Developing reading proficiency for the 1st year english non majors at nghe an JTTC through cognitive strategy training

Ministry of Education and Training
VINH UNIVERSITY
----------

NGUYỄN THỊ LAN ANH

DEVELOPING READING PROFICIENCY FOR THE
1st-YEAR ENGLISH NON-MAJORS AT NGHE AN JTTC
THROUGH COGNITIVE STRATEGY TRAINING

(SỬ DỤNG CÁC CHIẾN LƯỢC TRI NHẬN ĐỂ PHÁT TRIỂN KỸ
NĂNG ĐỌC HIỂU THÀNH THẠO CHO SINH VIÊN KHÔNG CHUYÊN
NĂM THỨ NHẤT, TRƯỜNG CAO ĐẲNG SƯ PHẠM NGHỆ AN )

Field: Theory and Methodology of English Language Teaching
Code: 60.14.10
Master thesis in Education

Supervisor: Assoc.Prof.Dr. NGƠ ĐÌNH PHƯƠNG

VINH, 2011


CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
I certify my authorship of the Thesis submitted today entitled:
Developing Reading Proficiency for the 1st-year English Non-majors at Nghe An JTTC
through Cognitive Strategy Training.
In term of the statement of Requirement for Thesis and field study reports in Masters’
Programme issued by the Higher Degree Committee.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In order to complete this action research I have received lots of help and
assistances my supervisor, my colleagues and my students.
I am grateful to my supervisor, Mr Ngo Dinh Phuong who has given his time
to advise, to guide and comment on various chapters of this work. If it had not been
for his help, this research wouldn’t have been completed. My thanks go to students at
Nghe An teacher’s training college for their enthusiastic cooperation with data for this
work to be well done.
I‘d also like to express my gratitude to all lecturers and staff of the Department
of Post Graduate Studies, Vinh University for their expertise to this work
Finally I’d like to thank my husband and my two little sons, who energize me
and ground me the busy time writing this research.

iii


ABSTRACT
Reading has played a very important part in learning a foreign language and it is
recognized as the principle objective of language courses. However, the English
teaching procedure in many colleges in our country now focuses much on exploiting
reading texts intensively, including syntactic, semantic, and lexical analyses and
translation into L1 to study meaning. This, as Alderson and Urquhart (1984) have
argued, is not a reading but a language lesson. It is, therefore, the need for teachers to
instruct the students how to comprehend a reading text and guide them to “think
about their thinking” about the reading text before reading the text, during reading the
text and after reading the text. This strategy of reading is known as cognition.
Cognition represents a strategy of acquiring knowledge, namely the ability to
understand one’s method for learning and assimilating information. It concerns "the

knowledge of one’s thoughts," in addition to how various factors influence
psychological thought processing. Cognitive learning strategy offers help for
individuals who struggle to analyze, utilize, memorize and/or retain information.
Consider several strategies to find the one that works best for oneself.
I intend to experiment “cognitive reading strategies” to my first year English
non-majors specializing in pre-schooling education to see how effective this cognitive
strategy training is to help my students develop their reading proficiency.
The study has made some contributions to training learning strategies to the
learners at Nghe An JTT College. It has attempted to measure the effectiveness of this
training to improvement in learners’ reading proficiency
While the study provides some implications for teachers and researchers in
general, it is not free from limitations. The limitations are found in the data collection
instruments and the number of strategies to be taught.

iv


LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1

Learning strategy definition and classification
(O'Malley and Chamot, 1990; 119).

Table 4.1

Central Tendencies, dispersions and
t-value of the pre-tests and post-tests

Table 4.2

Analysis of SS’ responses to
the importance of reading comprehension
to their language learning.

Table 4.3

Analysis of SS’ self-evaluation of reading proficiency

Table 4.4

Analysis of SS’ self-evaluation of reading speed

Table 4.5

Analysis of the students’ responses to grading
the importance of reading comprehension affecting factors.

Table 4.6

Analysis of SS’ utilization of reading strategies

Table 4.7

Students' application of experimented cognitive strategies

Table 4.8

Coursebook tasks and students’ employment of
instructed strategies to complete reading tasks

v


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN ....................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ iv
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................4
1.1. Rationale...........................................................................................................4
1.2.. Scope of the study............................................................................................5
1.3. Aims and purposes of the study........................................................................5
1.4. Research hypothesis..........................................................................................6
1.5. Significance of the study...................................................................................6
1.6. Methods of the study.........................................................................................6
1.7. Organization of the thesis..................................................................................7
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................8
2.1. Cognitive Theory of Learning...........................................................................8
2.2. Language as a cognitive skill............................................................................10
2.2.1. Acquisition of Declarative and Procedural Knowledge.................................11
2.2.2. Production System in Cognitive Skill Acquisition........................................15
2.2.3. Stages of Skill Acquisition.............................................................................19
2.3. Learning strategies.............................................................................................20
2.3.1. Definition of learning strategies......................................................................20
2.3.2. Classification of learning strategies................................................................21
2.4. Strategy Training............................................................................................... 26
2.4.1. Strategy Training............................................................................................ 26
2.4.2. Approaches to Strategy Training....................................................................27
2.4.3. Strategies-based Instruction............................................................................28
2.5. The theory of Reading....................................................................................... 31
2.5.1. Definition........................................................................................................31

2.5.2. Models of Reading Process............................................................................ 32
2.5.2.1. Bottom-up Model........................................................................................ 32

1


2.5.2.2. Top-down Model..........................................................................................33
2.5.2.3. Interactive Model.........................................................................................35
2.5.3. Reading strategies..................................................................................... .....36
2.5.3.1. Definition.....................................................................................................36
2.6. Review of reading strategy research..................................................................37
2.7. Summary............................................................................................................40
CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY.....................................................................44

3.1. Participants and Setting of the Study.................................................................44
3.1.1. Participants.....................................................................................................44
3.1.2 Setting of the Study..........................................................................................44
3.2. Methods and Procedures....................................................................................45
3.2.1. Methods...........................................................................................................45
3.2.2. Procedure.........................................................................................................46
3.3. Instruments of Data Collection..........................................................................47
3.3.1. Tests................................................................................................................48
3.3.2. Questionnaires.................................................................................................49
3.3.3. Interviews........................................................................................................50
3.3.4. Think-aloud Report.........................................................................................50
3.4. Data Collection Procedure.................................................................................51
3.5. Analytic Procedure.............................................................................................53
3.5.1. Test Scores......................................................................................................53

3.5.2. Questionnaire Data..........................................................................................53
3.5.3. Think-aloud Report.........................................................................................54
3.5.4. Interview Data.................................................................................................55
3.6. Summary........................................................................................................................55
CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..................................................57

4.1. Results................................................................................................................57
4.1.1. Reading Tests..................................................................................................57
4.1.2. Questionnaires.................................................................................................58

2


4.1.2.1. Students’ Attitudes to Reading Comprehension..........................................59
4.1.2.2. Investigation on Students’ Utilization of Cognitive Strategies....................63
4.1.2.3. Students' Utilization of Instructed Cognitive Strategies..............................64
4.1.3. Think-aloud Reports.......................................................................................67
4.1.3.1 Transfer of Reading Strategies......................................................................68
4.1.3.2. Students’ Application of Cognitive Strategies.............................................68
4.1.4. Interviews........................................................................................................71
4.2. Summaries of Main Findings.............................................................................73
4.2.1. Reading Proficiency........................................................................................73
4.2.2. Students’ attitudes to reading comprehension.................................................73
4.2.3. Students’ Transfer of Cognitive Strategies.....................................................74
4.2.4. Students’ Application of Cognitive Strategies................................................75
4.3. Discussion of Main Findings.............................................................................76
CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION.............................................................................79

5.1. Conclusion.........................................................................................................79
5.2. Pedagogical Implications...................................................................................81
5.3. Limitations.........................................................................................................82
5.4. Suggestions for further study.............................................................................83
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................84
APPENDIX 1:

Questionnaire..........................................................................I

APPENDIX 2:

Pre-test & Post-test.................................................................V

APPENDIX 3:

Practice on instructed cognitive strategies...........................XII

APPENDIX 4:

T- Test. Analysis.............................................................. XX

3


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1.

Rationale
Exploring ways of making teaching responsive to learner needs and interests and

allowing them to play a fuller, more active and participatory role in the day-to-day
teaching and learning processes has become one of the tremendous aims of English
language teaching in the light of Communicative Language Teaching Approach in
recent decades.
Besides being armed with linguistic knowledge, learners are now encouraging to
look for effective learning strategies which best work for them in the process of
seeking for their language learning progress. Recent study results have indicated that
an increased emphasis on helping learners develop learning strategies would be
valuable for them to develop language proficiency. Anderson, N. J. (1999) states that
language learning will be facilitated if learners become more aware of the range of
possible strategies that they can consciously select during language learning and
language use. This conscious selection is known as cognition. This term concerns
"the knowledge of one’s thoughts," in addition to how various factors influence
psychological thought processing. Cognitive learning strategy offers help for
individuals who struggle to analyze, utilize, memorize and/or retain information, and
consider several strategies to find the one that works best for oneself.
There have been plenty of various definitions of learning strategy, yet, perhaps
the definition that has been widely accepted to date was proposed by O'Malley and
Chamot (1990). According to them, learning strategies are "the special thoughts or
behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn or retain new
information" (1990:1). In spite of being quite short, their definition covers the most
important aspects of learning strategies, that is learning strategies are both mental and
behavioral (therefore both observable and unobservable), and learning strategies are
individually characterized (i.e. the use of strategies are individually different).

4

Being highlighted by the above belief, we intent to experiment the cognitive
learning strategies proposed by O'Malley and Chamot (1990) to improve the reading
proficiency to my first-year English non-majored students specializing in preschooling education.
It is hoped that the findings of this study will give English teachers some
implications on training learning strategies to improve English learners’ language
proficiency in general and reading proficiency in particular.
1.2. Scope of the study
Reading proficiency can be affected by many different factors, such as learner
motivation, linguistic competence, level of reading skill, relevant knowledge, texts
etc. However, in order to make our tasks manageable in keeping the aims of the study
within the time allowance, it is intended that the measure of how effective the training
cognitive strategies are to develop my 1st-year English non-majored students’ reading
proficiency will be paid the most attention. The study of other factors affecting
learners’ reading proficiency, such as motivation, interest, texts etc. would like to set
aside for further study.
1.3. Aims and Objectives
Within the scope of the study, we focus on measuring the effectiveness of the
training of cognitive reading strategies proposed by O'Malley and Chamot (1990) on
improving my 1st-year English non-majored students’ reading proficiency. The study
findings will be used as the base in giving some pedagogical implications for training
learning strategies in general and cognitive reading strategies in particular.
To complete the overall aim of the study, the following objectives must be
obtained:
 Getting to know how much the 1st-year English non-majored students
specializing in pre-schooling education become aware of the use of
appropriate strategies to improve their reading proficiency.

5

 Experimenting the training of cognitive strategies to the 1st-year English
non-majored students specializing in pre-schooling education to clarify
how effective the explicitly-instructed cognitive strategies are to develop
their reading proficiency.
 Giving suitable and appropriate pedagogical implications for training
learning strategies in general and cognitive reading strategies in particular.
1.4. Research hypothesis
The study aims at testing the hypothesis:
“The instructed cognitive strategies can improve my students reading proficiency”
1.5. Significance of the study
 Theoretical aspect: It is hopefully expected that this study would make a
small contribution to investigating and training learning strategies to
beginning EFL learners, and more importantly, systemizing some learning
strategies that might work well with the beginning English non-majored
students in learning English as a foreign language as well as measuring
effectiveness of training learning strategies to EFL learners.
 Practical aspect: With results of the study it is hoped that the language
teachers as well as language learners would find it useful to choose the
appropriate learning strategies to incorporate in their teaching and learning.
1.6. Methods of the study
This study is conducted as an action research that employs both quantitative and
qualitative approaches to collect data. The quantitative analyses are used through the
process of data collected from pretest and posttest, pre-questionnaires and postquestionnaires. In addition, the qualitative approach is employed to deal with the data
gathered from think-aloud reports and interviews with the volunteer students before
and after the treatment in order to obtain more in-depth understanding. The

6

combination of these data collection methods will help the author achieve the aims of
the study.
1.7. Organization of the thesis
The study consists of five chapters.
 Chapter 1 is the Introduction, which states the rationale, scope, aims,
significance, method and organization of the study.
 Chapter 2 reviews the literature relevant to the topic of the study and summarizes
some selected studies on cognitive learning theory, learning strategies and
learning strategy training, which serve as a theoretical and methodological
foundation of the study.
 Chapter 3 presents the research methodology of the study. It provides
information about the participants, the instrumentation, and the data collection
procedures and data analysis.
 Chapter 4 is the main part of the study that reports and discusses the main
findings according to the research questions.
 Chapter 5 is the conclusion that summarizes the main findings, presents the
implications and limitations of the study and finally gives some suggestions for
further research.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
7


This chapter reviews theories related to cognitive theory of learning, learning
strategies and strategy training in general and reading strategies in particular .It also
summarizes some studies on strategies training that have been conducted so far. All
of these serve as a basis for measuring the effectiveness of cognitive strategy training
to improving the learners’ reading proficiency which is carried out and presented in
the next chapter.

2.1. Cognitive Theory of Learning
A cognitive theory of learning sees second language acquisition as a conscious
and reasoned thinking process, involving the deliberate use of learning strategies.
Learning strategies are special ways of processing information that enhance
comprehension, learning or retention of information. In Longman dictionary of
Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics (1993: 60) cognitive learning is
considered as the acquisition of knowledge and skill by mental or cognitive processes
— the procedures we have for manipulating information 'in our heads'.
Cognitive psychologists tend to see second language acquisition as the building
up of knowledge systems that can eventually be called on automatically for speaking
and understanding. At first, learners have to pay attention to any aspect of the
language which they are trying to understand or produce. Gradually, through
experience and practice, learners become able to use certain parts of their knowledge
so quickly and automatically that they are not even aware that they are doing it. This
frees them to focus on other aspects of language which, in turn, gradually become
automatic.
Recently, cognitive psychologists have also investigated a phenomenon they call
‘restructuring’. This refers to the observation that sometimes things which we know
and use automatically may not be explainable in terms of automatically gradual
building-up through practice. They seem rather to be based on the interaction of
knowledge we already have, or on the acquisition of new knowledge which – without
extensive practice – somehow ‘fits’ into an existing system and may, in fact,
‘restructure’ this system. This may lead to sudden bursts of progress for the learner,

8


but it can also sometimes lead to apparent back-sliding when a systematic aspect of
learner language suddenly incorporates too much or incorporates the wrong things.
Cognitive theory is a relative newcomer to Second Language Acquisition (SLA)

research, and has not yet been widely tested empirically. Because the theory itself
cannot easily predict what kinds of structures will be automatized through practice
and what will be restructured, direct applications of this theory for classroom teaching
are premature. Cognitive theory is also notable to predict which first language
structures will be transferred and which will not. This theory, which looks at the
learning process, is incomplete without a linguistic framework of some kind. This has
led some psychologists to seek collaboration with linguists so that the aspects of
language which are studied will have clearer relevance to the complex phenomenon
of second language acquisition.
Recent theoretical developments in cognitive psychology have provided a general
framework in which to view the role of mental processes in learning. This framework
is based in part on information processing and in part on studies and theory evolving
over the past 15 or so years on the role of cognitive processes in learning. The
purpose of the framework is to explain how information is stored in memory and
particularly how new information is stored in two distinct ways: in short-term
memory, the active working memory that holds modest amounts of information only
for a brief period, or in long-term memory, the sustained storage of information that
may be represented as isolated elements or, more likely, as interconnected networks.
In some representations, working memory is used to describe short-term memory as a
way of denoting the active use of cognitive procedures with the information that is
being stored (Anderson et, al., 1985).
In this paradigm, new information is acquired through a four-stage encoding
process involving selection, acquisition, construction, and integration (Weinstein &
Mayer, 1986). Through selection, learners focus on specific information of interest in
the environment and transfer that information into working memory. In acquisition,
learners actively transfer information from working memory into long-term memory

9

for permanent storage. In the third stage, construction, learners actively build internal
connections between ideas contained in the information that has reached working
memory. The information from long-term memory can be used to enrich the learner's
understanding or retention of the new ideas by providing related information or
schemas in which the new ideas can be organized. In the final process, integration,
the learner actively searches for prior knowledge in long-term memory and transfers
this knowledge to working memory so it can be used in further construction
processes. Selection and acquisition determine how much is learned, whereas
construction and integration determine what is learned and how it is organized.
The two-stage framework of short-term and long-term memory and the four
mental processes described above were not intended to meet the need for a theory to
explain the role of cognition in second language acquisition. The framework has been
applied most regularly to problem solving, vocabulary learning, reading
comprehension, and the acquisition of factual knowledge, but not to the full range of
phenomena that form the totality of language. A theory is needed that addresses
multiple aspects of language for integrative language use in all for language skill
areas and that addresses language acquisition from the earliest stages of second
language learning to proficient use of the target language. Further, the theory must be
able to address language comprehension and production as central issues, as is
required to represent topics of concern in second language acquisition research. The
two-stage, four-process explanatory framework of learning presented earlier was not
designed to address these concerns. A specific advance beyond this framework
emerged with the formulation in cognitive theory of mechanisms for representing
complex cognitive skills.
2.2. Language as a cognitive skill
2.2.1. Acquisition of Declarative and Procedural Knowledge
Anderson, J. R., (1983) suggests that language can best be understood as a
complex cognitive skill, and that mental processes involved in language parallel the

10

processes used with other cognitive skills both in memory representations and in
learning.
Anderson, J. R., (1983, 1985) distinguishes between what we know about, or
static information in memory, and what we know how to do, or dynamic information
in memory. All of the things we know about constitute declarative knowledge, and all
of the things we know how to do constitute procedural knowledge. His definition of
declarative knowledge refers to the type of knowledge is represented in long-term
memory in terms of abstract meaning rather than precisely stored replication of events
or specific language texts. While images and temporal strings play a role in memory,
the most significant mode of storing information in memory for the analysis of
language is through propositional representations. Propositional representations
maintain the meaning of information while ignoring unimportant details. Each
proposition is denoted by a relation followed by an ordered list of arguments. In his
opinion, relations and arguments in a propositional analysis can be represented
schematically by a propositional network. Larger units of meaning than can be
represented by propositional networks require a schema.
The principal value of schemas is that they facilitate making inferences about
concepts. Schemas also enable us to organize and understand new information.
Schemas are also used to infer information that is missing in recall. Recall will be
accurate provided that the inferences match the original situation, but will be
inaccurate if the inference and the situation fail to match. Thus, schemas may either
assist or detract from accurate recall.
At least three sets of questions concerning SLA are raised by Anderson's
discussion of declarative knowledge in memory. These questions concern (a) how
meaning in two languages is represented in memory, and how the transfer of first
language (L1) knowledge to L2 expression takes place; (b) whether some types of
knowledge are more easily transferred to the L2 than others; and (c) how metalinguistic information is stored and influences performance for bilinguals.

11


According to Anderson, J. R., (1985) an individual at the early stages of
proficiency in the L2 would either have to translate information from the L1 to the L2
or relearn the L1 information in the L2, capitalizing on existing L1 knowledge where
possible. In Anderson's theory, information in either the L1 or the L2 has a meaningbased representation and would be stored as declarative knowledge through either
propositional networks or schemas.
The existence of separate propositional networks and schemas associated with
each language is consistent with the notion of domain-specific language skills.
Learners may acquire one or more of these domain-specific capabilities in either
language by direct exposure or by training, but be ineffective in communicating in
other domain or in the other language because of the highly specific nature of the
language involved. Thus, domain-specific language proficiency may be constructed
out of experience and not established by direct transfer from L1 proficiency.
In contrast to this argument for separate L1 and L2 memory systems, Cummins
(1981, 1984) has proposed a common underlying proficiency in cognitive and
academic language proficiency for bilinguals. He argues that at least some of what is
originally learned through the L1 does not have to be relearned in the L2, but can be
transferred and expressed through the medium of the L2. Cummins does not limit his
view of common memory systems to content knowledge, but includes cognitive
academic language proficiency as well. Cummins' view of common underlying
language proficiency seems to be consistent with cognitive theory, at least for content
knowledge. In cognitive theory, nodes in declarative memory are based on meaning
rather than on a direct replication of language-specific structures or word sequences.
Nodes that access meaning in long-term memory may be non-language-specific but
also have built-in features that signal the use of one language or the other. In other
words, the selection of the L1 or the L2 for comprehension or production is
performed in short-term memory, whereas concepts are stored in and retrieved from
long-term memory as non-language-specific generalized meaning. L2 learners may be

able to transfer what they already know from the L1 into the L2 by (a) selecting the

12


L2 as the language for expression, (b) retrieving information originally stored through
the L1 but presently existing as non-language-specific declarative knowledge, and (c)
connecting the information to the L2 forms needed to express it. The first and third
steps would be functions that occur in short-term memory. In fact, learning strategy
research (O'Malley, Chamot, Stewner – Manzanares, Kupper, & Russo, 1985a,
1985b) indicates that students of English as a second language (ESL) consciously and
actively transfer information form their L1 for use in the L2. Thus, the transfer of
content knowledge as part of Cummins' common underlying proficiency can be
described by referencing processes drawn from cognitive theory. The transfer of what
Cummins refers to as cognitive academic language proficiency is not so easily
described and will be discussed in a later section.
A second question raised by Anderson’s Theory is whether there is a variation in
the effectiveness or ease of transfer of declarative knowledge from L1 to the L2. Is all
declarative knowledge originally acquired in an L1 context equally easy to transfer
and access through the L2, or do the characteristics of the declarative knowledge
make a difference? Anderson's descriptions of the ways in which declarative
knowledge can be represented in memory provide clues to the answer to this question.
One way that declarative knowledge may be represented in memory is in the
form of schemas, or organizational frameworks. Anderson (1980) describes two
major types of schema: organization by natural categories and organization by events.
Natural category schemas are based on real world phenomena, such as classification
of plants, animals, minerals, quantities, and other aspects of the natural world. A
natural category schema would appear to be easily transferable to expression through
an L2 because the information describes observable reality.
Schemas organized by events include both personal recollections of event

sequences and the sequences of events that characterize the discourse organization of
a story. Story scripts (or story grammars) have been shown to be strongly influenced
by culture. L2 learners who have internalized one type of story schema may find it

13


difficult to understand a differing schema not because of language factors, but
because of cultural expectations.
Another type of event organization described by Anderson (1980) is referred to as
social cognition. Persons organize their knowledge about individuals or groups
according to certain perceived characteristics. This type of schematic organization of
knowledge may lead to stereotyping, because one person's individual knowledge about a
group may rely on data limited to personal experience or biased information. The
information of stereotypes may also be culturally linked, so that a schema developed to
characterize a certain group through the L1 may not be relevant to characterize the same
group through the L2. A stereotype transferred to an L2 context may interfere with
accurate communication in the L2.
Thus, the way in which declarative knowledge is organized in memory may have
a substantial effect on the L2 learner's ability to transfer it effectively and accurately
into the new language. The educational implications for L2 learners are that concepts
related to natural categories such as science, mathematics, and technical subjects may
be easier to transfer to the L2 than are concepts related to culturally affected areas,
such as literature or social studies, or concepts related to domain-specific knowledge.
A third question raised by Anderson's views on declarative knowledge is how
metalinguistic information among bilingual persons is stored and how this
information influences performance. One of the primary features defining
metalinguistic awareness is an understanding of the arbitrary uses of language
(Miller, 1956). Bilinguals may be expected to have an advantage in understanding
arbitrariness in language use and, accordingly, in metalinguistic awareness (DeAvila

& Duncan, 1979). Metalinguistic awareness will be manifested particularly in fluent
bilinguals, and these individuals will share advantages not only in verbal skills, but
also in problem-solving tasks. Bilingualism has been viewed as a "three-dimensional
insight" into language that a monolingual rarely experiences (Lambert, 1981).
Advantages found among bilinguals have included enhanced concept formation and

14


mental flexibility, as in the ability to switch object names and use the new names in
sentences.
Metalinguistic awareness may be described in part in Anderson's theory as a new
schema constructed to link schema that reference the same domain in the L1 and L2.
That is, an individual with domain-specific knowledge in two languages may begin to
see the different ways in which concepts can be expressed in the L1 and L2. The
person then establishes a new schema that differentiates applications of each language
to identical concepts. This explanation of metalinguistic awareness presumes that
separate memory systems are developed in each language. In Anderson's terms,
schema linking knowledge based on independent language systems would not have
sufficient connections to establish metalinguistic awareness unless Cummins'
threshold and interdependence conditions are met. Failure to meet Cummins' two
conditions could also detract from the ability to transfer information from the L1 to
the L2, in that schemas established in the L1 may not have sufficient internal linkages
to provide an adequate foundation of information.
2.2.2. Production System in Cognitive Skill Acquisition
The term cognitive skill is used by Anderson, J. R., (1980) to refer to the ability
to perform various mental procedures. Our ability to understand and generate
language or apply our knowledge of rules to solve a problem would be examples of
procedural knowledge. He argues that as we use the same knowledge over and over
again in a procedure, we can lose our access to the rules that originally produced or

enabled the procedure, and thus lose our ability to verbally report or "declare" these
rules. Whereas declarative knowledge of factual information may be acquired
quickly, procedural knowledge such as language acquisition is acquired gradually and
only with extensive opportunities for practice. The representation of procedural
knowledge in memory is a key issue in cognitive theory and is contained in what
Anderson, J. R., (1983, 1985) refers to as production systems.
Production systems are the basis for his argument for a unitary theory of the mind
or a common cognitive system for all higher-level mental processes. This position is

15


in direct contrast to the opinion of many theorists, including Chomsky (1980), who
view the mind as having specific faculties associated with language and perhaps with
other special symbolic systems such as numbers. Anderson argues that all complex
cognitive skills can be represented as production systems. Computer simulations
using production systems have been developed for a number of cognitive skills,
including such seemingly diverse skills as reading and solving algebra word
problems. In its most basic form, a production has a condition and an action. The
condition contains a clause or set of clauses preceded by IF, and the action has a
clause or set of clauses preceded by THEN.
Condition-action pairs (or productions) such as this one can initially be
represented in declarative form, and gradually, through practice, can be compiled into
production sets and fine-tuned to the point of automatic execution. Such a
representational system can be used to describe specific procedures in any domain
(math, physics, chess, language, and so on) as well as general strategies or domainindependent problem-solving procedures. Moreover, the relationship among elements
of a skill can be clearly specified, and the conditions that must exist for a particular
skill to operate can be made explicit (see Gagne, 1985, for a discussion of production
system notation in the representation of basic skills).
The distinction between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge has

both theoretical and practical importance in SLA. Knowing about language as a
grammatical system, which involves knowing the rules underlying syntax, semantics,
and phonology, is not a sufficient condition for knowing how to use the language
functionally, as many teachers and students of foreign languages have discovered. In
order to use a language for communicative purposes, procedural knowledge is
required. Instructional approaches need to provide for communicative activities that
focus on language as a skill rather than on language as an object of study. The first
issue concerns the representation of communicative competence through production
systems. Canale & Swain (1980) define the components of communicative
competence in SLA as the ability to use grammatical, sociolinguistic (socio-cultural

16


and discourse rules), and strategic skills. This definition indicates that it is important
to consider the idea of rule in its broadest sense. Rules apply to all aspects of a
language and are not limited to systematic rules of grammar. Furthermore, rules may
be learned either in formal classroom settings through direct instruction or through
informal means, or they may be self-generated or ad hoc rules needed to understand
or produce language for a specific purpose.
A general model of a conversation would contain multiple branching and exit
opportunities in addition to a hierarchical structure with subroutines reflecting subgoals that depend on the choice made at a given branching opportunity. The choice
selected at one turn determines the next production set, which then creates a new set
of choices. As a result, the limited speaker of English may explore a number of
possible meanings for such utterances before reaching an accurate conclusion, each of
which may have new goals and choices.
A second issue that emerges from the distinction between declarative and
procedural knowledge is the definition of the language component contained in
Cummins' (1981) common underlying proficiency. As was noted above, the content
knowledge component of common underlying proficiency is consistent with the

description in cognitive theory of meaning as represented in declarative knowledge.
However, Cummins (1981) indicates that common underlying proficiency also
applies to Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). That is, "L1 and L2
CALP are manifestations of the same underlying dimension" (1981, p. 179). CALPs
are defined as "those dimensions of language proficiency that are strongly related to
literacy skills" (Cummins, 1981, p. 23) and are best assessed by "linguistic
manipulation tasks (oral or written cloze, repetition, etc.)" (Cummins, 1980, p. 177),
but may also be assessed by communication tasks (oral fluency, accent,
sociolinguistic competence) to the degree that these assess CALP. CALP is
represented as the intersect of language proficiency with cognitive and memory skills,
and is the major determinant of educational progress (Cummins, 1980). Three terms

17


that emerge as important in these descriptions of CALP are literacy, linguistic
manipulation, and cognitive and memory skills.
An analysis of the relationship of CALP to common underlying proficiency in
cognitive theory is based on three of the principal features of production systems. The
first is that productions systems may represent either overt actions (such as walking
or talking) or covert mental processes (such as reading). In Anderson's theory,
reading is seen as a special instance of language comprehension, that entails three
mental activities: (a) perceptual processing, or encoding the written message into
semantic memory; (b) parsing, or transforming the words in the message into a
mental representation or proposition; and (c) utilization, or initiating some type of
action based on the proposition, such as storing the information in memory or
responding to a question. Most importantly, both parsing and utilization are viewed
by Anderson as production systems. In a theory of common underlying proficiency,
these productions represent common processes irrespective of the language in which
reading occurs.

A second feature of production systems is that they require little conscious effort
to perform when they become fully automatic and, to the extent that they are
generalized routines, should transfer to similar tasks. Thus, when reading processes
such as parsing and utilization become automatic or routinized in the L1, they should
transfer readily to the L2. A theory of common underlying proficiency would predict
that these processes are learned more efficiently when they are transferred from the
L1 to the L2 than if they are learned initially in the L2.
A third feature of production systems concerns strategic processing, or what
Cummins has referred to as cognitive or memory skills. Just as production systems
can be used to represent reading processes, they can also be used to represent the
strategies that are used by effective readers, such as inferencing from context or from
linguistic knowledge, summarizing or self-review, questioning, clarifying, and
predicting. Production systems can also be used to represent strategies that are
applied to L2 listening and speaking tasks. When these processes are learned in the

18


L1, they should transfer to similar tasks in the L2 as do the processing skills
underlying comprehension, such as parsing. The oral or written cloze used in
assessing linguistic manipulation entails both inferencing and predicting strategies
that should transfer from L1 to L2 tasks. Many of these same processes no doubt
underlie Cummins' (1981) report that there is a high correlation between L1 and L2
reading scores, which he interprets as support for the interdependence hypothesis.
2.2.3. Stages of Skill Acquisition
The question that follows from the description of procedural knowledge in
Anderson's theory is how one proceeds from the rule-bound declarative knowledge
used in performance of a complex skill to the more automatic proceduralized stage?
This question concerns the mental processes that accompany acquisition of complex
skills, the stages involved in acquisition, and the accessibility of the stored-procedural

knowledge for later use.
Anderson, J. R., (1983, 1985) describes three stages of skill acquisition:
cognitive, associative, and autonomous.
Cognitive stage
For most learners, skill learning begins with the cognitive stage. During the
cognitive stage, the learner is either instructed how to do the task or attempts to figure
it out and study it alone. This stage involves conscious activity on the part of the
learner, and the acquired knowledge at this stage is typically declarative and can be
described verbally by the learner. This knowledge enables one to describe how to
perform a complex task but is inadequate for skilled performance.
Associative stage
During the second or associative stage, two main changes occur with respect to
the development of proficiency in the skill. First, errors in the original declarative
representation of the stored information are gradually detected and eliminated.
Second, the connections among the various elements or components of the skill are
strengthened. During this stage, the declarative knowledge is turned into its
procedural form. However, the declarative representation initially formed is not
19


always lost. Performance at this stage begins to resemble expert performance, but
may still be slower and errors may still occur.
Autonomous stage
During the third or autonomous stage, the performance becomes increasingly
fine-tuned. The execution or performance of the skill becomes virtually automatic,
and errors that inhibit successful performance of the skill disappear. The skill can
often be executed effortlessly, and there is much less demand on working memory or
"consciousness" at this stage. Skilled performance improves gradually. Whereas a
fact can often be learned in one trial, a skill can only be mastered after a relatively
long period of practice.

2.3. Learning strategies
2.3.1. Definition of learning strategies
Over the last two decades, the study of learning strategies has seen an "explosion
of activity" (R.Ellis, 1994) with the contributions of such well-known researchers as
Tarone (1981), Weinstein and Mayer (1986), Rubin (1987), O'Malley and Chamot
(1990), Oxford (1990) and Cohen (1998). These studies have helped figure out a
comprehensive overview of learning strategies.
Concerning the definition of learning strategies, there have been some
considerable differences in the existing literature. Rubin (1987) gave quite a broad
definition of learning strategies: "Learning strategies are ones which contribute to the
development of the language system which the learner constructs and affect learning
directly" (1987: 23). Tarone (1981) defined learning strategies as attempts to develop
linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language. These definitions are
too general in comparison to the complex nature of learning strategies.
Oxford, R. L., (1990) claimed that "Learning strategies are specific actions taken
by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self directed,
more effective and more transferable to new situations" (1990:5). This definition is
judged to be quite comprehensive as it not only covers the cognitive but also the
affective aspects of learning strategies (i.e. to increase enjoyment in learning).
20