthy values and beliefs about their educational achievement as those with robust parental involvement in learning do, which might have profound impact on academic performance. Despite the repetitive support of positive relation between SES and English achievement, none of these Taiwanese studies is rooted in vocational high schools, where a wide range of departments and admission thresholds exist. Such a gap inspires the researcher to conduct an investigation on the effects of SES on English learning in her own school, a vocational high school in Changhua County. Given the positive relation between SES and learning outcomes, it has been argued that the effect is indirect (Keith & Anderson, 1997; Koutsoulis & Campbell, 12.

(13) 2001; Stipek, 2001). On the other hand, SES is argued to be directly connected with a variety of learner variables, such as psychological support, attitudes toward school, motivation, and learning strategy (Crnic & Lamberty, 1994; Kan, 2004; Keith & Anderson, 1997; Koutsoulis & Campbell, 2001; Ramey & Ramey, 1994; Stipek, 2001). However, in second language acquisition research, few studies examined the relation between SES and learner variables. Regarding motivation, Gayton’s (2010) study is one of the few that investigated the relationship between SES and language learning motivation. He interviewed 11 high school teachers from different counties in order to reveal whether there were any differences in the influence of socioeconomic status on language learning motivation between English as L1 and L2. In both contexts, participants’ responses suggested that socioeconomic status made a significant contribution to language learning motivation. The study also indicated a positive correlation between SES and learning motivation across language contexts. Similarly, according to Kan (2004), students from families of different SES demonstrated different degrees and types of motivation to learn English as a foreign language. In particular, students from high SES families were found to have higher motivation than lower-SES students. Likewise, within the paradigm of second language acquisition, scarce attention has been paid to the association between SES and learners’ use of metacognitive learning strategy, a manifestation of their cognitive development and control, whereas the impact of SES on children’s general metacognitive development is evident. Research has found that children from lower-income families are more likely to encounter difficulty developing metacognitive knowledge and skills in comparison to those from higher-income families (Carr, 2010). For example, preschool children of low SES were found to have poorer declarative metacognitive knowledge than those of middle SES and were less able to explain their problem solving processes in 13.

(14) mathematics (Pappas, Ginsburg, & Jiang, 2003). Similarly, a significant positive correlation between SES and metacognitive self-regulation strategy use has been observed in primary school children’s learning of science. Akyol, Sungur, and Tekkaya (2010) revealed that parents’ educational level, number of reading materials at home, frequency of buying a daily newspaper were conducive to learners’ use of metacognitive strategy and science achievement. The influence of SES on metacognition also applies to L1 literacy development. Research has noted that higher-SES children engage in more social, language, and literacy enhancement. activities. than. lower-SES. children. do. (Hay,. Elias,. Fielding-Barnsley, Homel, & Freiberg, 2007). It is such parental activities as shared reading, reading aloud, and discussing stories and vocabulary with children that facilitate the transition from “learning to read” to “reading to learn”, which also demands metacognitive skills. Despite the rich evidence of SES’ impact on learner variables in general education, the connection between SES and metacognition has not been sufficiently explored in second language acquisition; neither has SES’ connection with learning motivation. Thus, both directions require further investigation. Motivation and Language Achievement Efforts to define motivation have pervaded the field of second language acquisition. Among them, Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model is one of the most renowned theories of language learning motivation. Although this model has aroused criticism in terms of the interpretation of terms used in the model and its generalizability to different learning contexts (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005), the model remains the most prestigious and widely-adopted in the field. Hence, a considerable amount of research (Clement, Gardner, & Smythe, 1977; Clement, Gardner, & Smythe, 1980; Gardner & Masgoret, 2003; Lett & O'Mara, 1990) has dedicated to 14.

(15) investigating the direct or indirect effect of learners’ motivation on learning achievement within the paradigm of Gardner’s socio-educational model. Influential as Gardner’s model is, the present study only relies on one component of the theory – motivational intensity – and resorts to another renowned motivation framework in the domain of cognitive psychology – Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory – for the foundation of research on types of motivation. This distinguished theory proposed the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and was accredited by Brown (1991) as “a more powerful conception of the motivation construct” (p.247). Therefore, the theory was later applied to second language acquisition by Noels and colleagues (Noels, 2001b; Noels, Clément, & Pelletier, 2001; Noels, Pelletier, Clément, & Vallerand, 2000), and has laid theoretical ground for a multitude of studies, including the present one. As a primary indicator of second language proficiency, vocabulary achievement has been verified to have close association with learners’ attitudes and motivation, especially in terms of the rate of acquiring vocabulary (Gardner & Tremblay, 1998; Tremblay, Goldberg, & Gardner, 1995). The researcher thus hopes to investigate whether the connection between vocabulary learning outcomes and motivation to learn English holds in her students in a vocational high school, where students demonstrate a wide range of learning behaviors across departments. Metacognitive Strategies and Language Achievement SLA research has probed into the effect of using metacognitive strategies on various English learning aspects, especially reading and listening comprehension. It has been discovered that compared with less effective readers, more proficient readers tend to demonstrate a higher degree of metacognitive awareness which enables them to regulate reading process through the use of proper strategies (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Zhang, 2001; Zhang, Gu, & Hu, 2008). Moreover, a number of researchers have 15.

(16) looked into the plausibility of metacognitive reading strategy training and established that metacognitive reading strategies can be taught and once learners develop metacognitive awareness, they have a higher chance of becoming a better reader (Farrell, 2001; Zhang, 2008). Concerning listening comprehension, similar positive relation between metacognitive awareness and proficiency has also been validated. It has been found that through weeks of systematic explicit instruction on the use of metacognitive listening strategies, learners can perform better on listening comprehension test (Abdelhafez, 2006; Coşkun, 2010). The effect of metacognitive strategies also apply to second language vocabulary learning. Gu and Johnson (1996) investigated the relationship between the use of vocabulary learning strategies by Chinese college learners of English and their English learning outcomes. Their finding suggested that metacognitive vocabulary learning strategies were predictive of language learning achievement, in the form of College English Test. In an exploration of the connection between vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary size in Cantonese learners of English, Fan (2003) found that learners of a larger vocabulary size made use of their metacognition more often than those of a smaller vocabulary. There has also been research directly probing into the effect of metacognitve strategy training on vocabulary acquisition. Rasekh and Ranjbary’s (2003) study indicated that explicit metacognitive vocabulary learning strategy instruction did significantly promote lexical development compared with the non-metacognitive strategy instruction. These studies all support a positive connection between the use of metacognitive vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes, especially vocabulary learning achievement. It is thus interesting to take a further step to uncover the relative contribution of use of metacognitive learning strategies and learning motivation to vocabulary achievement. 16.

(17) Purpose of the Present Study One of the goals of the present study is to fill the above-mentioned research gaps by investigating the connection of learners’ SES with their English learning achievement, learning motivation, and metacognitive strategy use in a vocational high school, where students from a wide variety of family background abound. In addition, the present study aims to explore the explanatory power of socio-economic status, learning motivation, and metacognitive strategy use for English learning achievement, specifically vocabulary learning achievement. The research questions addressed in this study are as follows: 1.. Do students of different SES differ significantly in English learning motivation (including motivational intensity and motivation types), use of metacognitive vocabulary learning strategies, and vocabulary learning achievement?. 2.. What is the explanatory power of learning motivation and the use of metacognitive vocabulary learning strategies for learners’ vocabulary achievement, with SES controlled? Significance of the Study. With the rising recognition of the influence of socio-economic background on learning process and outcomes in general education, the last decade has also witnessed a start to take learners’ socio milieu into consideration in the analysis of English learning achievement. However, this line of research has not been sufficient enough. In order to find out if socio-economic status weighs to a significant extent in English learning, the present study examines its relation with not only the fundamental language component – vocabulary achievement – but also two crucial learner variables – motivation (including intensity and types) and use of metacognitive learning strategies. 17.

(18) Furthermore, the present study intends to reveal the explanatory power of learning motivation and metacognitive strategy use for vocabulary learning, with SES controlled. Through such an examination, the present study may reveal relative importance of these two factors in second language vocabulary acquisition and can provide pedagogical implications accordingly. Definition of Terms Socio-economic Status Socio-economic status refers to parents’ income, occupation, and educational level in a family. It has been proved to be a strong predictor of children’s welfare and cognitive development (DEECD, 2006; Stipek & Ryan, 1997; Stipek, 2001) in general education. The measure of socio-economic status has been versatile. A minority of researchers expanded SES indicators to cognitively-stimulating environment, such as numbers of reading materials at home and frequency of buying a daily newspaper (Akyol et al, 2010), while most researchers have remained within the frame of both parents’ occupation and educational level. The present study follows Hallinghead’s (1957) two-factor index of social position, using only the rank of occupation and educational level to calculate a family’s socio-economic status. Motivation In the present study, the investigation of motivation involves motivational intensity and motive types. Based on Gardner’s (1985) theory, motivational intensity refers to the strength of one’s motivation to learn a language and is defined by the effort a person makes to learn that language, the desire he or she demonstrates to be proficient in that language, and the attitude he or she holds toward the language. Concerning motive types, the present study mainly employs Noels and colleagues’ (2000) self-determination theory in second language acquisition and categorizes motives into three types: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. 18.

(19) In addition, requirement motivation, which has been regarded as influential in Taiwanese students (Warden & Lin, 2000), is also included as one of the motive types to be explored. Specifically, while intrinsic motivation comes from inner satisfaction of engaging in a learning task, extrinsic motivation refers to learning out of external forces, such as the sense of guiltiness of not carrying out a task or a reward of performing a desired learning behavior. If learners are driven by requirement motivation, it means they perform a learning task only because of curriculum requirement. On the other hand, if learners don’t recognize the reason of their learning, they are categorized as amotivated learners. Metacognitive Vocabulary Learning Strategies To define metacognitive vocabulary learning strategies, the concept of metastrategy must be explained first. Metastrategy refers to learners’ active and conscious regulation of their learning through the use of a variety of learning strategies. When this regulation applies to information processing, it is referred to as metacognitive strategy. The use of metacognitive vocabulary learning strategy, therefore, indicates one’s ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate lexical learning process. The present study is grounded in Gu and Johnson’s (1996) and Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies, but with a focus only on the category of metacognitive strategies.. 19.

