Page 1 of 18

69

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol.7, No.6

Publication Date: June 25, 2020

DOI:10.14738/assrj.76.8330.

Falla-Wood, J., & Varghese, K. (2020) Bilinguals, Monolinguals and their Choices of Metacognitive Strategies in Reading, Writing, Listening

and Speaking. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(6) 69-86.

Bilinguals, Monolinguals and their Choices of Metacognitive

Strategies in Reading, Writing, Listening and Speaking

Julia Falla-Wood

School of Education, Burman University,

6730 University Drive, Lacombe, Alberta, Canada

Keciya Varghese

School of Education, Burman University,

6730 University Drive, Lacombe, Alberta, Canada

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this explorative study is to compare the choices of

metacognitive strategies made by bilinguals and monolinguals in

reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Kovelman, Baker & Petitto

(2008) compare bilingual and monolingual brains and observe that

there is a differential activation in the syntactic process between

bilinguals and monolinguals. Could there be a difference between

monolinguals and bilinguals in the choice of metacognitive strategies

too? The data, collected in three private institutions, one in Quebec, and

two in Alberta, consists of 144 students, 72 monolinguals, and 72

bilinguals. The instrument of research is a questionnaire. The results of

this study show that 63.8% of all participants are unaware of the

concept of metacognition. This lack of awareness is found not only in

high school students but also in senior university students. In the

category of bilinguals, the students acknowledge being bilinguals, but

the percentage of those who feel comfortable in both languages is only

47.2%. Regarding the choices of metacognitive strategies, there are

more similarities than differences between bilinguals and

monolinguals. The implications of these results could lead educators to

be intentional in bringing awareness of the concept of metacognition in

a more efficient manner. Further research is needed to determine if the

choice of specific metacognitive strategies would improve the four

language skills.

Keywords: Metacognition, foreign/second language, language skills,

bilingualism, metacognitive awareness

INTRODUCTION

The concept of metacognition dates back to the time of Aristotle, who postulates that there are two

processes in thinking. The first one is connected to prior knowledge and information acquired by

the mind, and the second one relates to a combination of both prior knowledge and information to

conceive new or unexplored ideas (Shiffman, 2011). John Locke (1924) states that human beings

have ideas of their mental operations, and he suggests the term reflection to define those actions.

Page 3 of 18

71

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 6, June-2020

role of metacognition in language skills is crucial. Brown (1987) describes metacognition as having

two dimensions: knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition. The first dimension is

related to the reflective aspect of metacognition, which is what individuals know about their

cognitive processes, also called, metacognitive awareness by Schraw et al. (2006); the second

dimension is related to the regulation of learning, which is what individuals do to control their

learning, also known as metacognitive strategies (Schraw et al., 2006). The capability to have a

sense of one's cognitive performance is an essential characteristic of metacognition (Grimaldi, Lau,

& Basso, 2015). On a theoretical level, there are two order processes (Nelson & Narens, 1994). The

first process is related to uncertainty in the judgment, and the second process is associated with

evaluation and fidelity of the judgment (Meyniel, Sigman, & Mainen, 2015). Metacognitive

performance can be measured by accuracy, which is the degree of confidence in the judgment; by

bias, which is the tendency to have overconfidence regardless of the available information; and by

efficiency, which is related to the accuracy of the first-order judgment (Maniscalco & Lau, 2012,

2014).

The interest in metacognition has been extended into different fields of research, including

education, psychology, and cognitive neuroscience (Schneider, 2008; Shoghi & Ghoonsly, 2015).

Brown et al. (1983) differentiate between metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies.

Metacognitive knowledge is related to information learners acquire about their learning, and

metacognitive strategies are skills through which learners plan, monitor, and evaluate their

learning process. In cognitive psychology, these strategies are referred to as the concept of self- regulation (Schraw et al., 2006). In the field of second languages, Rubin (1987) claims that language

learning strategies, cognitive and metacognitive, "contribute to the development of the language

system [...] and affect learning directly" (p. 23). O'Malley & Chamot (1990) classify language

learning strategies in three categories: cognitive, metacognitive, and affective/social; metacognitive

strategies include planning for learning, monitoring one's comprehension and production, and

evaluating how well the objective is achieved. Chamot (2004) defines learning strategies as

conscious thoughts or actions taken to accomplish a learning goal. The identification and

classification of different strategies (cognitive, metacognitive, and affective/social) have been

obtained through think-aloud protocol analysis (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). Pinctrich (2002) points

out that the role of metacognitive strategies is even more significant than other strategies as it helps

the learners to regulate their learning and perform different tasks in multiple contexts efficiently.

Malcolm (2009) states that fourth-year university students use more metacognitive strategies in

reading than first-year university students. Khalil's findings (2005) demonstrate that university

students learning English as a foreign language apply significantly more metacognitive strategies

than high school students do.

However, the results of Rahimi & Katal's (2012) research on metacognitive listening strategies

awareness yield opposite results. The results of different studies on different L2 proficiency levels

indicate that students with higher proficiency levels use more metacognitive strategies than

students with medium or low proficiency levels use (Phakiti, 2003; Lai, 2009; Liu, 2010; Radwan,

2011). However, Hong-Nam and Leavell (2006) claim that intermediate students use more

metacognitive strategies because they are more aware of their learning progress than advanced

students. The metacognitive strategies of the latter have become automatic and, consequently, are

less conscious of using them. The results of studies undertaken by Oxford (1990), Schoonen et al.