




































 Hernberg 109 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 109–122 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375 

Theoretical Analysis, Classroom Practice, Opinion Essays 

 

Metacognition and Language Learning: Creating Effective K–12 Learners 

 

Stacey Hernberg 

University of Calgary 

 

Abstract 

 

In British Columbia’s K–12 schools, five years of funded English Language Learning support is 

frequently not enough to help English language learners fully develop their English language 

proficiency. This critical analysis examines the literature on metacognition and language learning 

to find practical metacognitive instructional features to equip students who are learning English 

as an additional language with the awareness and the strategies they need to effectively further 

develop their academic language. By analyzing and synthesizing the literature, it is clear that 

several models of metacognition have been developed. Yet, there is still a need for a fuller model 

to be developed, thus helping educators better understand how metacognitive instruction can be 

implemented. Furthermore, little research can be found on metacognitive instruction with K–12 

language learners. Therefore, theme analysis for effective features of metacognitive instruction 

with post-secondary language learners was used to uncover the most useful characteristics which 

might prove promising for K–12 students in British Columbia. The result is the identification of 

four features of effective metacognitive instruction that could be used in conjunction with a 

proposed fuller model of metacognition in language learning. 

 

Introduction 

 

It generally takes a language learner six months to two years to develop their Basic Interpersonal 

Communication Skills (BICS) or social language, and then it takes at least another five years, 

often more, to build their Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) or academic 

language and structures (e.g. Cummins & Early, 2015). In British Columbia’s (B.C.) public 

schools, the provincial government provides funding for auxiliary English Language Learning 

(ELL) services to qualifying students for up to five years (British Columbia Ministry of 

Education, 2018). Therefore, ELL support frequently ends before students finish developing their 

CALP. For those who have a strong aptitude for language learning and/or access to additional 

support this is not a significant issue. For other students who struggle with language learning and 

lack access to support beyond the classroom, it can mean years of academic challenges and 

reduced educational opportunities. 

 

 There is strong evidence that metacognitive instruction can improve language learning 

performance (e.g. Raoofi, Chan, Mukundan & Rashid, 2013). Furthermore, the use of 

metacognitive strategies for language learning “can lead to more profound learning and 

improved performance, especially among learners who are struggling” (Anderson, 2002, p. 3). 

Although research on the role of metacognition in language learning spans four decades (e.g. 

Flavell, 1979; Goh, 2019), there are gaps in the literature that need to be addressed. First, a fuller 

model of the role of metacognition in language learning needs to be developed to help educators 

better understand it. Secondly, research on metacognitive instruction with K–12 ELL students is 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375


 Hernberg 110 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 109–122 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375 

sparse and needs more attention. As a result, this inquiry reviews the literature on the topic and 

proposes a fuller metacognition model based on the work of several prominent scholars. It also 

identifies four metacognitive instructional features that research suggests would be effective with 

K–12 ELL students in B.C. 

 

Complications with CALP and ELL 

 

Cummins was the first to use the term cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP), using it 

to refer to “the dimension of language proficiency which is strongly related to overall cognitive 

and academic skills” (1979, p.2). CALP is the intersection between language proficiency with 

cognitive and memory skills, and it is a “major determinant of educational progress” (Cummins, 

1980, p. 178). Many of the ELL students in B.C.’s K–12 public schools start their language 

learning in the early primary grades. Some of these students stop using their first language by 

their intermediate years, and those who continue using it at home may not have opportunities to 

develop their CALP in it (Roessingh & Elgie, 2009). Because CALP proficiencies in both first 

and additional languages have been found to stem from the same underlying dimension, younger 

learners whose CALP is not well developed in their first language will take longer to build their 

additional language CALP (Cummins, 1979; 1980). Thus, many early-entry ELLs will take 

longer than five years to develop their CALP in English to a level as high as is required for 

academic success and the opportunities provided by that success. Since the number of ELL 

students in B.C. schools that qualify for language learning support has been increasing for 

decades (British Columbia Teachers’ Federation, 2019), this is an issue that is pertinent for a 

growing number of students in the province. 

 

 Although the BICS/CALP framework is subject to criticism, it provides consistent and 

familiar terminology among scholars and practitioners. Critics of this theory have purported that 

the distinction between the two measures has “created an artificial and arbitrarily delineated 

dichotomy” (Rolstad & MacSwan, 2008, p. 63). Auckerman (2007) explained that this 

distinction may not be useful for young ELLs because it may cause assumptions that they are not 

ready to learn. Flores (2020) argued that this type of framework can cause educators to view 

students from some communities as linguistically deficient. Other critics also view this 

framework as a deficit theory (Rolstad & MacSwan, 2008). It is not the intention of this inquiry 

to view ELLs as deficient, but rather understand how they can be empowered to have the same 

educational success and opportunities as those who demonstrate strong academic language 

proficiency. Not acknowledging the learning needs of ELLs could result in those needs being 

overlooked. 

 

 Some of the alternative terms put forward for avoiding deficit implications underscore 

just how valuable metacognition can be for ELLs and their asset of knowing two or more 

languages. For example, Auckerman (2007) suggested using the term recontextualization, which 

refers to using what children already know to build their language knowledge. Indeed, when a 

student knows two or more languages, metacognition can help make them aware of their 

understanding of these languages and allow them to capitalize on it. Flores (2020) proposed the 

term language architecture as an alternative framework that encourages appreciation that 

language learners “are able to manipulate language for specific purposes” (p. 25). This term also 

corresponds well with the use of metacognition in language learning as it highlights the need for 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375


 Hernberg 111 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 109–122 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375 

students to work with their knowledge consciously. However, CALP and academic language are 

the terms that educators are most familiar with in practice. The BICS/CALP framework also 

allows educators to assess their students for where they are in developing their language 

proficiency. Using this framework for assessment is a significant component of understanding 

how ELL support can empower students. 

 

 Regardless of terminology, ELL students must learn the necessary skills to become 

effective language learners throughout their educational journey so that they can access academic 

opportunities that they may desire. By understanding the role that metacognition plays in a 

higher level of language proficiency, like CALP, educators might determine how metacognitive 

instruction could help these learners exercise some personal agency in the further development 

of their additional language proficiency.  

 

The Link Between Metacognition and Language Proficiency 

 

Metacognition, or the ability to think about one’s thinking, plays an essential role in language 

learning (Anderson, 2002; Flavell, 1979). The literature on metacognition suggests that it helps 

learners take control of their learning by allowing them to make conscious decisions to maximize 

their learning opportunities. There are three types of evidence that metacognition plays a critical 

role in the development of academic language proficiency. One type of evidence is research that 

explores the characteristics of “good language learners,” or learners that demonstrate a particular 

aptitude for learning new languages. This research finds these learners demonstrate strong 

metacognitive knowledge and use of metacognitive strategies (Alghamdi, 2016; Hong-Nam & 

Leavell, 2007; Nazri, Yunus & Nazri, 2016; Rubin, 1975; Wang, Spencer & Xing, 2009). The 

second type of evidence is the literature that explores what strategies are used by learners with 

different levels of language proficiency. Several studies in this area demonstrate that high levels 

of language proficiency, which is part of CALP, are associated with greater use of metacognitive 

awareness and strategies as well as more variety in their use (Al-Alwan, Asassfeh & Al-Shboul, 

2013; Li, 2007; Mutar, 2018). The third type of evidence can be found is studies that 

demonstrate correlations between language skills and use of metacognitive strategies. These 

studies provide evidence that the use of metacognitive strategies is strongly and positively 

correlated with the language skills of CALP (Phakiti, 2003; Purpa, 1998; Setiyadi, Mahpul, 

Sukirlan & Rahman, 2016, Teng & Chan, 2008; Vandergrift, 1997). Table 1 on the next page 

highlights the findings of these three types of research. 

 

 Some drawbacks to this argument should be considered. Correlations need to be viewed 

with some caution since a correlation does not imply causation. Another factor contributing to 

higher levels of language skills and the use of metacognitive strategies could exist. One more 

important note to make is that most of the studies noted above were done with university-aged 

students. Some of this research may not translate precisely to K–12 learners. Only the four 

studies indicated in italics in Table 1 were done with students at the middle and high school 

levels. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, this body of research provides strong evidence that 

metacognition plays a critical role in the development of academic language proficiency. 

  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375


 Hernberg 112 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 109–122 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375 

Table 1 

 

Three Types of Evidence for the Influence of Metacognition on CALP 

 

Studies that Examine the 

Characteristics of Good 

Language Learners 

Studies that Examine the 

Strategies used by Highly 

Proficient Language Learners 

Studies that Examine the Use 

of Metacognitive Strategies 

correlated with Language 

Skills 

Good language learners: Provide evidence that: Use of metacognitive 

strategies correlates with: 

 Monitor their speech and 

that of others (Rubin, 

1975) 

 Learn from their mistakes 

(Rubin, 1975) 

 Have metacognitive 

beliefs of confidence in 

their language learning 

ability (Wang, et al., 

2009) 

 Frequently use language 

learning strategies, 

especially metacognitive 

strategies (Nazri, et al., 

2016) 

 Prefer metacognitive 

strategies (Hong-Nam & 

Leavell, 2007) 

 Demonstrate more self-

management (Alghamdi, 

2016) 

 Proficiency in English as 

a second language (ESL) 

is associated with the 

metacognitive strategies 

of prioritizing learning, 

creating practice 

opportunities, directing 

attention, and self-

evaluating (Li, 2007) 

 There is a significant 

correlation between 

listening comprehension 

and metacognitive 

awareness that was 

largely explained by the 

problem-solving and 

planning/evaluation 

components of 

metacognitive strategies 

(Al-Alwan, et al., 2013) 

 Students with high levels 

of language proficiency 

use a greater variety of 

strategies including 

metacognitive strategies 

(Mutar, 2018) 

 More successful listening 

in a second language 

(Vandergrift, 1997) 

 English as a foreign 

language (EFL) reading 

achievement (Phakiti, 

2003) 

 Language test 

performance (Purpa, 

1998) 

 Better EFL listening 

performance (Teng & 

Chan, 2008) 

 Better overall language 

performance (Setiyadi, et 

al., 2016) 

 

*Findings in italics were discovered with middle and high school students. 

 

Inquiry Methods 

 

This inquiry uses a pragmatic lens to examine the literature on metacognition, its role in 

language learning, and how to develop it, with the purpose of adapting instruction delivered to 

ELL students to promote their development of metacognition. In this manner, ELL students can 

continue developing their CALP even if further support is not available, and if it suits their 

personal goals. Therefore, the questions explored for this purpose are: 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375


 Hernberg 113 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 109–122 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375 

 

 What role does metacognition play in language learning? 

 What does the literature have to say about metacognitive instruction? 

 How can this knowledge help educators develop the metacognition of ELLs in B.C. 

schools? 

 

The literature included in this inquiry project was collected by searching the ERIC database and 

the University of Calgary’s Primo library system for peer-reviewed research. The search terms 

used included: metacognition, metacognitive strategies, metacognitive awareness, and 

metacognitive instruction along with English as a second language, ESL, English as a foreign 

language, EFL, English language learners, ELL, cognitive academic language proficiency, and 

CALP. 

 

 Twenty-seven relevant studies were found and used. Critical analysis and synthesis were 

then used to integrate the different streams of research found. Torraco (2005) has explained that 

synthesis should be done with critical analysis because “new knowledge about previous research 

is created through critical analysis; and synthesis builds on this to create new perspectives on the 

topic as a whole” (p. 363). This critical analysis and synthesis was done according to the research 

question it addresses. It was then synthesized by comparing, contrasting, and critiquing previous 

models and formulating a more inclusive model. Finally, findings were analyzed by coding and 

clustering them around themes. 

 

What Role Does Metacognition Play in Language Learning? 

 

Analysis 

 

Four decades ago, Flavell (1979) explained that metacognition is “knowledge and cognition 

about cognitive phenomena” (p. 906). He was the first to link metacognition to the significant 

role that it plays in language. Flavell described metacognition as consisting of three components 

whose combined function is to monitor cognition and cognitive functioning, both of which are 

imperative to the development of language skills. These components are metacognitive 

knowledge, experiences, and strategies. 

 

 The first component, metacognitive knowledge, is stored knowledge about how people 

think while completing cognitive tasks. This component can be further broken down into three 

categories: person, task, and strategy. Person knowledge refers to knowledge about one’s self 

and others’ thinking abilities. Task knowledge pertains to what is involved in completing a task, 

and strategy knowledge includes what strategies might help accomplish a learning goal (Flavell, 

1979). Later Wenden (1998) added the concept of domain knowledge which is knowledge of 

subject matter, and Chamot (2005) used the term world knowledge as a broader more 

encompassing term. 

 

 The second component, metacognitive experiences, refers to moments when a learner is 

in a cognitive process and aware of the sort of progress they are making. These experiences 

invoke strategies related to goals and actions that monitor the cognitive processes. These 

metacognitive experiences lead learners to the third component, metacognitive strategies. These 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375


 Hernberg 114 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 109–122 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375 

are the strategies consciously used to understand and process cognitive information. Flavell 

(1979) believed that these strategies were for both language learning and use. 

 

 Nearly two decades later, interest in metacognition and language learning began to 

bloom, and several scholars focused solely on the component of metacognitive strategies by 

defining and explaining what they were and how they related to one another in the context of 

language learning (Anderson, 2002; Chamot, 2005; Vandergrift, 1997; Wang et al., 2009). 

Coding and theme analysis were used to determine these metacognitive strategies and are shown 

in Table 2. One scholar that went beyond this sole focus on strategies was Wenden (1998).  

 

Table 2 

 

Themes Found for Metacognitive Strategies 

 

Literature on Metacognitive Strategies Themes Identified 

 

Wang et al. (2009)  Monitoring 

 Perseverance/Problem Solving 

 Goal Setting/Planning 

Anderson (2002)  Planning 

 Problem Solving 

 Monitoring 

 Evaluation 

Vandergrift (1997)   Planning 

 Monitoring 

 Problem Identification 

 Evaluation 

Chamot (2005)  Planning 

 Monitoring 

 Problem Solving 

 Evaluation 

 

 The purpose of Wenden’s (1998) literature review was to build on Flavell’s (1979) model 

and show how metacognitive knowledge influences the strategies used. Through this 

deconstruction, Wenden also illustrated how the use of strategies can build metacognitive 

knowledge. Also, Wenden (1998) illuminated how the reciprocal relationship between 

metacognitive knowledge and strategies is mediated through metacognitive experiences. These 

experiences lead to decisions about what to do about learning, and this monitoring encourages 

the expansion of metacognitive knowledge. 

 

Synthesis 

 

More recently, Goh (2019) has promoted the use of a model of metacognition based on the ones 

created by Flavell (1979) and Wenden (1998). This promotion is due to the issue of more current 

frameworks focusing just on metacognitive strategies and overlooking the pre-eminence of 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375


 Hernberg 115 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 109–122 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375 

metacognitive knowledge in the broader construct of metacognition. However, the older models 

used by Flavell (1979) and Wenden (1998) are limited in the identified processes involved in 

using metacognitive strategies. Thus, Goh (2019) argued for a broader framework that focuses 

on both knowledge and strategies so that it can be used by educators and researchers 

consistently. This is the purpose of the model illustrated and proposed here, see Figure 1. It is 

based on the information presented in this section. 

 
Figure 1. Proposed model of metacognition. 

 

 This model illustrates the reciprocal relationship of metacognitive knowledge and 

strategies (Chamot, 2005; Wenden, 1998), includes expanded components of each (Anderson, 

2002; Vandergrift, 1997), and places metacognitive experiences in the centre to demonstrate how 

these experiences build both knowledge and strategies (Flavell, 1979; Wenden, 1998). This 

proposed model of cognition could serve as a conceptual framework for deepening teacher 

understanding of metacognition in language learning, which is one of the useful features of 

metacognitive instruction that was found through the next inquiry question. 

 

What Does the Literature Have to Say About Metacognitive Instruction? 

 

Critical Analysis 

 

Research on metacognitive instruction is complex. In a comprehensive study that examined 

empirical data from several studies, Raoofi et al. (2013) found mixed evidence that 

metacognitive interventions improve metacognitive awareness and strategy use. Just over half of 

these studies found positive results for this conclusion. However, all the studies investigating 

whether metacognitive instruction (MI) could improve language learning performance did indeed 

find this result. In addition, several studies demonstrated that strategy-focused MI helps learners 

become more self-regulated and effective in their language learning (Raoofi et al., 2013). 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375


 Hernberg 116 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 109–122 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375 

Perhaps metacognition is more challenging to evaluate than language performance. It seems 

relevant to ask what is more pertinent, that MI develops metacognition according to particular 

evaluation methods or that it improves language learning? Since the purpose of this analysis is to 

support ELLs in becoming more effective language learners so that they can play a role in 

developing their CALP, it seems logical to conclude that since there is a great deal of evidence 

that MI improves language learning performance, then it is worthwhile to examine what 

constitutes effective MI. 

 

 Much of the research done on MI for improved language learning has been done with 

university-aged students in an EFL context. Research with K–12 ELLs is sparse, but there are 

some relevant studies. McKeown and Gentilucci (2007) argued that their findings suggest that 

when it comes to reading, a threshold level of competency needs to be reached before a 

metacognitive strategy like the Think-Aloud Strategy will be helpful. This finding is significant 

in that it implies that it would be more logical to use MI with students once they have developed 

threshold levels of competency in language and academics. Therefore, focusing on MI after the 

primary (K-3) years and after the development of BICS might be prudent. 

 

 Goh and Taib’s (2006) study with 11 and 12-year-old ESL students in Singapore found 

that all ten of the students developed their metacognition of task and strategic awareness for 

listening as well as confidence in their personal ability to complete listening tasks. The MI in this 

study included traditional listening exercises, reflections on listening experiences, and teacher-

facilitated discussions focussed on metacognitive knowledge about listening. Unfortunately, it 

was a rather small-scale study. In a similar vein, but done on a much larger scale, Vandergrift 

(2002) used reflection on the listening process to develop metacognitive knowledge to improve 

listening performance with 420 French as a second language learners in Grades 4–6 and found 

positive results. Here the learning activities were followed with class discussions to prompt 

reflection on what happened during these tasks and how it was helpful. Based on these three 

studies, it could be summarized that reflections during group discussions and after well-crafted 

activities are more effective than reporting reflections during a task (Goh & Taib, 2006; 

McKeown & Gentilucci, 2007; Vandergrift, 2002).  

 

Synthesis 

 

With decades of research in the area of metacognition and language learning, it is hard to ignore 

the large quantity of work out there by prominent scholars who have delved deeply into this topic 

through literature reviews as well as studies done on MI with university students. Several themes 

can be found in this extended body of research. Table 3 demonstrates the theme analysis done 

with the coding of this research. By far the most prevalent themes were explicit instruction of 

metacognitive strategies (Anderson, 2002; Bozorgian, 2014; Chamot, 2005; Cubukcu, 2008; 

Pintrich, 2002; Raoofi et al., 2013), reflection and other awareness-raising activities, as was 

mentioned in the above studies (Goh, 1997; Goh & Taib, 2006; Pintrich, 2002; Vandergrift, 

2002; Wenden, 1998), integrating and embedding MI into content (Goh, 2019; Pintrich, 2002; 

Sato & Loewen, 2018), and teachers’ understanding of metacognition and MI (Anderson, 2002; 

Goh, 2019; Wenden, 1998). These factors should play a pivotal role in answering the next 

question of this inquiry. 

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375


 Hernberg 117 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 109–122 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375 

Table 3 

 

Themes Found in Research on Metacognitive Instruction (MI) 

 
Study Findings and Literature Review Recommendations (in italics) Themes Identified 

Corrective feedback accompanied with integrated MI that explained the 

usefulness of activities to students and used prolonged training was 

better at promoting L2 development than corrective feedback alone 

(Sato and Loewen, 2018). 

 Integrated into Content 

 Awareness-Raising 

 Prolonged Instruction 

Teaching the metacognitive strategies of planning, monitoring, and 

evaluation through the pedagogical cycle improved listening skills 

(Bozorgian, 2014). 

 Explicit Strategy Instruction 

Using systematic direct instruction for metacognitive reading strategies 

found significant improvements for both reading comprehension and 

vocabulary (Cubukcu, 2008). 

 Direct/Explicit Strategy 

Instruction 

Through the use of listening diaries many students demonstrated strong 

awareness of the three aspects of listening (Goh, 1997). 

 Reflection/Listening Diary 

Pintrich (2002) recommended that metacognitive knowledge 1) needs 

to be taught explicitly, 2) MI is embedded into content lessons, 3) 

metacognition should be explicitly labelled when it comes up, 4) MI be 

made part of everyday classroom discussions, 5) metacognitive  

strategies are modelled for students. 

 Explicit Instruction 

 Integrated/Embedded into 

Content 

 Awareness-Raising Activities 

 Classroom 

Discussions/Reflection 

 Model Strategies/Explicit 

Strategy Instruction 

Wenden’s (1998) recommendations for strategy instruction: Teachers 

should 1) inform learners of the purpose of the strategy being taught 2) 

explain what the strategy is used for 3) help learners understand what 

tasks a strategy can be used for 4) advance their understanding of their 

learners’ metacognition, 5) encourage the use of awareness-raising 

activities that elicit a learners’ metacognition, get them to articulate 

this awareness, challenge them with alternative views, and have them 

reflect on what has been learned. 6) understand the importance that 

instruction helps students learn how to learn. 

 Explicit/Direct Strategy 

Instruction 

 Teachers’ Understanding (of 

student metacognition) 

 Awareness-Raising Activities 

 Reflection Activities 

 Teacher Understanding 

(importance of) 

Anderson (2002) recommended educators should: 1) be explicit about 

the goal of lessons and guide learners to set their own goals 2) 

explicitly teach learning strategies 3) have learners stop and ask 

themselves if they are using the strategy as they should 4) help them see 

the variety of strategies they could use for a task 5) ask them to reflect 

on each component of strategy use. 

 Explicit Strategy Instruction 

 Explicit Purpose 

 Application Activities 

 Teacher Understanding (of 

metacognition for guidance) 

Chamot’s (2005) review of literature on LSI summarizes that explicit 

instruction of learning strategies is more effective than implicit 

instruction, and it fosters metacognition 

 Explicit Strategy Instruction 

Goh (2019) argued for embedding strategy learning and metacognitive 

knowledge development in everyday language learning tasks. 

Additionally, Goh explained the importance of teachers’ conviction of 

the effectiveness of MI and how it can be integrated into their teaching. 

 Embedded into Content 

 Teacher Understanding 

(importance of) 

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375


 Hernberg 118 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 109–122 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375 

How Can This Knowledge Help Educators Develop the Metacognition of ELLs  

in B.C. K–12 Schools? 

 

Discussion and Implications 

 

Goh (2019) pointed out that to avoid the argument that strategy instruction might take too much 

time away from content teaching, educators should “embed strategy learning and metacognitive 

knowledge development in everyday language learning tasks” (p. 274). Embedding and 

integrating MI into content is an essential factor for the context of B.C. public schools. Since 

most ELL students in B.C. are taught using content-based instruction in mainstream classrooms, 

it would be challenging to take time away from the curriculum to focus on developing 

metacognition. Even when ELL support is provided through small group pull-out, it is still meant 

to focus on the language learning goals determined for students and support their grade level 

curriculum. Additionally, embedding MI into content promotes connectivity between the process 

and using it to learn more effectively (Azevedo, 2020). Explicit strategy instruction is one way to 

integrate MI into the content. 

 

 The call for the teaching of metacognitive strategies and making it explicit is 

overwhelming: “Research reveals that explicit strategy instruction is an effective way to enhance 

learners’ awareness about the learning strategies” (Raoofi, 2013, p. 36). Chamot (2005) 

explained it is “more effective than simply asking students to use one or more strategies” (p. 

123). It seems plausible that explicit strategy instruction would foster metacognition in students 

by making them more aware of the strategies they can and do use, thus expanding their 

metacognitive experiences and further developing their metacognitive knowledge. The 

metacognitive strategies that should be taught are listed in the proposed model above (Figure 1) 

and were derived from the themes found in the literature (Table 2). This explicit strategy 

instruction is consistent with another theme that was found: reflection and awareness-raising 

activities. 

 

 A common theme among the awareness raising-activities brought up in the literature is 

that they involve reflection. These activities included listening diaries (Goh, 1997), the Think-

Aloud strategy (McKeown & Gentilucci, 2007), and class discussions (Goh & Taib, 2006; 

Pintrich, 2002; Vandergrift, 2002; Wenden, 1998). The Think-Aloud strategy produced mediocre 

results, and it requires a great deal of time for one-on-one conferences. Diary entries regarding 

personal reflections on strategy use would be more reasonable to use, but they do not allow for 

the constructive and collaborative building of ideas like classroom discussions do. Classroom 

discussions are easy to fit into the day and therefore ensure time for content learning. Since some 

additional language learners are more reluctant to share ideas orally, brief journal entries or small 

group sharing before whole-class discussions might be helpful for these students. This strategy 

was also a noted feature found in the small body of research done with similarly aged students 

(Goh & Taib, 2006; Vandergrift, 2002). 

 

 Teachers may not use strategy instruction if they are not convinced of its effectiveness or 

understand how it can be integrated into their teaching (Goh, 2019). Additionally, metacognitive 

instruction requires that teachers guide learners through the process of using those strategies 

(Anderson, 2002), and craft metacognitive experiences for them (Flavell, 1979) to expand their 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375


 Hernberg 119 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 109–122 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375 

knowledge and strategies (Wenden, 1998). For this purpose, all teachers need to understand the 

role that metacognition plays in language learning, and this role of metacognition is where the 

results of this inquiry, and the fuller proposed and illustrated model of metacognition can guide 

both classroom and support teachers. 

 

Limitations 

 

One must also consider the affective barriers that can interfere with additional language learning. 

Using metacognition to deal with these issues, such as regulating emotions, motivation, and the 

social processes falls under the subject of self-regulation. This literature review has not examined 

the role of self regulated learning (SRL) in language learning. Azevedo (2020) highlighted the 

need “to avoid the common interchangeable use between metacognition and self-regulated 

learning” (p. 92) because distinctions between the two are needed to advance an understanding 

of each topic. In B.C.’s public schools, the topic of self-regulation is currently quite popular. For 

example, a google search of “self regulated learning,” “workshops,” and “B.C.,” reveals 

numerous professional resources, and an M.Ed. program is even offered through a B.C. 

university. However, a similar search for “metacognition,” “workshops,” and “B.C.,” reveals that 

resources in this area are not as available. Yet, there is a critical need for metacognitive training 

for teachers since they cannot be expected to teach metacognition if they do not understand it 

(Azevedo, 2020). The purpose of this inquiry was to delve into the distinctive benefits and 

features of metacognition and the teaching and learning of metacognition. This intent was not 

meant to detract from the value of promoting SRL. 

 

Conclusion 

 

This inquiry has pointed out the benefits of metacognition which can help teachers in helping 

their students become more effective additional language learners. With the guidance of their 

teachers, ELL students can become more powerful agents in their own effective language 

learning journey. Research has confirmed the significance of metacognition in CALP 

development, which plays a significant role in educational accomplishments. It has also been 

shown that effective MI should involve explicit strategy instruction after the primary (K–3) years 

and be integrated into content. It should use plenty of awareness-raising activities and 

collaborative reflection after those activities, as well as include a more sophisticated 

understanding of metacognition and MI by the teachers who work with language learners. 

Because metacognition consists of three components: metacognitive knowledge, strategies, and 

experiences, the fuller metacognition model proposed here should be used for developing this 

understanding. Based on the findings and conclusions of this inquiry, learning activities can be 

developed that can form the basis of MI as part of a holistic teaching practice. This development 

could lead to a case study or action research project on how the four features that this inquiry 

found to be useful could be practically implemented into teaching practices with ELL students 

who are developing their higher levels of language proficiency. 

  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375


 Hernberg 120 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 109–122 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375 

References 

 

Al-Alwan, A., Asassfeh, S., & Al-Shboul, Y. (2013). EFL Learners listening comprehension and 

awareness of metacognitive strategies: How are they related? International Education 

Studies, 6(9), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n9p31  

Alghamdi, F. M. (2016). Self-directed learning in preparatory-year university students: 

Comparing successful and less-successful English language learners. English Language 

Teaching, 9(7), 59. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n7p59  

Anderson, N. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. Eric 

Digest, ED 463659. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERIC-

ED463659/pdf/ERIC-ED463659.pdf 

Aukerman, M. (2007). A culpable CALP: Rethinking the conversational/academic language 

proficiency distinction in early literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 60(7), 626–

635. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.60.7.3  

Azevedo, R. (2020). Reflections on the field of metacognition: Issues, challenges, and 

opportunities. Metacognition and Learning, 15(2), 91–98. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09231-x 

Bozorgian, H. (2014). The role of metacognition in the development of EFL learners’ listening 

skill. International Journal of Listening, 28(3), 149–161. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2013.861303  

British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. (2019). Education facts: Public school students in British 

Columbia. Retrieved from 

https://bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/Publications/FactSheets/StudentEnrolment.pdf 

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2018). ELL policy guidelines. Retrieved from 

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-grade-

12/english-language-learners/guidelines.pdf 

Chamot, A. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual 

Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061  

Cubukcu, F. (2008). Enhancing vocabulary development and reading comprehension through 

metacognitive strategies. Issues in Educational Research, 18(1), 1-11. Retrieved from 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.570.1145&rep=rep1&type=pdf 

Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/Academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the 

optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, No. 19. 

Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED184334 

Cummins, J. (1980). The Cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for 

bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14(2), 175–187. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/3586312  

Cummins, J., & Early, M. (2015). Big ideas for expanding minds: Teaching English language 

learners across the curriculum. Oakville, ON: Rubicon. 

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-

developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906  

Flores, N. (2020). From academic language to language architecture: Challenging raciolinguistic 

ideologies in research and practice. Theory Into Practice, 59(1), 22–31. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1665411 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375
https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n9p31
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n7p59
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERIC-ED463659/pdf/ERIC-ED463659.pdf
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERIC-ED463659/pdf/ERIC-ED463659.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.60.7.3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09231-x
https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2013.861303
https://bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/Publications/FactSheets/StudentEnrolment.pdf
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-grade-12/english-language-learners/guidelines.pdf
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/kindergarten-to-grade-12/english-language-learners/guidelines.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.570.1145&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED184334
https://doi.org/10.2307/3586312
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1665411


 Hernberg 121 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 109–122 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375 

Goh, C. (1997). Metacognitive awareness and second language listeners. ELT Journal, 51(4), 

361–369. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/51.4.361  

Goh, C. (2019). What we still need to learn about language learning strategies instruction: 

Research directions and designs. In Chamot & Harris (Eds.), Learning strategy 

instruction in the language classroom: issues and implementation (pp. 262–278). Bristol, 

Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. 

Goh, C., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT 

Journal, 60(3), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl002  

Hong-Nam, K., & Leavell, A. G. (2007). A comparative study of language learning strategy use 

in an EFL context: Monolingual Korean and bilingual Korean-Chinese university 

students. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(1), 71–88. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03025834  

Li, D. (2007). Coping with linguistic challenges in UK higher education: the use of strategies by 

Chinese research students. Language Learning Journal, 35(2), 205–219. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730701599237  

McKeown, R. G. & Gentilucci, J. L. (2007). Think-aloud strategy: Metacognitive development 

and monitoring comprehension in the middle school second-language classroom. Journal 

of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(2), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.51.2.5  

Mutar, Q. M. (2018). Language learning strategy use and English proficiency of Iraqi upper 

secondary school students. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(4), 59–67. 

https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.4p.59  

Nazri, N. M., Yunus, M. & Nazri, N. D. M. (2016). Through the lens of good language learners: 

What are their strategies? Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(1), 195–202. 

https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.1p.195  

Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use 

to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26–56. 

https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532203lt243oa  

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The Role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. 

Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3  

Purpura, J. E. (1998). Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language test 

performance with high- and low-ability test takers: a structural equation modelling 

approach. Language Testing, 15(3), 333–379. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229801500303  

Raoofi, S., Chan, S. H., Mukundan, J., & Rashid, S. M. (2013). Metacognition and 

second/foreign language learning. English Language Teaching, 7(1), 36–49. 

https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n1p36  

Roessingh, H., & Elgie, S. (2009). Early Language and Literacy Development Among Young 

English Language Learners: Preliminary Insights from a Longitudinal Study. TESL 

Canada Journal, 26(2), 24–45. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v26i2.413  

Rolstad, K. & MacSwan, J. (2008). Bics/calp theory. In J. M. González (Ed.), Encyclopedia of 

bilingual education (pp. 63–65). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963985.n30  

Rubin, J. (1975). What the “Good Language Learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41–

51. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586011  

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/51.4.361
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl002
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03025834
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730701599237
https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.51.2.5
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.4p.59
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.1p.195
https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532203lt243oa
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229801500303
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n1p36
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v26i2.413
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963985.n30
https://doi.org/10.2307/3586011


 Hernberg 122 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 109–122 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375 

Sato, M. & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of 

corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic target. Language 

Learning, 68(2), 507–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12283  

Setiyadi, B., Mahpul, Sukirlan, M., & Rahman, B. (2016). Language motivation, metacognitive 

strategies and language performance: A cause and effect correlation. International 

Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(7), 40–47. 

https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.7p.40  

Teng, C. & Chen, C. (2008). An investigation of metacognitive strategies used by EFL listeners. 

Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504568.pdf 

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human 

Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283  

Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: A 

descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 387–409. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb02362.x  

Vandergrift, L. (2002). It was nice to see that our predictions were right: Developing 

metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 

58(4), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.58.4.555  

Wang, J., Spencer, K., & Xing, M. (2009). Metacognitive beliefs and strategies in learning 

Chinese as a foreign language. System, 37(1), 46–56. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.05.001  

Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 

19(4), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.515  

 

 

 
The BC TEAL Journal is licensed under a 

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 

Copyright rests with the author(s). 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.14288/bctj.v5i1.375
https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12283
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.7p.40
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504568.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb02362.x
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.58.4.555
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.05.001
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.515
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

