Exploring reading and writing
strategy use development: A
qualitative study in theTunisian EFL context
CHIRAZ OUERFELLIHIGHER INSTITUTE OF APPLIED STUDIES IN
HUMANITIES OF TUNIS

Third international Conference on Situating Strategy Use.
October 15th, 2019. Osaka, Japan

Defining a strategy¨¨¨

Definition of a strategy:“A strategy is a conscious mental activity,
employed in the pursuit of a goal, transferable toother learning situations and tasks” (Macaro,2006).
Recent reviews provided empirical evidence forthe effectiveness of explicit strategy instruction inenhancing learners’ reading and writing abilities(Hassan et al., 2005; Plonsky, 2011; Taylor et al.,2006)

Insights from research¨

Research on LLS reading instruction
Whether SI is teachable is a question that has been
explored in a variety of contexts since the 1990s.
However, there is less consensus on how we judge theeffectiveness of SI.

¨

Kusiak (2001) sought to integrate MSI into a reading
course. The programme produced findings that showed
the participants’ increased metacognitive awareness andimproved reading comprehension scores.

¨Dreyer and Nel (2003) conducted a reading
strategy instruction and the participants weredivided into experimental and control groups.
Pre- and post-treatment tests were administeredto assess both students’ reading comprehension
as well their strategy use. The findings revealed
an increase of experimental groups’ test scoresalong with an increase in strategy frequency.

SI impact on learners of different
proficiency levels
Research from reading and listening suggestthat SI does not impact on high and low
achievers equally.
¨ While some studies reported that only highproficiency learners benefited from theinstruction (Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2003), others
have found the opposite; only low achievers
benefited from SI (Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari,2010).
¨¨¨¨The concern here is that SI should help all
learners regardless of proficiency level.
A solution would be to implement needs-based
and individualised SI.
Some pre-intervention measurement oflearners’ current strategy use is required
before the design of the training programme.

Developments in LLS research¨¨The shift away from a focus on the frequency ofstrategy use (quantity) to an interest in the qualityof strategy use.
Early research associated successful learning to
the frequency of strategy use, while recent
research diverted to the exploration of howlearners deployed strategies within a specified
context and while completing a specific task. In
other words, it was no longer what strategies
learners are using which make a difference, butrather how they are using them.

The added value of integrated
reading and writing SBI¨¨

Students are often taught in contexts which do
not reflect their actual authentic learning
situation, where very often read to write andwrite to read.
It has the potential to raise learners’
awareness of the possibility of strategy
transfer across skill areas.

¨¨Designing a strategy training program while
focusing on the strategies involved in one skill
area, would confine the students to a learning
situation restricted by the tasks and strategies
related to the skill taught.
With the aim of overcoming these limitations, andbecause drawing students’ attention to strategy
transfer across skills and similar tasks is critical inbuilding students’ autonomy, the training
programme implemented in this study focuses on
two skill areas; namely, reading and writing.

The study¨

This study is part of a larger projectaiming at exploring the impact ofMetacognitive Strategy Instruction (MSI)
on learners’ reading and writing strategy
use and performance.

Research methodology (largerstudy)¨¨¨The research design:
A quasi-experimental mixed method research design
The participants
143 EFL undergraduate students drawn from six intact
classes were randomly assigned to two condition groups
The data collection
Three-phase study: Pre-Post training programme, and adelayed test.

Objectives of the study¨¨¨It aims at investigating whether MSI canbring about changes in students’ strategic
behaviour.
It seeks to investigate whether MSI can help
EFL learners improve their reading and writingperformance.
It aims at eliciting learners’ reactions to andattitudes toward the training programmeResearch questions¨¨

What are the strategies used by the students
before MSI?
Does MSI have an impact on learners’ strategy
use?

The Metacognitive Strategy Instruction (MSI)Programme (1)¨

The MSI programme extended over a 12-week semester(36 hour lessons)¨Integrated in their regular skill course¨

Explicit strategy instruction¨

Combination of cognitive and metacognitive strategies¨

Standard cycle of instruction: awareness-raising/modelling, scaffolded practice, gradual scaffolding
withdrawal, practice, evaluation.

The Metacognitive Strategy Instruction (MSI)
Programme (2)¨A goal-setting based approach¨

A process-based approach to reading and writing instruction.

¨

Promoting awareness-oriented discussions andself-questioning and self-reflection.

cultivating¨

Encouraging strategy orchestration and strategy transfer¨

Providing many practice opportunities¨Promoting group discussions and collaborative activities

Research methodology¨

The participants
12 EFL undergraduate students

The data collection instrumentv
Retrospective protocolsv
Coding scheme¨Participants
Experimental group

Control group

HighLowHigh

Low

Pre-course
Retrospection

33

3

3

Post-course
Retrospection

333

3

Total number

1212

Retrospection procedure
Pre- and post-intervention RP sessions¨ Training subjects on verbalising their thought¨ Subjects were encouraged to use anylanguage they prefer (Arabic, French, orEnglish) or code-switch.
¨ Their reading-writing test was provided as asupport.
¨ All RP sessions were video-taped¨

Data analysis
Qualitative analysis : Retrospective protocolsv

Coding scheme development
The design of the coding scheme was informed by theories ofreading and writing, LLS literature and previous studies (DhiebHnia, 2003; Sasaki, 2004; De Silva & Graham, 2015)
ü The coding categories were also inspired by the strategies
emerging from the collected dataü

All the RP were video-taped, then transcribed.
v The inter-coder reliability rate as calculated as 0.83.
v The intra-coder reliability rate was calculated as 0.91.
v

Strategies¨

Setting a purpose:
The instances where the reader or writerestablished purposes before or while
undertaking a learning task were coded as
setting a purpose.

¨

Monitoring
Monitoring in this study was defined as theinstances in the protocols which showed that thereader or writer was regulating his learning
process.
When readers and writers monitor theircomprehension, they check and evaluate whether
they are on track making sure that theyunderstand what they read or write. Monitoring
strategies were categorised into sub-strategies;
namely, problem identification, comprehension
monitoring, and content monitoring.

Setting a purpose¨

Experimental group (High achievers)
Time 1Time 2

Reading skill« I usually read the text first many times “I thought about what I needbecause I usually do not understand it to do first. I was talking tofrom the first reading” [ExpH1]
myself and askingquestions” [ExpH2]

The experimental group participants appearedto be more setting up purposes before readingat post-test.
¨ They were more metacognitively aware of thebenefits of the strategy as they werearticulately describing how, when, and why
they were using it.
¨¨Experimental group (Low achievers)
Time 1Time 2« Each time I needed to answer acomprehension question, I had tore-read the whole text again »[ExpL1]“ To a n s w e r c o m p r e h e n s i o nquestion four, I knew that I have togo to paragraph number three
because I have already noted on
the margin “drug legalization” [sheshows her test copy]” [ExpL2].

¨Control group (High achievers)

Time 1Time 2“While reading, I try to understand all
the text carefully, otherwise I could
not answer the comprehensionquestions” [ContH1]« I start by taking in mind thecomprehension questions so that I
can easily find the answers» [ContH2]

Summary of findings
At Time 2, most of the instances of setting a purpose
strategy use were reported by high achievers in theexperimental groups.
¨ A qualitative analysis of the post-test data showed
more frequent and effective use of the strategy by
the experimental group than by the control group.
¨ The participants in the experimental groups used
more self-questioning, and reflecting before
performing a reading and/or a writing task. Thiswas illustrated and pervasive in their reported
thoughts.
¨

Continued
The qualitative analysis of the control group at Time 1and Time 2 did not show a perceived variation in thelearners’ setting a purpose strategy use.
¨ Besides, the control group participants reported to bereading for the unique goal of answering
comprehension questions.
¨ This important finding suggested learners’ belief thatthe ultimate goal of reading a text was to answer“correctly” the comprehension questions.
¨ This finding lent further support to previous research
conducted in EFL contexts, where readers seem tosee reading comprehension as an activity rather thana skill in its own right (Aghaie & Zhang, 2012; DhiebHnia, 2003; Zhang, 2008; Zhang & Wu, 2009).
¨

Continued
This belief might be a reflection of the local
educational system, which motivated learners to
be more concerned with the results of theirlearning (i.e., answering the comprehensionquestions) rather than the process.
¨ Aghaie and Zhang (2012) conducted a study in an
EFL context and found that their “summativeeducational system” which distracted students
from the authentic goal of reading (i.e., meaningconstruction) to a more exam-bound end which
confined the aim of reading to providing the rightanswers to the comprehension questions.
¨¨

Likewise, Zhang and Wu’s (2009) findings
revealed that EFL readers seemed to be using“test-taking strategies”, which are different
from reading comprehension strategies as
they were not sufficient for helping them
improve their meaning-making process (p. 49).
They attributed learners’ ineffective reading
strategy use to the “comprehension-testingmodel” adopted in reading instruction in theirlocal context.

Monitoring¨Comprehension monitoring
The instances where the reader regulated hisor her understanding of the text, signaled theneed for fix-up strategies to remedy his or her
comprehension breakdown, and confirmedthat he or she is on track were coded ascomprehension monitoring.

Monitoring¨

Experimental group (comprehensionmonitoring) (Low achievers)

Time 1Time 2“I did not answer comprehension
question number five because I
could not find the answer in the text.
I thought I could come back to finish
it later, but I did not have enoughtime”[ExpL1]“When dealing with comprehension
question number four, I went toparagraph three and tried tounderstand it, but it wascomplicated (difficult). I tried tofocus on linkers such as “furtherand “finally”. I underlined them andit helped me organise the ideas inthe paragraph” [ExpL2].

Findings of the experimental group
In the two extracts, the low achievers were awareof their comprehension problem (problemidentification), effectively sent a message totheir monitor informing it of the occurrence of acomprehension breakdown, deliberately picked
up a strategy to remediate the problem, andarticulately reported their mental thoughts
confidently.
¨However, their intervention was focused on thelower-level (i.e., the text-level).
¨ When analysing the high achievers’ protocols, thepicture was different as can be seen from thefollowing extracts:¨¨Experimental group (High achievers)
Time 1Time 2“Whenever I encounter a word or “Whenever I do not understand a word, I
an extract that do not understand, try to understand its meaning fromI skip it “ [ExpH1]
context or pay attention to the prefix andsuffix.” [ExpH2].
“If I do not understand a word, I try toanalyse the word to see how it is formed.
You know (...) its stem, prefix and suffix.
Sometimes I also read the sentence
before and after. Usually, I always finish
by understanding even if it is not theexact meaning. I manage to work with anapproximate guess because what is
important is to understand the ideas inthe text” [ExpH2].

¨¨

The above protocol data underscored thestrategic behaviour that characterised the highachievers.
Specifically, it clearly displayed their
metacognitive knowledge which enabled themto identify task demands, and to act
accordingly by consciously selecting anappropriate strategy in order to undertake alearning task.

¨Control group (Low achievers)
Time 1Time 2“I found many difficult words in thetext. I tried to understand their
meaning….. I lost a lot oftime” [ContL1].

“I read the text once. Then I re-readit because I could not understandthe vocabulary. I know that I need to
improve my vocabulary” [ContL2].

Summary of findings¨¨¨

The experimental groups’ verbalisation at Time 2 on theircomprehension monitoring differed according to theirproficiency level.
Although both high and low achievers benefited frommonitoring strategy instruction, more proficient learners
showed more affirmed strategic behaviour and more
appropriate use of comprehension monitoring.
High achievers developed at post-test a greater sense ofcontrol over their comprehension processes and anincreasingly effective use of monitoring strategy use toaddress their comprehension breakdowns. Besides, theyreported allotting more concern to meaning rather thanlinguistic knowledge (grammar and vocabulary) reflecting a
global consideration of text comprehension.

¨¨The experimental group low achievers showed moremonitoring strategy use at Time 2 than at Time1 andused the same strategies than the experimental highachievers, but seemed to over emphasise theimportance of linguistic knowledge over meaning
comprehension.
A possible interpretation may be that despite the low
achievers’ increasing metacognitive awareness of thebenefits of strategy use, their linguistic knowledge
seemed insufficient to allow them to gain all thebenefits from their strategy use.

¨

¨

¨

As for the control group at Time 2, they did not deploy
appropriate remedial strategies to address thecomprehension problems they had identified.
His focus on basic language processing is indicative of low
achievers’ text-bound processing of a reading task, and theirover-reliance on decoding words rather than using
comprehension-oriented metacognitive strategies tocompensate for a reading problem.
This finding signaled a lack of metacognitive awareness ofthe effective strategies that may compensate for acomprehension breakdown, and a deficiency in activating
one’s monitor to regulate comprehension and use appropriate
remedial strategies when the need arose.

To sum up

The experimental group¨¨¨

After strategy instruction, the experimental group wasusing strategies effectively according to task
demands.
More metacognitive strategy deployment mainly withhigh achievers.
More instances of strategy orchestration andclustering

¨

¨

¨

Strategy choice was more goal-oriented (withthe aim of achieving a learning task).
More confidence when verbalising on theirlearning processes.
A more articulate description of their learning
processes¨¨

Experimental high achievers seemed to benefit
more from the training programme than the low
achievers mainly with metacognitive strategy use.
While the high achievers considered meaning as
the paramount concern when comprehending atext, the low achievers appeared to be narrowly
focused on linguistic proficiency as the onlycontributing factor to affectively comprehend thereading text.

References¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨Aghaie, R., & Zhang, L. J. (2012). Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive
reading strategies on Iranian EFL students’ reading performance and transfer of reading
strategies. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 40, 1-19.
New York: Springer Science.
De Silva, R., & Graham, S. (2015). The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use forstudents of different proficiency levels. System, 53, 47-59.
Dhieb-Hnia, N. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of metacognitive strategy training for reading
research articles in an ESP context. English for Specific Purposes, 22, 387-417.
Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within atechnology-enhanced learning environment, System, 31, 349-365.
Graham, S., &Macaro, E. (2007). Designing Year 12 strategy training in listening and writing:From theory to practice. Language Learning, 58(4), 747-783.
Kusiak, M. 2001. The effect of metacognitive strategy training on reading comprehension andmetacognitive knowledge. EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, 255–74.
Olson, C. B., & Land, R. (2007). A cognitive strategies approach to reading and writing instruction
for English language learners in secondary school. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(3),269-301.
Zhang, L.J. (2008). Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction: Exploring pathwaysto learner development in the English as a second language (ESL) classroom. Instructionalscience, 36 (2), 89-116.
Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students’ metacognitiveawareness and use of reading strategies. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21, 37–59.

Hassan, X., Macaro, E., Mason, D., Nye, G., Smith, P., &Vanderplank, R. (2005). Strategy training in language learning–a systematic review of available research. In Research
Evidence in Education Library, London.
¨ Plonsky, L. (2011). The effectiveness of second language
strategy instruction: A meta-anamysis. Language Learning
61(4), 993-1038.
¨ Taylor, A., Stevens, J., & Asher, J. (2006). The effects ofexplicit reading strategy training on L2 reading
comprehension. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing
research on language learning and teaching, 231-344.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
¨