A Study on the use of Metacognitive Strategies in English Learning by Senior High School Students under the Background of New Curriculum Standards

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science

© 2022 by SSRG - IJHSS Journal

Volume 9 Issue 5

Year of Publication : 2022

Authors : Xiang Meixian, Peng Mingchuang, Wu Chunrong

10.14445/23942703/IJHSS-V9I5P101

How to Cite?

Xiang Meixian, Peng Mingchuang, Wu Chunrong, "A Study on the use of Metacognitive Strategies in English Learning by Senior High School Students under the Background of New Curriculum Standards," SSRG International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 9,  no. 5, pp. 1-10, 2022. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/23942703/IJHSS-V9I5P101

Abstract:

Based on the new requirements of metacognitive strategies put forward by English Curriculum Standards for Senior High Schools (2017 Edition) (New Curriculum Standards), this paper comprehensively investigates the use of metacognitive strategies in English learning by 100 senior high school students and explores the differences in the application of different metacognitive strategies. The findings are as follows: (1) Senior high school students have a superficial understanding of metacognitive strategies in English learning, but the usage frequency is on average level; (2) Among metacognitive strategies, senior high school students use self-evaluation strategies more frequently than self-planning strategies and self-monitoring strategies; (3) There is a significant positive correlation between the usage frequency of metacognitive strategies and English achievement of high school students. On this basis, this paper further puts forward some suggestions to improve the scientificness, effectiveness and pertinence of metacognitive strategies of high school students through multiple evaluations.

Keywords:

New Curriculum Standards, English learning, Senior high school students in China, Metacognitive strategies, Multiple evaluations.

References:

[1] B.S. Bloom, “Education To Improve Learning,” Mcgraw-Hill, 1981.
[2] Ann L. Brown, et al., “Learning, Remembering, and Understanding, in J. H. Flavell and M. Markman (Eds.),” Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology, vol. 3, pp. 77-166, 1983.
[3] Anna Uhl Chamot et al., “A Study of Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction: First Year Report,” Rosslyn, VA: Inter America Research Associate, 1987.
[4] Anna Uhl Chamot, and Lisa Kuper, “Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction,” Foreign Language Annals, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 13-24, 1989. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1989.tb03138.x
[5] J.H. Flavell, “Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive-Developmental Inquiry,” American Psychologist, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 906-911, 1979. Crossref, https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
[6] Gong Deying, Liu Dianzhi, and Zhang Dajun, “The Influence of Metacognitive Monitoring Activity on Cognitive Load and Multimedia Learning,” Psychological Science, no.4, pp. 880-882, 2008.
[7] Howard Gardner, “Assessing Intelligences: A Comment on 'Testing Intelligence Without I.Q. Tests” The Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 699-700, 1984.
[8] Liu Dianzhi, “The Essence of Learning Strategies,” Journal of Ningbo University (Education Science Edition), no. 1, pp. 18-20+42, 2000.
[9] Luo Liang, “Research on Reform and Innovation of Practical Teaching of Ideological and Political Theory Course in Colleges and Universities,” School Party Building and Ideological Education, no. 5, pp. 38-41, 2022.
[10] Armbruster, Bonnie B. et al., “The Role of Metacognition in Reading to Learn: A Developmental Perspective,” Cognitive Processes, no. 5, p. 32, 1983.
[11] “Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China,” English Curriculum Standards for Senior High Schools (2017 Edition), Beijing: People's Education Press, 2020.
[12] John Donald Nisbet, and Janet Shucksmith, Learning Strategies, Boston: Routledge and K.Paul, 1986.
[13] Pang Weiguo, “On Students' Self-Directed Learning,” Journal of East China Normal University (Education Science Edition), no. 2, pp. 78-83, 2001.
[14] Michael Quinn Patton, Utilization-Focused Evaluation (2nd Ed.), Sage Publications, 1986.
[15] Rebecca L. Oxford, Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teachershould Know, New York: Newburyhouse, 1990.
[16] Peter Skehan, “A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning,” Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 324, 1998.
[17] Wang Wenyu, “Concepts, Strategies and Vocabulary Memory,” Foreign Language Teaching and Research, no. 1, pp. 47-52, 1998.
[18] Ellen Weber, “Uniting to Introduce Multiple Intelligences Teaching Approaches (MITA),” National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, vol. 83, no. 604, 1999. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659908360408
[19] Wen Qiufang, “On the Structure, Characteristics and Regulation of English Learning Method System,” Foreign Language Studies, no. 1, pp. 56-60+47, 1996.
[20] Wen Qiufang, “The Relationship Between Traditional and Non-Traditional Learning Methods and English Performance,” Modern Foreign Languages, no. 1, pp. 37-42, 1996.
[21] A. L. Wenden, and J. Rubin, “Learner Strategies in Language Learning,” Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987.
[22] Xiao Wuyun, “An Empirical Study on How Metacognitive Strategy Training Improves Students' English Writing Level,” Foreign Languages, no. 5, pp. 124-127, 2011.
[23] Yang Jianding, “Metacognitive Strategy Training in Listening Teaching,” Foreign Language Teaching, no. 4, pp. 65-69, 2003.
[24] Yi Xingxia, “Constructing Multiple Evaluation System Based on Multiple Intelligences Theory,” Journal of Changchun University of Science and Technology (Social Science Edition), no. 8, pp. 145-146, 2011.
[25] Yu Guang, “Analysis and Reflection on the Multiple Evaluation System of College English Teaching,” China Higher Education Research, no. 8, pp. 92-93, 2008.
[26] Zeng Min, “Questioning on the Classification Framework of Language Learning Strategies: A Review of the Status of Metacognitive Strategies,” Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching, no. 12, pp. 33-35, 2000.