(20) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW The discussion in this chapter proceeds along three aspects: socio-economic status, motivation, and metacognitive strategies. Firstly, the role of socio-economic status in learning achievement, learning motivation, and metacognitive strategy use is thoroughly discussed with evidence from fields of general education and language learning. Secondly, diverse definitions of motivation in second language acquisition are synthesized, followed by a review of studies on the effect of motivation on language learning achievement. Last, the definition of metacognitive learning strategies and their applications to second language vocabulary acquisition are discussed. At the end of the section, research concerning the use of metacognitive vocabulary strategies is briefly reviewed. Socioeconomic Status Socioeconomic status (SES) of a family refers to parents’ income, education, and occupation, which, one the one hand, can be a strong predictor of children’s mental and physical health problems, and, on the other, may lead to different degrees of access to educational and social resources. As Oakes and Rossi (2003) defined, SES refers to “differential access (realized and potential) to desired resources.” In educational research, SES is typically divided into three categories — low, mid, and high SES — to describe the level of socioeconomic support one may enjoy. The importance of SES in learners’ academic learning is exemplified in the following sections. SES and Learning Achievement In general education, a host of studies have proven that SES is a determinant of students’ educational achievement across ages and ethnic groups. For instance, in 20.

(21) cases of African-American and native-American students, learners of higher SES performed better on a 12th-grade educational achievement test than low SES students did (Battle & Lewis, 2002). Also, among many background variables, SES was found to be the strongest predictor for math achievement in Brazilian children (Oakland, Wechsler, Benusan, & Stafford, 1994). Furthermore, it is acknowledged that low-SES students are disadvantaged when they begin schooling, which may impede their subsequent learning process if prevention is not taken. This notion was made in a longitudinal study by Walker, Greenwood, Hart, and Carta (1994) and echoed by Battle’s (2002) assertion that “if our society is interested in increasing academic achievement, policies that increase students’ socioeconomic status are inexpendable” (p. 442). Nevertheless, the significant impact of socioeconomic status on academic achievement seems to be indirect; rather, it is parental encouragement that directly influences how children learn. Elias and Long (1984) suggested that higher living standard may help arouse parents’ awareness of their role in motivating children to learn in that attention can be spared for developing positive parenting attitudes and values. Children whose parents pay concentrated attention to their learning are likely to develop higher motivation in learning. Such a phenomenon is also evident in children’s first language acquisition. Research has found that responsiveness of family members and care-giving environment determines children’s hearing ability (Kiran, 2010). Intensive verbal and emotional responses to children and maternal involvement, especially in the first two years, contribute to later linguistic and cognitive development. These characteristics are common in families with high SES. In contrast, parents under excessive mental stress generally provide environment of poorer quality for their children to develop linguistic and cognitive skills. In short, low-SES parents generally talk to, listen to, and interact with children less than high-SES parents do. This infrequent parental 21.

(22) interaction impedes children’s linguistic development. Furthermore, families with less access to financial and social resources and supports that may stimulate and promote children’s emotional, social, and cognitive development might not prepare their children for school as well as those of higher SES (Crnic & Lamberty, 1994; Ramey & Ramey, 1994). This lack of readiness for school usually leads to later disadvantaged academic achievement. Studies on association between SES and second language acquisition, however, are limited compared with those on native languages. Take Taiwan for example. Only a few researchers have devoted to investigating the relationship between socioeconomic status and English learning outcomes (Chen, 2004; Hsu, 2009; Lee, 2009; Nieh, 2004). Unsurprisingly, their findings corroborated that the higher SES, the higher English proficiency. For instance, Lee (2009) found that higher-SES children who were sent to kindergartens of higher tuition had higher English ability than those from lower-SES families. More importantly, Nieh (2004) investigated 3,049 elementary school graduates in order to find out the predictors of their English proficiency. Independent variables involved the graduates’ gender, area of residence, family’s socioeconomic status, years of learning English, and hours of extracurricular English classes after school. Results revealed that the strongest predictor lay in whether students attended extra English classes after school. However, although SES didn’t explain the proficiency level as much as the extracurricular English classes, students whose parents had higher SES, such as military personnel, civil servants, and teachers, were still predicted to have significantly higher level of English proficiency than lower-SES students, especially whose parents were from laborer classes. Moreover, it is reasonable to associate parents’ capability to afford long-term extra education with their higher socioeconomic status and thus make SES an underlying factor of offering extra learning. 22.

(23) However, the aforementioned studies only concern uncovering whether there is a significant effect of SES on language achievement rather than probe into what type of relation exists between them. As suggested by a host of research (Keith & Anderson, 1997; Koutsoulis & Campbell, 2001; Stipek, 2001), the effect of SES on academic achievement is indirect. Rather, SES is directly related to a variety of educational variables, such as psychological support, attitude towards school, motivation, and learning strategy, which have a direct effect on academic achievement themselves. In other words, between SES and second language proficiency may lie other factors, which, nonetheless, have rarely been thoroughly explored. SES and Learning Motivation Among a limited number of studies that look into the relation between SES and correlates of second language acquisition, motivation, an educational psychological variable, has been more commonly explored than other correlates. For instance, Gayton (2010) interviewed 11 high school teachers — four in Scotland, four in Germany, and three in France — in order to investigate whether there were any differences in the influence of socioeconomic status on language learning motivation between English as L1 and L2. In both contexts, participants’ responses suggested that socioeconomic status made a significant contribution to language learning motivation. The finding also revealed a positive correlation between SES and learning motivation across language contexts. Similarly, as one of her thesis research goals, Kan (2004) investigated the relationship between socioeconomic status and language learning motivation of Taiwanese students from Grade 3 to 9. Students’ responses to questionnaires also demonstrated that students of high SES had significantly stronger motivation than those of mid and low SES, and mid-SES students higher than low-SES ones. Still, effort dedicated to looking into the relationship between SES and 23.

(24) motivation has been restricted, so has research on the effect of SES on other variables, such as learners’ cognitive development and subsequent use of learning strategy. SES and Use of Learning Strategy Although learning strategy has been assumed by many researchers (Keith & Anderson, 1997; Koutsoulis & Campbell, 2001; Stipek, 2001) to be directly related to SES, such a connection has not been widely validated in the field of second language acquisition, neither has the relation between its superordinate concept, cognition, and SES. As a matter of fact, SLA studies investigating the role of SES have mostly concerned learning achievement and learning motivation. In social education, however, it has been reported that one’s socio-economic background may influence his or her cognitive development, which constitutes a critical determinant of academic success or difficulty. For instance, positive relation between SES, particularly parents’ income, and cognitive competences has been observed in longitudinal research involving children from preschool and kindergarten. Stipek and Ryan (1997) uncovered a much poorer performance in all cognitive assessments among economically disadvantaged children than advantaged ones. Likewise, SES is believed to have important impact on not only early school success but long-term academic performance (Stipek, 2001). In other words, children from low-income family usually begin schooling at an academic disadvantage and are more likely to continue to do relatively poorly at school work because they lack proper academic skills that are supposed to be constructed through early childhood experiences. Such intellectual competences and performance are by all means underscored by cognitive development. As summarized by a group of specialists in Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD, 2006), opportunities for intellectual development, involving cognitive skills and thinking pattern, result from early social interaction. It is through 24.

(25) interaction that a child comes to “learn the language, organize perceptions, and develop higher order cognitive processes.” Without sufficient opportunities to engage in early social interaction, a child is less likely to develop the ability to think independently. This disadvantage is commonly associated with low-SES family in that, as reasoned in the previous sections, it is very likely that parents with low-income are inevitably too occupied with earning a living to attend to children’s language progress, let alone intellectual development. Important as early social interaction is, it accounts for only an aspect of early life experiences, which as a whole have a profound impact on a child’s cognitive development. According to the Equity Guideline proposed by DEECD (2006), low-SES students often suffer from the lack of various experiences provided by parents in spoken or written languages that are relevant to formal learning and accordingly support cognitive readiness for school. The knowledge and skills formed through these early life experiences may affect how students interact with their learning environment and eventually shape their ability to remember, reason, solve problems, and acquire new knowledge. On the other hand, socially and economically privileged students are usually equipped with learning strategies necessary for formal learning before schooling through their everyday learning experiences. Thus, students of disadvantaged socio-economic background often start schooling with poorer cognitive readiness, which, if not mediated by teachers, might lead to inadequate learning strategies to cope with a variety of learning tasks. One of the evident cognitive delays lies in literacy development. Congruent with the above-mentioned argument, Wasik, Bond, and Hindman (2002) found that children from socially and economically disadvantaged families often began schooling with limited language skills and less exposure to printed materials, and consequently fell behind their privileged peers in terms of early literacy development. 25.

(26) Nevertheless, SES is not a strong predictor of children’s literacy skills; rather, it’s the social language and literacy enhancement activities associated with high-SES families that essentially contribute to the literacy advancement (White, 1982). Such literacy enhancement activities as shared reading, reading aloud, and discussing stories and vocabulary with children were contended to be not only supportive of language and reading development, but also associated with later academic learning achievement. Since children build their thinking patterns partly through language development, it is very likely that those with literacy delays would suffer from delay in cognitive development. Another example of cognitive delays was found in the field of science research. As one of their research goals, Akyol et al. (2010) investigated the relationship between learners’ family socio-economic status and their use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. The result demonstrated that both parents’ educational level, numbers of reading materials at home, and frequency of buying a daily newspaper were positively and significantly associated with use of cognitive strategies, including rehearsal strategy, elaboration strategy, organization strategy, and critical thinking strategy, as well as metacognitive self-regulation strategies, which unsurprisingly boosted their science achievement. More importantly, the strategy questionnaire in this inquiry was not specifically designated for the subject matter only, but pertained to general learning. Thus, this study again supports the positive connection between SES and cognitive abilities. Abundant as evidence is in upholding a positive relation between SES and cognition, little of the proof has rooted in the field of second language acquisition. Except for its effect on learning outcomes and motivation, SLA researchers have seldom taken SES into consideration when analyzing possible factors associated with language learners’ cognition, particularly use of learning strategies. This constitutes 26.

(27) one of the research gaps the present study intends to fill: to uncover the relation between learners’ socio-economic background and their use of English learning strategies. Motivation Definition of Motivation Attempts to define what motivation is in the field of second language acquisition have never suspended as new discoveries or lines of reasoning emerge. Moreover, the conceptualization of what constitutes motivation also varies depending on the domain of research interests. Take social psychology and cognitive psychology for example. Researchers situated in these two fields of education may highlight different components of motivation, with the former emphasizing such extrinsic factors as social interaction whereas the latter focusing more on the individual’s inner construction of meaning. Despite different approaches to capturing what motivation consists of, the quest has generally attempted to answer the following three questions: (1) what drives the behavior to achieve a specific goal, (2) what underlies the intensity or effort invested in that pursuit, and (3) why individuals differ in their reasons and strength of directed behaviors (MacIntyre, 2002). Motivational theories that are able to provide convincing answers to all the three questions are prone to withstand challenges over decades. One of such successful theories is Gardner’s socio-educational model (1985), the leading model that not only clearly defines what a motivated learner is but also theorizes the relation between motivational variances and language achievement. Gardner’s socio-educational model Sprung from the interest to find out whether the attitude toward target language community influences an individual’s learning of that language, Gardner started to investigate, as early as 1960s, a number of affective variables that were regarded as 27.

(28) conducive to language learning outcomes, and eventually in 1985 proposed a formal causal model that represented the functional relation among attitudes, motivation, and achievement. The model is called socio-educational model. Although been through many revisions, the model maintains its essence that, first of all, while language aptitude and motivation facilitate second language acquisition, language anxiety debilitates. the. process;. moreover,. motivation. is. indirectly. supported. by. integrativeness and attitudes toward the learning situation. The second foundation lies in the dynamic nature of the model. Not only does the level of how one is motivated influence language achievement, but the level of achievement and experiences in learning a language may lead to different levels of attitudes and motivation. With the intention to explain how affective attributes are associated with each other and function together to impact language learning outcomes, Gardner (2000) synthesized the development of three major variables – attitudes toward learning situations, integrativeness, and motivation – and conceptualized their associations in terms of integrative motivation, which promotes language learning. In other words, according to Gardner’s model, an individual who demonstrates a high level of integrative attitudes, a positive evaluation of learning situation, and an elevated level of motivation is considered to be integratively motivated to learn the language. The components of these classes of variables are elaborated in the following paragraphs. Integrativeness. The concept of integrativeness is what distinguishes the socio-educational model from other educational models of motivation (Gardner, Masgoret, Tennant, & Mihic, 2004). Through this construct, Gardner made explicit that second language acquisition involves identification with the target language community and their cultures, whereas the learning of other subjects such as mathematics, science, or history requires the development of knowledge that are either rooted in students’ own culture or universal across cultural boundaries. In other 28.

(29) words, it is the integrativeness that augments the social relevance of this model. Gardner further contended that integrativeness comprises of three dimensions, namely, attitudes toward the language group, interest in foreign languages, and integrative orientation, “an interest in becoming closer to the group for the purpose of communication and interaction” (Gardner, 2000, p.6), all of which concern language learners’ degree of willingness to identify with the language group. Attitudes toward the learning situation. Another variable that is held supportive of learners’ motivation is attitudes toward the learning situation. Theoretically, this concept could extend to all kinds of elements present in the learning environment, including learning materials, extracurricular opportunities, and so forth; nevertheless, operationally, Gardner (1985) regarded the evaluation of the language course and the instructor as most reflective of learners’ attitude toward the language. Therefore, the corresponding measure, AMTB, mainly taps these two aspects of learners’ emotional reaction to the learning context. Motivation. Gardner and his colleagues maintained that intergrativeness and attitudes toward the learning situation would not exert direct impact on learners’ learning outcomes, regardless of linguistic or non-linguistic outcomes, but would ground an individual’s motivation to learn that language. Even though, as mentioned in the previous section, the quest to empirically define motivation often results in “contradictory, paradoxical, and unexpected” (MacIntyre, 2002, p.58) findings, educators have generally agreed on what Gardner considered to be three key characteristics of motivation: effort, desire, and attitudes toward learning the language. In other words, an individual can be adequately characterized as a motivated learner if he/she expends effort in class, desires to become proficient in the language, and holds positive attitudes toward the learning experience simultaneously. Aside from integrativeness and attitudes toward the learning situation, other 29.

(30) variables were also found associated with motivation to learn the second language, such as instrumental orientation (Dornyei, 1990), language class anxiety (Gardner & Smythe, 1981), and language use anxiety (Clement et al., 1977). The concept that arouses the most proponents is instrumental orientation, in contrast to integrative orientation — studying a second language for practical advantages such as getting a promotion at work. To measure these attitudinal and motivational variables in language learners, Gardner and Smythe (1981) developed a collection of tests called Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB in abbreviation) and used participants’ responses to establish the relationship among these variables on the one hand, and their relation to language learning achievement on the other. Having been through many adaptations, AMTB now consists of 11 subtests (Gardner, 2000) probing into the above-mentioned variables. It is well-acknowledged that AMTB has reached a high level of internal consistency and test-retest reliability, and a considerable number of studies employing the measure have also proved the correlation between these attitudinal and motivational variables and language achievement (Gardner, 2000). Expansion of Gardner’s model: Dornyei’s three-level framework On the other hand, 1990s witnessed a trend calling for alternative approaches. Researchers considered the socio-educational model too limited to incorporate all possible existing factors that influence motivation (Dornyei, 1994) and too dominant to leave rooms for other theories to be seriously considered (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991). Therefore, critics (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Dornyei, 1994; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Williams & Burden, 1997) were eager to expand Gardner’s socio-educational model by integrating other motivational variables proposed in the field of second language acquisition as well as general education. During such a call for “educational friendly approaches in motivation research” (Dornyei, 2001), 30.

(31) Dornyei seems to be the most active advocate in proposing attention be focused on practitioner-friendly variables, such as causal attributions, task presentation, and classroom goal structure, and in integrating related concepts into an expanded framework. Dornyei’s (1994) framework consists of three levels: language level, learner level, and learning situation level. The language level refers to the distinction of integrative and instrumental motivation, which was also addressed in the socio-educational model. The learner level pertains to individual differences among learners, such as need for achievement and self-confidence. These are regarded as familiar concepts in broader psychological and educational literature. The last and the most distinctive category lies in the learning situation level, which contains three components: course-specific, teacher-specific, and group-specific attitudes. Although the socio-educational model encompassed learners’ attitude toward the language course and teacher, Dornyei argued that these two components were not reflective enough of learners’ attitude toward the learning situation. Moreover, Gardner’s (1985) lack of providing pedagogical advice to help educators motivate learners lay the ground for Dornyei’s development of motivation framework. Accordingly, he proposed 30 pedagogical strategies, 20 of which were targeted at classroom language learning, for teachers to make use of. It is this aspect that most distinguishes Dornyei’s three-level taxonomy from Gardner’s socio-educational model. However, according to MacIntyre’s (2002) review of alternative approaches to Gardner’s socio-educational model, many theoretical and empirical efforts are still needed so as to organize Dornyei’s motivational concepts and further demonstrate how these constructs are related to one another and to the L2 learning as a whole. Moreover, Gardner has argued that the strategies proposed by Dornyei concern many subject matters other than language learning, and doubted if the strategies targeted at 31.

(32) other subjects can be applied to second language learning. Also, whether the use of these strategies would have a desirable effect in terms of promoting learners’ motivation as well as language learning outcomes has not fully researched to date. Self-determination theory In addition to Gardner’s socio-psychological perspective of language learning motivation, the present study is also grounded in the viewpoint of cognitive psychology. One of the most influential cognitive-psychological construct of learning motivation since 1990s is Deci and Ryan’s (1985; 2002) self-determination theory, which has later been applied to the field of second language acquisition by Noels and colleagues (Noels, 2001b; Noels et al., 2001; Noels et al., 2000). The prominent distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is attributed to this theory and has been accredited by Brown (1991) as “a more powerful conception of the motivation construct” (p.247). According to Noels et al. (2001), intrinsic motivation comes from the sheer joy and satisfaction of engaging in the learning tasks. In other words, learners who are intrinsically motivated feel the enjoyment and satisfaction from engaging in the learning activity and would love to continue learning due to that sheer sense of contentment. On top of this definition, the researchers have classified intrinsic motivation into three types based on the source of satisfaction. If the enjoyment is obtained from carrying out the learning activity itself, the motive is named stimulation. If the satisfaction results from accomplishing tasks, the type of motivation is titled accomplishment. In the same way, learners may also feel satisfied because they feel their knowledge is enhanced through the activity, in which case the intrinsic motivation is called knowledge. In contrast, extrinsic motivation refers to external forces rather than the activity itself. Unlike intrinsic motivation, which rests on the three different sources of inner 32.

(33) satisfaction, extrinsic motivation is defined through different sources of external drives and characterized by a continuum of self-determination. From the more self-determined form of extrinsic motivation to the less are identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation. Identified regulation, the one that’s most closely related to intrinsic motivation, characterizes a person who identifies with the value and significance of the activity for his/her personal reasons and is motivated to engage in the learning task accordingly. However, students who are motivated by introjected regulation are triggered by a sense of guiltiness or pressure imposed by themselves to carry out the task. For instance, students of this type might practice speaking English because they feel ashamed of not being able to speak English. Learning takes place because they feel the need to confront pressure or reduce guilt. Still, the introjected regulation is much more internalized and self-determined than the most extrinsic motivation, external regulation. External regulation determines learning behaviors through means external to a person, such as reward or punishment. Students whose learning behaviors are motivated by external regulation are prone to suspend efforts once the reward or punishment is removed. In addition to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, the self-determination theory also presents another concept to fully explain learners’ behaviors: amotivation. Amotivated learners perceive no relation between their efforts and learning outcomes. They think they have little control over the consequence of their learning moves. Generally speaking, these learners have low self-efficacy and are likely to develop learned helplessness through their past unsuccessful learning experiences. The aforementioned motivation types – intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation – can be spread along a continuum based on the degree of internalization. Figure 1 presents a graphical summarization of these motive types. Noels and his colleagues (2000) have developed Language Learning Orientations 33.

(34) Scale － Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Amotivation Subscales (LLOS-IEA) to measure a variety of reasons behind learners’ learning behaviors, which would also serve as one of the major instruments in the present study in addition to Gardner’s AMTB subscale. Figure 1 Representation of Motive Types in Self-determination Theory. Other than Garder’s (1985) and Noels et al.’s (2000) perspectives, the present study also takes into account the idea of requirement motivation that has been maintained significant in explaining Taiwanese learners’ English learning motivation (Warden & Lin, 2000). In light of such a contention, Peng (2001) has constructed a questionnaire aiming to measure to what degree learners study the language out of curriculum requirement. This questionnaire also constitutes a part of the motivational questionnaire in the present study. Empirical Studies on Motivation and Language Achievement A tremendous number of studies (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1991; Gardner & Masgoret, 2003; Lett & O'Mara, 1990; Peng, 2001; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995) have found a significant positive correlation between motivation and language achievement, such as listening, speaking, reading ability (Lett & O'Mara, 1990), and vocabulary learning (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1991). They have verified Gardner’s theory that the higher motivation possessed, the higher achievement attained. Aside from the connection between the intensity of motivation and achievement, L2 literature has also revealed the association between types of motive and learning. 34.

(35) outcomes. It has been demonstrated that intrinsic motivation has a stronger impact on learners’ achievement, compared with extrinsic (Gottfried, 1985; Peng, 2001) and requirement motivation (Peng, 2001). Nevertheless, when exploring the relation of motivation, regardless of intensity or types, and English learning achievement, few researchers have broadened the scope of investiagtion to learner’s socio-economic background. In other words, hardly have they attempted to explain if family background plays a role in learner’s percpetion of English learning and in types of motivation possessed, which in the long run may affect the overall learning outcome. Such an underlying reason is considered crucial in assessing learning motivation in the present study. On the other hand, the influence of motivation on learners’ vocabulary achievement has rarely been compared with that of other variables, such as the use of metacognitive strategies. Acknowledging the significance of both learners’ affective and cognitive differences (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1992), the present study takes a further step to compare the explanatory power of motivation and metacognitive regulation for lexical achievement. Metacognitive Strategies Definition of Metacognition The other learner variable taken into account in the present study is learners’ use of metacognitive strategies. To better understand metacognitve strategies in L2 field, its underlying concept, metacognition, must be explained first. The term metacognition was first mentioned by Flavell (1976), referring to the active and conscious monitoring, regulation, and orchestration of the information processing in order to achieve cognitive goals. Later, Flavell and Wellman (1977) and Flavell (1979) included the interpretation of ongoing thought process. In other words, metacognition concerns the thinking about thinking process and learning how to learn. Based on 35.

(36) these ideas, Baird (1990) succinctly summarized that “metacognition refers to the knowledge, awareness and control of one’s own learning” (p.184). In light of these forerunners’ effort, several researchers set out to formulate the exact definition of metacognition. Nevertheless, the field has barely agreed on one. Instead, three classes of definition have aroused much attention. The first group of researchers (Flavell, 1979; Kuhn, 2000; O' Neil & Abedi, 1996; Veenman, 1993) have contended that metacognition consists of two components, the learners’ self-awareness of knowledge and the access to strategies. The knowledge indicates the information about how, when, and where to use various kinds of strategies that direct learning. Learners must be able to access and employ those strategies to control their learning process when they need to. The second class of definition suggests that there are three main components of metacognition: metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, self-regulation and control (Pintrich, Wolters, & Baxter, 2000). Firstly, the metacognitive knowledge refers to the strategies used to regulate the process of knowledge acquisition, such as note taking and elaboration strategies which assist the building of links to prior knowledge. Secondly, metacognitive monitoring means metacognitive control strategies. The core strategies involve planning and monitoring of learning activities, evaluation of the learning outcomes, and the subsequent adaptation of the learning strategies to meet the task demand. The last component in Pintrich et al.’s model is associated with resource management. The management of time, environment, and other leaning conditions, for instance, is central to this group of strategies. Also of equal importance is the model developed by Winne and Hadwin (1998). In their model, the function of metacognition involves four stages: task definition, goal setting and planning, enactment, and adaptation. Upon confronting the task, learners first generate perception of what the task is and what resource is available, set 36.

(37) a learning goal with constructive plans, implement strategies, and adjust strategies or plans to enhance the cognitive process based on their own learning outcomes. Although these attempts to conceptualize metacognition diverge in details, they all imply an interaction between individual factors and situational factors. Learners actively select the knowledge and implement related strategies that meet the task demand. It is not until the release of Oxford’s (2011) book, Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies, that the general language learning strategies have been systematically charted. Integrating findings from previous research on the strategically self-regulated (S 2 R ) learners, Oxford has theorized that there are three main dimensions of strategies – cognitive, affective, and social-interactive (SI) strategies – within each of which the metastrategies governs the use of strategies. In other words, learners actively and consciously regulate their learning through the use of a variety of learning strategies. Such regulation includes the control of information processing, emotion, beliefs, behaviors, and external environment, and is altogether referred. to. metastrategies,. and. respectively. to. meta-cognitive. strategies,. meta-affetcive strategies, and meta-SI strategies. The breakthrough of S 2 R Model dwells on the distinction of affective and social-interactive aspects from the cognitive one, as opposed to the usage in some literature, where the term metacognitive strategy is used to indicate all three kinds of management. Metastrategies, according to Oxford (2011), are underlain by metaknowledge, the knowledge about how to learn. All the three dimensions share six types of metaknowledge: person, group or culture, task, whole-process, strategy, and conditional metaknowledge. And when they are applied to the cognitive dimension, they are collectively called metacognitive knowledge. Likewise, when it comes to the metastrategies in cognitive domain, they are termed metacognitive strategies. Oxford 37.

(38) has synthesized 8 categories of metacognitive strategies, including Paying Attention to Cognition, Planning for Cognition, Obtaining and Using Resources for Cognition, Organizing for Cognition, Implementing Plans for Cognition, Orchestrating Cognitive Strategy Use, Monitoring Cognition, and Evaluating Cognition. It is believed that when metacognitive strategies and metacognitive knowledge cooperate effectively, the function of metacognition will reach its peak, since they constitute the whole construct of metacognition (Flavell, 1979). Importance of Metacognitive Strategies Not only are metacognitive strategies considered the most renown type among all the metastrategies (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990), but also the most crucial one in the development of learner autonomy (Jacobson, Maouri, Mishra, & Kolar, 1995; Rubin, 2001; White, 1995) as well as the improvement of language learning (Graham, 1997). It is also believed that “developing metacognitive awareness may also lead to the development of stronger cognitive skills” (Anderson, 2002b). Since the enhanced ability to plan, organize, monitor, and evaluate the cognitive learning process may be conducive to learners’ better use of cognitive strategies and consequently advance their learning process and products, learners’ metacognitive awareness, both knowledge and strategies, should not be ignored in the language class. In fact, the past 30 years have witnessed the rise of research on the metacognitive strategies applied in various language skills (Abdelhafez, 2006; Chen, Gualberto, & Tameta, 2009; Zhang & Wu, 2009) and the effect of training of metacognitive awareness on language achievement in different language aspects (Abdelhafez, 2006; Coşkun, 2010). The field of second language vocabulary acquisition is no exception. The following sections summarize relevant theories and practices in the literature. Metacognitive Strategies and Vocabulary Learning Many researchers engaging in the profession of second language vocabulary 38.

(39) acquisition have demonstrated a strong support for explicit and direct instruction on the acquisition of lexicons, advocating pedagogies that direct learners’ attention to learning tactics and strategies they can make use of. Brown and Perry (1991) argued for teaching students appropriate vocabulary learning strategies, instead of letting students learning in their own way. Ellis (1995) suggested that the effort to describe vocabulary learning strategies would help enhance the understanding of ongoing mental process of vocabulary acquisition in learners’ mind. Meanwhile, the description of these strategies can serve as a guideline to help learners acquire lexicons. Furthermore, vocabulary learning strategies are upheld because of empirical advantages. Coady (1997) and other proponents of strategy-invested instruction of vocabulary teaching considered context to be the major source of vocabulary learning but expressed concern on learners’ ability to acquire words in context by themselves. Therefore, they emphasized the value of teaching specific learning strategies in order to facilitate learners’ vocabulary acquisition process. Also, Hulstijn (1997) claimed that the use of keyword strategy would promote vocabulary learning significantly, especially for learners of intermediate and advanced level. On the other hand, the significant role of metacognitive awareness in oral communication has been validated. Altman (1997) demonstrated that speakers’ active and conscious control of lexicon in oral production made a significant difference. In view of these contentions, the present study sets out to review taxonomies of vocabulary learning strategies (VLS), with the focus on those that integrate metacognitive strategies into the model. The selected metacognitive strategies would lay a foundation of the current investigation. Taxonomies of vocabulary learning metacognitive strategies Although various attempts (Ahmed, 1989; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Lin, 2001; 39.

(40) Nation, 2001; Sanaoui, 1995; Schmitt, 1997; Stoffer, 1995) to delineate and classify vocabulary learning strategies have started in 1990s, so far only two renowned taxonomies directly highlight metacognitve strategies as one of the VLS categories: Gu and Johnson’s (1996) as well as Schmitt’s (1997). Gu and Johnson (1996) investigated the vocabulary learning strategies used by 850 Chinese sophomore non-English majors. Aiming to establish these English learners’ vocabulary learning strategies and their relationship to vocabulary learning outcomes and to general English proficiency, the researchers utilized a vocabulary strategy questionnaire and correlated the participants’ replies to a vocabulary size test and the College English Test. Gu and Johnson’s questionnaire included 7 categories of – a total of 91 – vocabulary strategies, among which, the class of metacognitive strategies was found to be a strong predictor of general English proficiency. This class of metacognitive strategies included the subcategories of Self-Initiation and Selective Attention, with the former consisting of 5 more detailed individual strategies and the latter 7. Table 1 presents the concrete description of these 12 strategies excerpted from Gu and Johnson’s questionnaire. Unlike Gu and Johnson’s (1996) sophisticated analysis of metacogntive strategies, Schmitt (1997) proposed a more succinct description of learners’ working metacognition in vocabulary learning. Schmitt studied as many as 800 Japanese English learners of a wide range of ages: junior high and senior high school students, university students, and adult learners. Within each age group, participants were recruited from schools of different prestige levels, namely, lower, medium, and higher levels. All the participants were given Schmitt’s self-made taxonomy in the form of a questionnaire, which probed into whether they considered a particular vocabulary learning strategy useful.. 40.