This classroom-based, quasi-experimental study explored the impact of metacognitive instruction designed to promote young learners’ (1) willingness to communicate (WTC), (2) participation in communicative activities, and (3) metacognitive knowledge of oral communication. Forty-four Grade 3 students (8–9 years old) from two intact classes participated in the study. The learners in Class A (n = 23) engaged in a series of activities designed to increase their metacognition in relation to WTC, while Class B (n = 21) served as the control. Three outcome measures were explored in the pre-post design: (1) WTC questionnaire; (2) second language (L2) production during group work; and (3) empty WTC pyramids that the participants drew before and after the intervention. In addition, post-intervention interviews were conducted to understand the learners’ metacognitive knowledge of oral communication. The results showed that the intervention did not have an observable impact on the learners’ WTC. However, their metacognitive knowledge of oral communication was heightened after the intervention. The behavioral data showed that the experimental participants produced the target language more and that group members started to share turns more evenly. The study concludes that metacognitive instruction can be a useful pedagogical tool to improve L2 learners’ metacognition as well as classroom participations patterns, even with young learners whose metacognition can be obscure or inaccurate.
Al-MurtadhaM. (2019). Enhancing EFL learners’ willingness to communicate with visualization and goal-setting activities. TESOL Quarterly, 53, 133–157.
2.
BarahonaM. (2016). Challenges and accomplishments of ELT at primary level in Chile: Towards the aspiration of becoming a bilingual country. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24, 1–24.
3.
BozorgianH.AlamdariE.F. (2018). Multimedia listening comprehension: Metacognitive instruction or metacognitive instruction through dialogic interaction. ReCALL, 30, 131–152.
4.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
BuiG.KongA. (2019). Metacognitive instruction for peer review interaction in L2 writing. Journal of Writing Research, 11, 357–392.
6.
BurgoonJ.K. (1976). The unwillingness-to-communicate scale: Development and validation. Communications Monographs, 43, 60–69.
7.
ButlerY.G. (2017). Motivational elements of digital instructional games: A study of young L2 learners’ game designs. Language Teaching Research, 21, 735–750.
8.
CaoY. (2014). A sociocognitive perspective on second language classroom willingness to communicate. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 789–814.
9.
CaoY.PhilpJ. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34, 480–493.
10.
ChenY.-L.ChengH.-F.TangH.-W.WangC. (2019). The roles of English varieties and L2 motivation in English learners’ willingness to communicate in the internationalization at home (IaH) context. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. DOI: 10.1515/iral-2017-0163.
11.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 4th edition.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
CremeensJ.EiserC.BladesM. (2006). Characteristics of health-related self-report measures for children aged three to eight years: a review of the literature. Quality of Life Research, 15, 739–754.
13.
de BruinA.B.van GogT. (2012). Improving self-monitoring and self-regulation: From cognitive psychology to the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 22, 245–252.
14.
DeKeyserR. (2017). Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In LoewenS.SatoM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15–32). Abingdon: Routledge.
15.
DeKeyserR.Prieto-BotanaG. (Eds.). (2019). Doing SLA research with implications for the classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
16.
DeniesK.YashimaT.JanssenR. (2015). Classroom versus societal willingness to communicate: Investigating French as a second language in Flanders. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 718–739.
17.
DewaeleJ.-M. (2019). The effect of classroom emotions, attitudes toward English, and teacher behavior on willingness to communicate among English foreign language learners. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38, 523–535.
18.
DinsmoreD.L.AlexanderP.A.LoughlinS.M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 391–409.
19.
DonkerA.de BoerH.KostonsD.van EwijkC. D.van der WerfM. (2014). Effectiveness of learning strategy instruction on academic performance: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 11, 1–26.
20.
DörnyeiZ.KormosJ. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300.
21.
Elahi ShirvanM.KhajavyG.H.MacIntyreP.D.TaherianT. (2019). A meta-analysis of L2 willingness to communicate and its three high-evidence correlates. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 1241–1267.
22.
Fernández DobaoA. (2016). Peer interaction and learning: A focus on the silent learner. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 33–61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
23.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
24.
FlavellJ.H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In ResnickL.B. (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
FlavellJ.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
26.
GohC.C. (2018). Metacognition in second language listening. In LiontasJ. (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–7). Chichester: John Wiley.
27.
KangS.-J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33, 277–292.
28.
KeselmanH.HubertyC.LixL., et al. (1998). Statistical practices of educational researchers: An analysis of their ANOVA, MANOVA, and ANCOVA analyses. Review of Educational Research, 68, 350–386.
29.
KhajavyG.H.MacIntyreP.D.BarabadiE. (2018). Role of the emotions and classroom environment in willingness to communicate: Applying doubly latent multilevel analysis in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 605–624.
30.
KleitmanS.NarcissS. (2019). Introduction to the Special Issue ‘Applied metacognition: Real-world applications beyond learning’. Metacognition and Learning, 14, 335–342.
31.
LeeJ.S.LeeK. (2019). Affective factors, virtual intercultural experiences, and L2 willingness to communicate in in-class, out-of-class, and digital settings. Language Teaching Research, 24, 813–833.
32.
LeeJ.S.LeeK.HsiehJ.C. (2019). Understanding willingness to communicate in L2 between Korean and Taiwanese students. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 23 December 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1362168819890825.
33.
LoewenS. (2020). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge.
34.
LysterR. (2017). Content-based language teaching. In LoewenS.SatoM. (Eds.), The handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 87–107). Abingdon: Routledge.
35.
MacIntyreP.D.CharosC. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3–26.
36.
MacIntyreP.D.BurnsC.JessomeA. (2011). Ambivalence about communicating in a second language: A qualitative study of French immersion students’ willingness to communicate. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 81–96.
37.
MacIntyreP.D.BakerS.C.ClémentR.ConrodS. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369–388.
38.
MacIntyreP.D.DörnyeiZ.ClémentR.NoelsK.A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
39.
McCroskeyJ.C.BaerJ.E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Denver, CO: Speech Communication Association.
40.
MortensenC.D.ArntsonP.H.LustigM. (1977). The measurement of verbal predispositions: Scale development and application. Human Communication Research, 3, 146–158.
41.
MunezaneY. (2015). Enhancing willingness to communicate: Relative effects of visualization and goal setting. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 175–191.
42.
Mystkowska-WiertelakA.PawlakM. (2017). Willingness to communicate in instructed second language acquisition: Combining a macro- and micro-perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
43.
PawlakM.Mystkowska-WiertelakA.BielakJ. (2016). Investigating the nature of classroom willingness to communicate (WTC): A micro-perspective. Language Teaching Research, 20, 654–671.
44.
PengJ.-E. (2019). The roles of multimodal pedagogic effects and classroom environment in willingness to communicate in English. System, 82, 161–173.
45.
PengJ.-E. (2020). Teacher interaction strategies and situated willingness to communicate. ELT Journal. Epub ahead of print 7 April 2020. DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccaa012.
46.
PengJ.-E.WoodrowL. (2010). Willingness to communicate in English: A model in the Chinese EFL classroom context. Language Learning, 60, 834–876.
47.
PyunD.O.KimJ.S.ChoH.Y.LeeJ.H. (2014). Impact of affective variables on Korean as a foreign language learners’ oral achievement. System, 47, 53–63.
48.
ReidK.T.TrofimovichP. (2018). Exploring the influence of community volunteerism on adult L2 learners’ willingness to communicate. System, 74, 73–86.
49.
ReynoldsL.JohnsonR. (2011). Is a picture is worth a thousand words? Creating effective questionnaires with pictures. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 16, 8.
50.
SatoM. (2020). Metacognitive instruction for collaborative interaction: The process and product of self-regulated learning in the Chilean EFL context. In LambertC.OliverR. (Eds.), Using tasks in second language teaching: Practice in diverse contexts (pp. 215–236). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
51.
SatoM.CsizérK. (2021). Introduction: Combining learner psychology and ISLA research: Intersections in the classroom. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211044237
52.
SatoM.LoewenS. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68, 507–545.
53.
SatoM.LoewenS. (Eds.). (2019). Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of instructed second language acquisition studies. Abingdon: Routledge.
54.
SatoM.McDonoughK. (2019). Practice is important but how about its quality?: Contextualized practice in the classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 999–1026.
55.
SatoM.OyanedelJ.C. (2019). ‘I think that is a better way to teach but . . .’: EFL teachers’ conflicting beliefs about grammar teaching. System, 84, 110–122.
56.
TengF. (2020). The benefits of metacognitive reading strategy awareness instruction for young learners of English as a second language. Literacy, 54, 29–39.
57.
VandergriftL.TafaghodtariM.H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60, 470–497.
58.
VeenmanM.V.Van Hout-WoltersB.H.AfflerbachP. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.
59.
WendenA.L. (1987). Metacognition: An expanded view on the cognitive abilities of L2 learners. Language Learning, 37, 573–597.
60.
WendenA.L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 515–537.
61.
YashimaT.MacIntyreP.D.IkedaM. (2018). Situated willingness to communicate in an L2: Interplay of individual characteristics and context. Language Teaching Research, 22, 115–137.
62.
ZhangD.ZhangL.J. (2019). Metacognition and self-regulated learning (SRL) in second/foreign language teaching. In GaoA. (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching (pp. 883–897). Berlin: Springer.
63.
ZhangJ.BeckmannN.BeckmannJ.F. (2018). To talk or not to talk: A review of situational antecedents of willingness to communicate in the second language classroom. System, 72, 226–239.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
