Comparing the benefits of a metacognitive reading strategy instruction programme between CLIL and EFL primary school students

  1. Alba Gutiérrez Martínez
  2. Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe
Revista:
Elia: Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada

ISSN: 1576-5059

Año de publicación: 2017

Número: 17

Páginas: 71-92

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.12795/ELIA.2017.I17.04 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Elia: Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada

Resumen

La instrucción estratégica es una parte fundamental del currículo de lenguas extranjeras. Varios estudios (Wenden & Rubin, 1987; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Chamot, 2008; Cohen, 2011, entre otros) han demostrado que el uso de las estrategias de aprendizaje produce un efecto positivo en el éxito de los hablantes aunque este campo no ha estado exento de controversia (Rees-Miller, 1993; Dörnyei y Skehan, 2003; Dörnyei, 2005; Manchón, 2008; Macaro, 2006, 2007, 2010). Este estudio investiga el efecto de un entrenamiento estratégico de lectura en inglés en dos contextos educativos: AICLE (Aprendizaje integrado de contenido y lengua) e ILE (Inglés lengua extranjera) y reflexiona sobre cómo los aprendices de lenguas pueden beneficiarse de esta aproximación didáctica. Los participantes (N = 145) provienen de seis clases de dos colegios de Santander, Cantabria, una comunidad del norte de España. Una de los colegios seguía una metodología AICLE y, el otro, no. Los grupos experimentales en ambos colegios siguieron un entrenamiento metacognitivo de estrategias de lectura diseñado siguiendo el modelo de Macaro (2001) que se centra en la conciencia metacognitiva. Los grupos controles continuaron con las clases normales. Todos los grupos realizaron pre-tests y post-tests. Los resultados demuestran que aquellos alumnos (AICLE e ILE) que siguieron el entrenamiento estratégico obtuvieron mejores resultados en la prueba metacognitva. Sin embargo, aunque el grupo experimental AICLE superó al grupo experimental ILE, no se encontraron diferencias significativas entre ellos lo que nos lleva a concluir que este tipo de entrenamiento es efectivo en ambos contextos educativos y resalta la importancia de la aproximación metacognitiva para la mejora de la comprensión lectora en la clase de lenguas extranjeras

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

We would like to acknowledge the funding awarded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness MINECO [grant number FFI2012-31811] and MINECO/FEDER [grant number FFI2015-63715-P].

Financiadores

    • FFI2012-31811
    • FFI2015-63715-P

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Admiral, W., Westhoff, G. & de Bot, K. (2006). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation. 12 (1), 75-93. https://doi. org/10.1080/13803610500392160
  • Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing, Modern Language Journal, vol. 75, 460-472. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05384.x
  • Cantabrian Government (2013). Orden ECD/123/2013, de 18 de noviembre, que regula los programas de educación bilingüe en los centros docentes de la Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria. Boletín Oficial de Cantabria, 3rd December 2013, number 232. Available online: https://boc.cantabria.es/ boces/verAnuncioAction.do?idAnuBlob=258399
  • Carrell, P. L., Gajdusek, L. & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and EFL/ ESL reading. Instructional Science, 26, 97-112. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1003092114195
  • Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B.G. and Liberto, J.C. (1989). Language and Power, Longman: London.
  • Chamot, A. U. (2001). The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition. In M. Breen (ed.) Learner Contribution to Language Learning, (pp. 25-43). Harlow: Longman.
  • Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: current issues and research, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol.25, 112-130. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061
  • Chamot, A. U. (2008). Strategy instruction and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from good language learners (pp. 266-281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511497667.024
  • Chamot, A. U. (2011). Preparing language teachers to teach learning strategies. In W.M. Chan, K.N. Chin & T. Suthiwan (Eds.) Foreign language teaching in Asia and beyond. Current perspectives and future directions (pp. 29-44). Singapore: Centre for Language Studies, National University of Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510161.29
  • Chamot, A.U. y O’Malley, J.M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Harlow: Longman.
  • Cohen, A.D. & Macaro, E. (2007). Language learner strategies: thirty years of research and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Dmitrenko, V. (2017). Language learning strategies of multilingual adults learning additional languages, International Journal of Multilingualism, 14 (1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1258978
  • Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Dörnyei, Z. & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C.J. Doughty & M. H. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589-630). Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi. org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch18
  • Griffiths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in successful language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  • Garipova, N. & Nicolás Román, S. (2016). Promoting reading skills in CLIL, Pulso, 39, 113-124.
  • Hellekjær, G. O. (1996). Easy does it: Introducing Pupils to Bilingual Instruction, Språk og språkundervisning, 3, 9-14.
  • Hellekjær, G. O. (2006). Screening criteria for English-medium programmes: a case study, In R. Wilkinson (ed.), Bridging the Assessment Gap in EnglishMedium Higher Education (pp. 43–60). AKS-Verlag.
  • Hu, G. (2016). Research on second language learner strategies: past, present, and future. In Y. Leung (ed.), Epoch making in English teaching and learning (pp. 306-335). Taipei: Crane Publishing.
  • Iwai, Y. (2011). The Effects of metacognitive reading strategies: pedagogical implications for EFL / ESL teachers. The reading matrix. 11 (2), 150 -159.
  • Koda, K. (2004). Insights into second language reading: a crosslinguistic approach. Cambridge University Press.
  • Kusiak, M. (2001). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on reading comprehension and metacognitive knowledge. EUROSLA Yearbook (pp. 255-274). https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.1.19kus
  • Larson-Hall, J. (2015). A guide to doing research in second statistics in second language research using SPSS and R. New York: Routledge.
  • Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in second and foreign language classrooms. Continuum: London.
  • Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 320-337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00425.x
  • Macaro, E. (2007). Language learner strategies: Adhering to a theoretical framework, Language Learning Journal. 35(2), 239-243. https://doi. org/10.1080/09571730701599245
  • Macaro, E. (2010). Continuum Companion to Second Language Acquisition. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  • Macaro, E. & Erler L. (2011). Raising the achievement of young-beginner readers of French through strategy instruction, Applied Linguistics, 29, 90-119. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm023
  • Malcom, D. (2009). Reading strategy awareness of Arabic-speaking medical students studying English. System, 37, 640-651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system.2009.09.008
  • Manchón, R.M. (2008). Taking strategies to the foreign language classroom: Where are we now in theory and research? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46 (3), 221-244. https://doi.org/10.1515/ IRAL.2008.010
  • Marsh, D., Coyle, D., Kitanova, St. Maljers, A., Wolff, D. & Zielonka, Br.(2005) CLIL quality matrix report. European Centre for Modern Languages.
  • Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL student’s awareness of reading strategies.Journal of Developmental Education. 25 (3), 2-10
  • Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, 102-116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.102
  • OECD (2016). Pisa 2018. Draft analytical frameworks. OECD Publishing.
  • O’Malley, J.M. & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learner strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9781139524490
  • Oxford, R.L., 1990: Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
  • Phatiki, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance, Language testing, 20(1), 26-56. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532203lt243oa
  • Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: the case for balanced teaching. New York: The Guilford Press.
  • Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Rees-Miller, J. (1993), A Critical Appraisal of Learner Training: Theoretical Bases and Teaching Implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 679–689. https://doi. org/10.2307/3587401
  • Roohani, A., Hashemian, M. & Asiabani, S. (2016). The effectiveness of strategic instruction on metacognition of learners, International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 11 (1), 1-9.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2011). La lectura en el aprendizaje integrado de contenidos en lengua extranjera. In La lectura en lengua extranjera, Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and L. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds), pp. 220-245. London: Portal Education.
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and Zenotz, V. (2014). Strategic instruction in primary education: A pathway to successful learning in content-based contexts. In
  • R. Breeze, C. Llamas Saíz, C. Martínez Pasamar and C. Tabernero Sala (Eds.) Integration of theory and practice in CLIL, Rodopi. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/09571736.2015.1053284
  • Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and Zenotz, V. (2015). Reading strategies and CLIL: the effect of training in formal instruction. Language Learning Journal, 43(3), 1-15.
  • Salataci, R. and Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading, Reading in a foreign language, 14, 1-17.
  • Sheory, R. and Mokhatari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431449. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2
  • Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities and developing expertise: What makes an expert student? Instructional Science, 26, 127-140. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1003096215103
  • Tarrant, P., & Holt, D. (2016). Metacognition in the primary classroom. Oxon: Rutledge.
  • Taylor, A. M., Stevens, J., & Asher, J. W. (2006). The effects of Explicit Reading Strategy Training on L2 reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. In J. Norris, & L. Ortega, (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 231–344). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. https://doi. org/10.1075/lllt.13.11tay
  • Vandergrift, L. and Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: an empirical study, Language learning, 60 (2), 470-497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00559.x
  • Wenden & Rubin (1987). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Wharton-McDonald, R. & Swiger, S. (2009). Developing higher order comprehension in the middle grades. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 510-230) Routledge: New York.
  • Wolff, D. (2005). Approaching CLIL. In Project D3 – CLIL matrix. The CLIL Quality Matrix. Retrieved from: http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/clilmatrix/ pdf/wsrepD3E2005_6.pdf
  • Zhang, L.J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an input-poor environment. Language awareness, 21 (1), 85-100.
  • Zenotz, V. (2012). Awareness development for online reading. Language Awareness, vol. 21, no 1-2, 85-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.20 11.639893
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet