The Relationship between Language Learning Strategies and Metacognitive and Motivational Self-regulated Learning: The Case of Persian as a Second Language (PSL) Learners

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Corresponding Author, Associate Professor, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran

2 MA Graduate of TEFL, Freelance researcher, Iran.

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the language learning strategy use of PSL learners as predictors of meta-cognitive and motivational self-regulated learning components. To achieve this purpose, an sample of 149 B.A level non-Iranian learners of Persian (both male and female) at Imam Khomeini International University were selected. The participants were given two questionnaires to fill in: namely, a translated version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) and Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ).The collected data were processed and analyzed using four separate stepwise multiple regression analyses. The results indicated that, of all the language learning strategies (LLS), cognitive, compensation, and metacognitive strategies had statistically significant predictive power over metacognitive self-regulated learning(MSRL). In addition, memory, affective and metacognitive strategies has a significant relationship with task value. The findings further showed that metacognitive strategies were significantly associated with control of learning beliefs. At the same time, compensation strategies were the only significant but negative predictor of test anxiety. These findings may have theoretical and pedagogical implications for language learners, teachers, and syllabus designers. If teachers and materials developers are cognizant of the nature of the relationships between the mentioned variables, they will be better prepared to make more informed decisions about introducing and encouraging the use of certain types of strategies in the classroom, or about using useful instructional books and materials to encourage students to use those language learning strategies which have predictive power on metacognitive and motivational self-regulated learning components.
Extended Abstract:
There is little doubt that learning a language is a challenging task. In the case of languages such as Persian, which do not enjoy the status of an international language and, consequently, the extensive investment of international agencies, the task of learning appears to be even thornier. To overcome this thorny task, language learners need to be quite motivated and self-regulated. The underlying assumption behind the present study was that some of the language learning strategies that language learners employ might be more strongly connected with their motivational and self-regulated learning. Therefore,   the aim of the present study was to investigate language learning strategy use of Persian as Second Language (PSL) learners as predictors of their meta-cognitive and motivational self-regulated learning components.
To this end, a sample of 149 male and female B.A level non-Iranian learners of Persian at Imam Khomeini International University in Qazvin, Iran were selected through convenience sampling based on availability. The selected participants were then asked to fill in two questionnaires including the translated version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The participants were required to answer the questionnaire by choosing the right alternative from among five choices on a Likert type scale. The collected data were summarized, processed and analyzed using four separate stepwise multiple regression analyses. To see how strong the relationship between the meta-cognitive self-regulated learning and each of the predictors is, the unstandardized as well as standardized coefficients of the three models, along with the observed t-values and significance levels were checked. The results showed that, from among the language learning strategies, cognitive, compensation, and meta-cognitive strategies could make significant contribution to predicting meta-cognitive self-regulated learning. Moreover, meta-cognitive, memory, and affective strategies turned out to be significant predictors of task value. Meanwhile, meta-cognitive strategies and task value shared about 18%, and meta-cognitive and memory strategies together shared over 25% of variance with task value. Meta-cognitive, memory, and affective strategies collectively accounted for about 27% of the total variance with task value. The findings also showed significant relationships between meta-cognitive strategies and control of learning beliefs. In fact, meta-cognitive strategies entered into the regression equation as the single predictor of control of learning beliefs and meta-cognitive strategies and control of learning beliefs shared over 8% of variance. It also turned out that for every one standard deviation of change in meta-cognitive strategies score, there was .30 of a standard deviation change in the control of learning beliefs score.  In addition, to examine the relationship between types of language learning strategies and test anxiety as a component of motivational self-regulated learning, another stepwise multiple regression procedure was used. Based on the results, the single negative predictor of test anxiety was compensation strategies. The result further indicated that for every one standard deviation change in one's compensation strategies, there will be .23 of a standard deviation negative change in one's test anxiety.
These findings may have theoretical and pedagogical implications for language learners, teachers, and syllabus designers. If teachers and materials developers are cognizant of the nature of the relationships between meta-cognitive and motivational self-regulated learning components and language learning strategy use, they will be better prepared to make more informed decisions about introducing and encouraging the use of certain types of strategies (and probably discouraging the use of certain other less productive or counterproductive strategies) in the classroom, or about using useful instructional books and materials to encourage students to use those language learning strategies which have predictive power on meta-cognitive and motivational self-regulated learning components (task value, control of learning beliefs, and test anxiety). By designing the right kind of materials and adopting the right kinds of teaching activities (which require the students’ use of certain strategies), materials developers and teachers may be able to contribute to improving learners’ motivation and self-regulation, and by so doing, help improve learners’ achievements. The knowledge of how language learning strategies are related to metacognitive and motivational self-regulated learning can also help learners become more self-regulated and motivated. If they know that certain learning strategies are closely connected with being motivated and self-regulated, they will be more open and receptive to those strategies and will avoid resisting to use those strategies. Alternatively, they may come to the realization that some strategies are not very useful in this regard, and that they should not be overused.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

                                           References
Babbs, P. J., & Moe, A. J. (1983). Metacognition: A key for independent learning from text. The Reading Teacher, 36(4), 422-426.
Bandalos, D. L., Finney, S. J., &Geske, J. A. (2003). A model of statistics performance based on achievement goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 604-616.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Battle, A., &Wigfield, A. (2003). College women's value orientations toward family, career, and graduate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(1), 56-75.
Baumeister, R. F., &Vohs, K. D. (2007).Self-regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 115-128.
Bremner, S. (1999). Language learning strategies and language proficiency: Investigating the relationship in Hong Kong. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 490-514.
Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002).Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 270-295.
Deffenbacher, J. L. (1980). Worry and emotionality in test anxiety. In I. G. Sarason, (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 111–124). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S.  (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(5), 451–462.
Duncan, T. G., &Mesachie, W. J. (2005).The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 117-128.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T., &Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differences in achievement: A test of alternate theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 26-43.
Eccles, J. S., &Wigfield, A. (2002).Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.
Everson, H. T., Millsap, R. E., & Rodriguez, C. M. (1991).Isolating gender differences in test anxiety: A confirmatory factor analysis of the Test Anxiety Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51(1), 243-251.
Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995).Acloser look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (2), 261-297.
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 47–77.
Hong, E. (1998). Differential stability of individual differences in state and trait test anxiety. Learning and Individual Differences, 10(1), 51-69.
Hong-Nam, K., &Leavell, A. G. (2006).Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English learning context. Science Direct, 34, 399-415.
Lufi, D., Okasha, S., & Cohen, A. (2004). Test anxiety and its effect on the personality of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(3), 176-184.
McKeachie, W. J., Lin, Y., & Middleton, M. J. (2004). Two types of low test-anxious (low worry) students. Counseling & Clinical Psychology Journal, 1(3), 141-152.  
McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y., & Smith, D. A. F. (1986).Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the research literature. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
McWhaw, K., &Abrami, P.C. (2001). Student goal orientation and interest: Effects on students’ use of self-regulated learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(3), 311-329.
Morris, L. W., Davis, M. A., & Hutchings, C. H. (1981). Cognitive and emotional components of anxiety: Literature review and a revised worry-emotionality scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(4), 541–555.
Neuville, S., Frenay, M., & Bourgeois, E. (2007). Task value, self-efficacy and goal orientations: Impact on self-regulated learning, choice and performance among university students. PsychologicaBelgica, 47(1), 95-117.
Nicholls, J.G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91(3), 328-346.
Nolen, S. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5 (4) 269–287.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implication for strategy training. System, 17(2), 235-247.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies. What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. L., &Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: methods, findings, and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 404-419.
Oxford, R. L., &Nyikos, M (1989).Variable affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 291-300.
Pajares, F. (1996).Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. (1994). The role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in mathematical problem-solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 193-203.       
Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. In C. Ames, & M. L. Maehr (Eds.).Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Motivation-enhancing Environments (pp.117- 160). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31 (6), 459-470.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000a). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544–555.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Pintrich, P. R., McKeachie, W. J., & Lin, Y. G. (1987). Teaching a course in learning to learn. Teaching of Psychology, 14(2), 81–86.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., &Mckeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-813.
Pokay, P., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1990).Predicting achievement early and late in the semester: The role of motivation and use of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 41-50.
Pressley, M., &Ghatala, E. S. (1990). Self-regulated learning: Monitoring learning from text. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 19–33.
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, II (2), 117-131.
Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: Reactions to Tests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 929–938.
Schommer, M. (1994).Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 293–319.
Schraw, G., Crippen, K.J. & Hartley, K. (2006).Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111-139.
Schraw, G., &Moshman, D. (1995).Meta-cognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371.
Schunk, D. H. (1991).Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.
Sharma, S., &Sud, A. (1990). Examination stress and test anxiety: A cross-cultural perspective. Psychology & Developing Societies, 2(2), 183-201.
Spielberger, C. D., &Vagg, P. R. (1995). Test anxiety: A transactional process model. In C. D. Spielberger & P. R. Vagg (Eds.), Test anxiety: Theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 3-14). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Unruh, S. M. & Lowe, P. A. (2010). The development and validation of a Spanish language version of the test anxiety inventory for children and adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32(1), 164-183.
Van Zile-Tamsen, C., & Livingston, J. (1999).The differential impact of motivation on the self-regulated strategy use of high- and low-achieving college students. Journal of College Student Development, 40(1), 54-60.
Weinstein, C., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan.
Wenden, A. (1987). Metacognition: An Expanded view on the cognitive abilities of L2 learners. Language Learning, 37(4), 573-597.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49-78.
Wigfield, A., &Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
Yilmaz, C. (2010). The relationship between language learning strategies, gender, proficiency and self-efficacy beliefs: a study of ELT learners in Turkey. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 682-687.
Zarei, A. A. (2014). The effect of reading anxiety and motivation on EFL learners' choice of reading strategies. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 1(1), 12-28.
Zarei, A. A., &Azin, Z. (2013a). Multiple intelligences as predictors of resource management and motivational self-regulated learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistic studies (IJALS), 2(2), 48-54.
Zarei, A. A., &Azin, Z. (2013b). Multiple Intelligences as predictors of cognitive and metacognitive self-regulated learning. International Journal of Management and Humanity Sciences, 2(S), 844-853.
Zarei, A. A., &Gilanian, M. (2014a). On the relationship between cognitive self-regulated learning and language learning strategies. Journal of Social Issues & Humanities, 2(12), 200-209.
Zarei, A. A., &Gilanian, M. (2014b). Language learning strategies as predictors of goal orientation. International Journal of Applied Linguistic Studies (IJALS), 3(1), 8-19.
Zarei, A. A., &Hatami, G. (2012). On the relationship between self-regulated learning components and L2 vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2 (9), 1939-1944.
Zarei, A. A. & Shahidi Pour, V. (2013a). Language learning strategies as predictors of L2 idioms comprehension. International Journal of Language Learning and applied Linguistics Word (IJLALW), 4(2), 313-330.
Zarei, A. A. &ShahidiPour, V. (2013b).Language learning strategies as predictors of L2 idioms production. In S. O'Neill, & A. Maleki (Eds.), Advances in TESOL for 21st century practitioners, leaders, learners and strategies (pp. 145-156). Brisbane: Adam House Press.
Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York: Plenum Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-40). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
 
Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages
Volume 10, Issue 1 - Serial Number 21
Special Issue English
April 2021
Pages 101-130

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 26 May 2019
  • Revise Date: 24 September 2019
  • Accept Date: 11 November 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics