RESEARCH PAPER
Integrating Metacognitive Knowledge forPlanning in Self-Directed Language Learning
Mayumi Abe, Waseda University
This paper focuses on planning by self-directed learners. The process of self-directed learning such as planningis called metacognitive activities in which judgment and decision-making in the process are supported by metacognitive knowledge. In this study I specifically focus on metacognitive knowledge and investigate how learners
developed and integrated it for planning through classroom instruction, with an assumption that if learners apply
multiple types of metacognitive knowledge, they can make more effective learning plans. Qualitatively analyzing
the class reflections and learning plans written by two university students who took a course titled Self-Directed
Learning, I found that development and integration of metacognitive knowledge can be promoted by intervention
in class. However, the two students sometimes failed to integrate and act on their metacognitive knowledge, whileat other times they successfully did this without teacher intervention.
本研究では、自律学習者のプランニングに焦点を当てる。プランニングなどの自律学習のプロセスはメタ認知的活動と呼ばれ、そこでの判断や意思決定を支えるのはメタ認知的知識である。本研究では、特にそのメタ認知的知識に着目し、学習者がよりよい学習計画を立てるには多様なメタ認知的知識を組み合わせて活用する方がよいとの仮定に基づき、クラスでの指導を通して、学習者がどのようにメタ認知的知識を発達・統合させていったかを調査した。調査対象は、大学1年生対象の必修授業「Self-Directed Learning（自律学習）」の履修学
生２名が作成した授業リフレクションと学習計画である。それらを質的に分析した結果、授業での介入によるメタ認知的知識の発達や統合は確認されたものの、重要であるはずのメタ認知的知識が適用されなかったり、介入とは無関係にメタ認知的知識が向上し活用された場合もあった。

Keywords
self-directed learning, planning, metacognition, metacognitive knowledge, learner development

キーワード
自律学習、プランニング、メタ認知、メタ認知的知識、学習者の成長A

s a language learning advisor and English instructor, I have seen many language learners struggling to find effective learning strategies or failing to make learning plansthat truly fit their own goals and needs. Some learners make a start to learning but arealways unsure if they are on the right track. Other learners select strategies without knowing
what effects they can expect from those strategies. I began the current study assuming thatsuch learners could become more effective self-directed learners if they knew more about
themselves and could connect various aspects of that knowledge in planning their language
learning I have been interested in metacognition for a long time as a teacher and learning
advisor and as a researcher In my practices as a teacher, I have wanted to help my students
learn better even out of class by raising their metacognitive awareness about their own learning. As a learning advisor, I encourage learners to reflect, listen to their stories, and makesuggestions by synthesizing their descriptions of their learning activities with the knowledge
I have about them as learners, applying, as best I can, a metacognitive perspective on second language learning As a researcher, I have explored questions such as how metacognition helps learners manage learning, how we can enhance learners’ metacognition, and how
metacognition works in the minds of successful learners. In this study, I try to bring theseperspectives together by looking in particular at how learners use metacognitive-knowledge
in planning for their self-directed learning

62

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Mayumi Abe

Metacognition involves visualization of one’s cognition and is thought to be necessary for
self-directed learning Metacognition consists of two dimensions, metacognitive knowledge andmetacognitive activities, where metacognitive knowledge is defined as forming the basis formetacognitive activity Although there are a number of research studies on both metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive activities as well as metacognition for self-regulation, only
a few have explored the relationship between metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive
activities in any depth In particular, little attention has been paid to how multiple types ofmetacognitive knowledge are connected and integrated in learners’ minds and how learners apply these to planning, which is a fundamental part of metacognitive activities This
study, therefore, focuses on this dimension and explores how individual learners applied andconnected their metacognitive knowledge as they put together and developed their learningplans The learners in this study were given explicit instruction in language learning strategies, so I not only consider in what ways the learners’ plans changed over time, but I also
explore how effective such language learning strategy instruction was in helping learners tovisualize the development of their learning
The paper presents a case study examining outcomes written by students in the SelfDirected Learning course at a Japanese private university The course aims at fostering lifelong self-directed English learners and lasts one semester, with students meeting once aweek for 90 minutes. As the instructor of the course, I regularly gave lectures and presented
activities in class to raise students’ metacognitive knowledge and encourage them to integrate
their awareness into their practices as learners Specifically, I wanted to see whether the students were able to connect their metacognitive knowledge to their planning and goal-setting
practices in ways that better fit their needs as a result of the instruction provided. In orderto look closely at these issues, I qualitatively analyze the class reflections and learning plans
written by two students

Literature Review
Metacognitive Knowledge and Metacognitive Activities
It is widely recognized that metacognition plays an important role in self-directed learning
Metacognition consists of two dimensions: metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive activities. Metacognitive knowledge includes the self-concepts that learners have about themselves, their learning strategies and learning tasks, while metacognitive activities refer tometacognitive learning process consisting of planning, monitoring and evaluation phases
Metacognitive knowledge is generally described as a prerequisite for metacognitive activities, in which learners plan, monitor and evaluate their learning based on their metacognitive
knowledge (e.g., Anderson, 2012; Flavell, 1979; Pitrich, 2002).
Although metacognitive activities are variously described as metacognitive experiences(Flavell, 1979), metacognitive strategies (Wenden, 1998), and metacognitive skills (Veenman,
2006), I have chosen to use the phrase “metacognitive activities” as introduced by Sannomiya (2008), considering it the most useful descriptor, inclusive of experiences, strategies, andskills.

Types and Features of Metacognitive Knowledge
The best-known categorization of metacognitive knowledge is person, task, and strategy proposed by Flavell (1989). Several researchers have elaborated this concept by presenting various aspects that these three types comprise. “Person,” for instance, includes knowledge about
universal human traits, knowledge of the self, where self-knowledge includes individual feaLearner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201763

Integrating Metacognitive Knowledge for Planning in Self-directed Language Learningtures such as one’s age, preferences, strengths and weaknesses, breadth and depth of one’s
knowledge, as well as the cognitive and affective dimensions of significant others and communities surrounding the self. “Task knowledge” includes knowledge of task purpose, task
demands, familiarity or unfamiliarity, well or poorly organized and so forth (Flavell, 1989;
Pintrich, 2002; Wenden, 1998). Since most of the research studies on metacognitive activities
were conducted in contexts of in-class activities or at formal education, task usually refers toassignments given by a teacher and learning strategies discussed there generally mean how
students learn or complete the given assignments effectively and efficiently (Zimmerman,
2002). In self-directed learning settings, however, learners need to choose their own tasks
independently They determine their needs, set goals, and consider how to attain their goals,
redefining those tasks as fulfilling the aims of and for self-directed learners. In other words,
task in self-directed learning is interchangeable with a goal in self-directed learning (Anderson, 2012), and it can be conceived of as a big picture framework or smaller short-term
step. Task, as a concept, also includes decisions learners may make when they need to workon deliberate learning practices necessary to achieving their goal (Wenden, 1998). “Strategy”
includes general strategies for learning and thinking as well as concrete detailed step-by-step
strategies (Pintrich, 2002). Although Oxford (2011) claimed that those three strategies would
provide insufficient information, and presented six types instead, including person, groupor culture, task, whole-process, strategy, and conditional knowledge (pp. 19-21), all of these
could be included in the three types of metacognitive knowledge as described by Flavell above.
None of these aspects of metacognitive knowledge, however, is absolute. Rather they are
self-concepts that learners conceive through their own perceptions Therefore, understandings of their megacognitive knowledge might be correct or incorrect (Flavell, 1979; Pintrich,
2002; Veenman et.al, 2006) as Anderson (2012) argued that self-assessment could be superficial or hyper-critical in contrast to healthy, appropriate self-assessment In addition, learners may experience varying degrees of stability in metacognitive knowledge; some types ofmetacognitive knowledge may be retained as a stable, core element in the learner’s sense ofself, interchangeable with belief, according to Wenden (1998), while others are more prone tofluctuate as dynamic or peripheral elements (Mercer, 2012).

Integration of Metacognitive Knowledge
As seen above, metacognitive knowledge has a variety of aspects, and it is generally agreed
that self-directed learners must connect multiple pieces of their metacognitive knowledge
and apply the combined view to create effective learning plans appropriate to their own situations (Flavell, 1979). For example, let us imagine a university student who wants to study
abroad as an undergraduate in order to realize their dream of working in international business after graduation. In order for them to actually start their learning, they need to knowwhat skills are required for their goals (task knowledge), their current weak points (person
knowledge), and what learning strategies might be effective and available for their learning (strategy knowledge). In addition, they also need to know when and where they should
use the learning strategies (conditional components of strategy knowledge) and what affective strategy is effective for them to sustain motivation (affective dimension of person
knowledge). As such, if learners can connect multiple aspects of metacognitive knowledge,
it could lead to more effective self-directed learning. Although the integration of metacognitive knowledge is thought to play an important role in self-directed learning, much of theresearch regarding relations between metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive activities
focuses on adopting a single piece of metacognitive knowledge to modify a learning strategy
as seen in the cyclical process defined as self-oriented feedback loop by Zimmerman in 1990

64

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Mayumi Abe

Some researchers call this view meta-metacognition, as it is an overview of metacognition
from one level higher, and state that for students to acquire this point of view entails the
support of experts such as advisors or instructors (e.g., Sannomiya, 2008). In the course I am
teaching, I have attempted to address these concerns by helping learners develop advanced
metacognitive skills through explicit intervention in the context of classroom instruction.
Although I have sometimes feel that learners’ self-assessment routines are superficial, or that
their understanding of their own metacognitive knowledge may be inaccurate in some ways,
I believe it is essential that learners be encouraged to integrate the knowledge they have with
their planning efforts in order to maximize the effectiveness of their learning plans.
Thus, my research is based on the following two assumptions: integration of multiple
pieces of metacognitive knowledge leads to better planning, and integration of metacognitive knowledge can be promoted by explicit educational intervention. Therefore, the researchquestions of this study are as follows:1

Was integration of metacognitive knowledge promoted by explicit intervention in thecontext of this study?

2

If yes, did it lead to better planning?

MethodI conducted this research in a required English course for first-year students titled Self-Directed Learning at a private university in Japan The course aimed at helping students become more independent English learners by guiding the development of better self-directed
learning skills. It was held for one semester from April to July in 2016 with a 90-minute classper week through 14 weeks. I was the instructor of the course and taught two groups of students, one consisting of 24 students (10 male, 14 female) and the other 23 (9 male, 14 female),through the semester, applying the same syllabus and instructions to the two groups
The students were provided with many opportunities in class to raise their metacognitive
knowledge on various aspects of themselves and their English learning. In-class activities
included lecture-style input, demonstrations and experiences of learning strategies and resources, worksheets for self-assessments and reflections, and pair or group sharing anddiscussions. After each class, they were assigned to write a class reflection for submission on
an online learning management system, Moodle, with a deadline of two days after each class
The reason for setting the deadlines at this interval was to have them review their learningin class while they still remembered it and give them enough time for deep reflections. It wasalso explained that a class reflection should not be only a summary or simple review of theclass but they should connect what they learned in class to their own personal learning preferences and experiences outside of class
In addition, activities to enhance integration of the students’ metacognitive knowledge
were explicitly presented three times during the semester. The first intervention was in Class
6, after the students had explored strategies for learning vocabulary and the four language
skills in Class 2 to Class 6. It consisted of a worksheet aiming at leading the students to review their own awareness in the past classes, consider an order of priority, and make a learning plan for the next week (see Appendix A), which was followed by a group sharing and discussion in class The second intervention was attempted in Class 8, when the students wereassigned to design a one-month learning plan after contemplating their goals in Class 7 They
were given a worksheet (see Appendix B) to integrate their awareness raised in the past classes including metacognitive knowledge about themselves as an English learner (Class 1), English learning strategies (Class 2 to 6) and their goals (Class 7), after which they shared what
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201765

Integrating Metacognitive Knowledge for Planning in Self-directed Language Learningthey had written in groups The third intervention was given in Class 13, when they designed
a learning plan for the two-month summer holiday, having considered time management inClass 10 and motivational strategies in Class 11. The worksheet provided to the students inClass 13 included goal-setting (Class 7), learning strategies (Class 2 to 6), self-motivational
strategies (Class 11) and time management (Class 10) (see Appendix C), and was followed by agroup discussion in the same way as in Class 6 and 8 Table 1 gives an overview of the topics
and interventions in the course
Table 1. Overview of the Course
Class

Topic

Class Reflections(CR) and Learning
Plans (LP)1

“My English Learning History”

CR1

2

Learning Strategies: Vocabulary

CR2

3

Learning Strategies: Reading

CR3

4

Learning Strategies: Listening

CR4

5

Learning Strategies: Speaking

CR5

6

Learning Strategies: Writing

CR6

Integrating Learning Strategies

Explicit Intervention
for Integration✔

LP1 (for 1 week)7

Goal setting

CR7

8

Designing Learning Plan 2

LP2 (for 1 month)9

Sharing Learning Plan 2

n/a

10

Time Management

CR10

11

Sustaining Motivation

CR11

12

Sharing Results of Learning Plan 2

n/a

13

Designing Learning Plan 3

LP3 (for 2-monthholiday)

14

Sharing Learning Plan 3

n/a

✔

✔

I provided the worksheets but did not collect them so that the students could review themwhen they wrote their class reflections and complete learning plans after class. However, theysubmitted their class reflections and learning plans on Moodle, which automatically madeit possible for each student to save their submissions in one place and review them easily at
any later time In other words, the learning management system functioned as a portfolio forindividual students through the semester, which could promote integration of their metacognitive knowledge as well (Reynolds & Patton, 2014; Yang, 2003). In contrast to the formatted
worksheets used during class activities, I set neither rules nor forms for online class reflections and learning plans so that the students could present them as they liked.
In-class activities and out-of-class assignments were all conducted in English because thecourse was a part of the English curriculum at the university and instruction was supposed
to be provided through the medium of English. Since the first language of all the students
was Japanese, it is possible that using their second language placed an extra load on theirthoughts and expressions

66

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Mayumi Abe

Analysis
I chose one student from each group as a research subject based on the following criteria:(a) they attended all the class meetings, (b) they submitted all the course work, and (c) theywrote the largest number of words in total in their class reflections and learning plans. Because I did not provide any direction for either word limit or minimum word requirement,
they could be among the layer of the students who worked through the course more seriously
in the groups
I submitted three learning plans (LP1, 2 and 3) and nine reflections (CR1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10,
and 11) written by the respective two students to qualitative analysis, which I conducted in
two cycles. In the first cycle, I focused on identifying metacognitive knowledge in their writings, and in the second cycle, I looked at how they had integrated metacognitive knowledge
into their learning plans and reflections.
In the following sections I analyze and discuss the learning plans and reflections of two
students who participated in the course: Mari, a female student, from group 1, and Dai, a malestudent, from group 2. Both Mari and Dai are pseudonyms.

Results
Case 1: Mari
In the process of preparing her first learning plan (LP1), Mari wrote in her first reflection(CR1) that she did not “know clearly the way of studying English.” She therefore decided totry a variety of learning resources and strategies during CR2 through CR6 These included
vocabulary learning with a textbook and dictionary, reading graded readers, reading news articles, listening to songs, watching news on TV, watching YouTube, shadowing practice with
TED talks, self-talk for speaking practice, message exchange on LINE, and keeping a diary inEnglish. In LP1 following these explorations, she made a weekly plan including: (a) listening
to English songs, (b) using a smartphone application for vocabulary learning, and (c) reading
and listening to online news articles For the strategies she selected in LP1, she explained that
she chose songs as a resource because she liked listening to music, and news articles because
it was less time-consuming than reading books, which she had tried, but could not keep up
on account of her tight schedule. In other words, Mari connected her metacognitive knowledge about her preferences and life style (person knowledge) to the resources and strategies(strategy knowledge) she selected in LP1.
In LP2 in Class 8, two weeks after making LP1, Mari attempted to apply the strategies forgoal-setting covered in Class 7, in which the students considered the big goals in their lives
and learned how to break them down into smaller goals. Mari described her big goal as “tocommunicate with a lot of people around the world more fluently”, and continued, “I liketravel abroad and I want to communicate with them more comfortably” in CR7, which is similar to the description seen in CR1. Reflecting on her English learning experience, she wrote in
CR1:Today, I remembered my language history for the first time…I found I have been to a
lot of countries, because my parents love to travel around the world And I realize thisexperiences made me feel “I want to be the fluent speaker of English!”
To achieve her goal, Mari analyzed her current skills and explained that she would improve
her speaking skill by increasing vocabulary and practicing listening and pronunciation. In
LP2, therefore, she selected: (a) listening to English songs during her bath time; (b) using asmartphone application for vocabulary learning in her spare moments; (c) listening to onLearner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201767

Integrating Metacognitive Knowledge for Planning in Self-directed Language Learning

line news articles; and, (d) using English on LINE to practice daily phrases. These practiceactivities were quite similar to those listed in LP1, but she confirmed that they also matched
her goals One point to note here is that she connected learning strategies with the idea ofutilizing spare moments in her schedule as clearly mentioned in (a) and (b). In other words,
while Mari attempted to integrate several pieces of her metacognitive knowledge in her planning in accordance with the topics and contents presented in class, she also connected personand strategy aspects of her metacognitive knowledge on her own and applied the combination to her planning This concept formed the foundation for a more stable metacognitive
self-knowledge and was used as the basis for her later planning efforts.
LP3 in Class 13 was created after exploring time management in Class 10 and motivationin Class 11 Mari included six learning resources in this plan, which was much more than theprevious plans However, this may be related to the fact that the plan was for a two-monthsummer holiday, a longer period of time than covered in her previous learning plans The
resources selected here included applications and websites for vocabulary, speaking, listening
and reading practice, all of which could be done in a short time, for as she put it, “I may feelvery hot and tired every day [because of club activities]. So I must study English in my sparetime, as well as my usual school days ” Since there is no mention of either her goals or motivation dealt with in Class 11, it is difficult to infer if she seriously considered them in spite of
having applied the concept of goal setting in LP2 and having written about the motivational
strategies she wanted to use in CR11

Case 2: Dai
Dai made a weekly plan selecting two learning strategies in LP1, after the first explicit instruction for integration One was watching news, presentations and movies, which he had
selected in CR4, and the other was intensive reading, which he had selected in CR3 In addition, he observed, “I could notice which self-directed learning was appropriate for me … I
could find my weakness points through learning.” However, he had already claimed, “I want
to improve my grammar skills and increase my vocabulary,” in CR1. Looking back on his CR1
more closely, he explained that he was not confident about using English even though he was
educated at an international school and wrote “mistakes will lose a person’s confidence suchas grammatically mistakes and spelling mistakes. Therefore, I would like to remember more
vocabulary, and improve my grammar skills.” Taking his reflections into account, it could besaid that his awareness of his weak points, and his belief in the importance of correct grammar and vocabulary use, do not provide evidence of new metacognitive knowledge raised by
the course instruction. Instead, they show a confirmation of his original beliefs about his language learning goals and practices, though perhaps articulated in a more metacognitive way
as a result of the course activities The point to note here is the reasons Dai chose the learning
strategies mentioned above He explained that he would read scripts when watching videos tomake sure his comprehension was correct in CR4, and would do intensive reading for learning
new vocabulary and writing styles in CR3 In other words, he connected these pieces of newmetacognitive knowledge about learning strategies to the beliefs he held since the beginningof the course
LP2 was made in Class 8, one week after he went through goal setting in Class 7. In CR7,
Dai set a goal of obtaining a high score in TOEFL®iBT and claimed, “it needs an enormous
amount of vocabulary and a lot of practice in reading, listening, speaking and writing to do.”In LP2, therefore, he selected learning strategies and resources for each language skill, particularly the ones that he had tried before such as listening speeches with scripts (CR4), intensive reading (CR3), and vocabulary applications (CR2) with addition of writing practice68

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Mayumi Abe

by imitating model essays or articles We can see here that he integrated his metacognitive
knowledge about his goal (task knowledge) from CR7, learning strategies (strategy knowledge) from CR2, 3 and 4 and himself (person knowledge) from CR1 or earlier.
The contents of LP2 were maintained into LP3 as well Since his goal was unchanged, hedecided that he should continue the same learning strategies during the summer holiday
too However, contradictorily, he confessed in LP3 that he had not actually been able to carryout his LP2 in the past month. He said, “I think I could not control myself well and the time
management was bad However, I don’t want to quit this plan ” What is interesting here isthat although he stressed the importance of self-control and time management in his reflections, he did not apply strategies that would help him strengthen these practices, even thoughthose topics were dealt with in Class 10 and 11, in between LP2 and LP3 This means that his
integration occurred in his choice of goal-setting and language learning strategies but notwith strategies to control his motivation and time management even though all of them werecovered in class in similar ways Also, it would be worth noting that in the latter part of LP3,
he added, “I need to achieve this goal by some useful grammar and vocabulary books because
I need to improve these skills especially.” One interpretation of this is that his core metacognitive knowledge, or belief, seen in CR1 remained constant until the end of the course.

Discussion
I would like to return here to the research questions introduced at the beginning of the chapter:1

Was integration of metacognitive knowledge promoted by explicit intervention in thecontext of this study?

2

If yes, did it lead to better planning?

The answer is both yes and no. Although integration of some types of metacognitive knowledge was observed in both cases, there were also several types of metacognitive knowledge
that were not applied to the learning plans
Mari connected her metacognitive knowledge of her learning preferences as explored in her
first Class Reflection (CR1) through CR6 in her first Learning Plan (LP1), in those listed in CR1
through CR7 in LP2, and from those listed in CR1 through CR6 and CR10 in LP3. This linking
suggests that we may consider the intervention to have promoted these integrations However, as also noted, CR7 was not used in LP3 even though the concept was once applied in LP2
Although it is possible that learners do not utilize a certain metacognitive knowledge intentionally if they consider it is unnecessary or irrelevant, CR7 focused on goal setting, one of themost important factors in planning In other words, in spite of the fact that goal setting constitutes a fundamental kind of metacognitive knowledge, and should logically be integrated inlearning plans, integration was not induced for LP3 in spite of the intervention
Dai connected his metacognitive knowledge observations from CR1 through CR6 in LP1, andfrom CR1 through CR7 in his LP2 and LP3. This linking could also be considered evidence of
the intervention as having promoted the integrations However, CR10 and CR11 observations
were not applied to the LP3, which he composed following those classes His “confession,”
reported in LP3, that he could not sustain his previous plans because of his poor time management and motivational strategies, which had been covered in Class 10 and 11, suggests that
he recognized them as important elements in achieving his goals Therefore, he should haveintegrated these concepts into his LP3 for better planning
Another issue recognized in both cases was that some integration took place even withLearner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201769

Integrating Metacognitive Knowledge for Planning in Self-directed Language Learningout intervention In Case 1, Mari had begun the practice of integrating time management andskill-based learning strategies, before the concept of time management was explicitly coveredin the course itself. In Dai’s case, the integration of his metacognitive knowledge about himself with language use with skill-based learning strategies started before any explicit intervention for integration was presented in class. The learners’ metacognitive knowledge in bothcases was stable enough to be sustained throughout the semester, and was consistently connected to newly developed metacognitive knowledge even without external intervention.
To bring things together, the analysis of the two cases suggests that integration of metacognitive knowledge can be promoted by explicit intervention. However, it does not mean thatintervention can always induce integration, and sometimes fails even when the integration isconsidered important for the learner’s development At the same time, some integration may
occur even without intervention; particularly when the metacognitive knowledge is a part of astable belief-system for the learner

Conclusion
I began the study assuming that the integration of multiple kinds of metacognitive knowledge
is important for self-directed language learners to make more effective learning plans. To
test this hypothesis, I examined the results of interventions designed to promote the integration of metacognitive knowledge by two students, Mari and Dai, enrolled in the Self-Directed
Learning course The results showed that although integration was promoted by the intervention, it did not occur in all cases. The learner reflections also showed that even though
the integration of all aspects of metacognitive knowledge is not always necessary for better
planning, there is room for improvement in future practices to enhance greater integrationof metacognitive knowledge with goal setting and strategy adoption. Learning advisors or
instructors must also consider the possibility that integration will sometimes not take placeeven when it is crucial to improve learning outcomes
In order to encourage greater integration of metacognitive knowledge into students’ learning plans, I am now evaluating several possible revisions to the course These include:
1

Increasing the frequency of interventions;

2

Making integration practices more explicit on worksheets;3

Developing new models in the design of learner portfolios;

4

Changing the order of the topics of instruction; and,5

Including one-to-one short advisory sessions with individual students

Although the challenges in developing advanced metacognitive skills, or meta-metacognitive awareness, especially through classroom instruction, must be acknowledged, I believethat it is still a goal worth pursuing so that I can support the development of skillful self-directed learning, not only in advisory sessions with individual learners but also through instruction for larger groups of students

References
Anderson, J. N. (2012). Metacognition: Awareness of language learning. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan,& M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning (pp. 169-187). Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan

70

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Mayumi Abe

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive
developmental inquiry American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
Mercer, S. (2012). Self-concept: Situating the self. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.),
Psychology for language learning (pp. 10-25). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies Edinburgh Pearson
Education
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, andassessing Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219-225.
Reynolds, C., & Patton, J. (2014). Leveraging the ePortfolio for integrative learning: A faculty guideto classroom practices for transforming student learning Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing
Sannomiya, M. (Ed). (2008). メタ認知―学習力を支える高次認知機能― [Metacognition: Higher ordercognitive function to support learning skills]. Kyoto: Kitaoji-shobou.
Veeman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, Bernadette H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006).
Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations Metacognition
and Learning, 1, 3-14
Wenden, A. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4),515-537
Wenden, A. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language
learning: Beyond the basics. System, 27(4), 435-441.
Yang, N. D. (2003). Integrating portfolios into learning strategy-based instruction for EFL
college students IRAL, 41(4), 293-317.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.
Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice,41(2), 64-70.

Review ProcessThis paper was double-blind reviewed by members of the Review Network. (Contributors havethe option of open or blind review.)

Author Bio
Mayumi Abe has been a language learning advisor for 10 years and is currently an instructor
at Gakushuin University. She also works with ALC, a publishing company, in charge of the
management and training of advisors She received her master’s degree from Temple University Japan Campus and is now studying in the doctoral program of Waseda University Her
research interests include self-directed learning, metacognition, motivation, and language
learning strategies

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201771

Integrating Metacognitive Knowledge for Planning in Self-directed Language Learning

Appendix A
Worksheet in Class 6
Review of Class 1 to 6
CL#

Topic

2

Vocabulary

3

Reading

4

Listening

5

Speaking

6

Writing

Reflection (Resources & strategies that worked for you)Ø

Integrate the ideas above and make a plan for this week72

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

PriorityMayumi Abe

Appendix B
Worksheet in Class 8
SDL I Class 8 Designing Learning Plan 1
A My English Tree (Needs analysis)

B My big goal and small goals (related to English skills and learning)
Big goal

Small goals

C My schedule
WeeklyDate

What to do

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201773

Integrating Metacognitive Knowledge for Planning in Self-directed Language Learning

Appendix C
Worksheet in Class 13
SDL I Class 13 Designing Learning Plan 2
My Goal(s)My English Tree (Needs analysis)––––– my current skill ––––– my goal by the end of summer

74

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Mayumi Abe

Learning Resources & Strategies
Target skill(s)(e g listening,
vocabulary)

Resources /Strategies

when, where,
how long,
how often

Goals (What toachieve by the endof summer)

My Self-Motivational Strategies (how to maintain motivation)

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201775

Integrating Metacognitive Knowledge for Planning in Self-directed Language Learning

My schedule
WeeklyDate

76

What to do

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 2017

Mayumi Abe

Daily
Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Sun

min

min

min

min

min

min

min

6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
13:00
14:00
15:00
16:00
17:00
18:00
19:00
20:00
21:00
22:00
23:00
24:00

Total
SDL
time

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 1 • November 201777