Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas

False Friends: The Boardgame

A Design of an Automous Learning Model
Mara Fernanda Barros
Julieth Tatiana Colmenares
Jessica Paola Garca
Leidy Marcela Meneses
Lina Marcela Rodas
Professor: s!eran"a Re#elo Jim$ne"
%utonomous Learnin& Models
%!ril '(rd) '*+'
Introduction
rrors made ,y learners) undou,tedly) hel! teachers and researchers foresee -hat items of
the tar&et lan&ua&e may ,e difficult or easy for students to learn and also !ro#ide hints of ho- to
act and -hat to do. %ccordin& to Finch) it is the res!onsi,ility of e#ery teacher to !romote
autonomous) critically thin/in&) res!onsi,le mem,ers of society) and that lesson content or su,0ect
matter is a secondary &oal in this endea#or. The ,est -ay to learn a second lan&ua&e -ould ,e)
ideally) to ha#e a human tutor) ,ut this is not al-ays !ossi,le due to different reasons: mostly time
and money. %lthou&h there are lots of a#aila,le tools on the -e, to learn a second lan&ua&e
some of them free and some others commercial- it is still 1uestiona,le ho- -ell they im!ersonate
teachers) !ro#ide feed,ac/ and !ro#ide learners -ith e2!lanations that hel! them notice the
similarities and differences across lan&ua&es -hich can ,e #ery hel!ful in the tas/ of learnin& an
L'
Theoretical Framework
This theoretical frame-or/ intends to descri,e the theories underlyin& the desi&n of an
autonomous learnin& model -hose rational arises from a !re#ious research study in -hich -e
dealt -ith the !henomenon of false co&nates due to ne&ati#e transfer from L+ to L'. This section of
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
the !a!er -e -ill ta/e into account a set of statements related to language, learning, teaching,
autonomy and metacognition.
3t is -orth enou&h to start ,y tal/in& a,out the learnin& !rocess is and ho- it occurs. First of all)
learnin& can ,e concei#ed as the !rocess of ac1uirin& ne- or transformin& e2istin& /no-led&e.
This !rocess may in#ol#e synthesi"in& different /inds of information. Learnin& is not only a
condition of humans ,ut also animals ha#e the ca!acity to learn. 3t is not com!ulsory) ,ut 0ust
conte2tual. The !rocess of learnin& does not ha!!en all at once) ,ut ,uilds u!on and is sha!ed ,y
-hat -e already /no-.
4uman learnin& can occur throu&h education) !ersonal de#elo!ment) schoolin& or trainin&. 3t
can ,e either &oal-oriented or su!!orted ,y moti#ation. This com!le2 !rocess may occur as a
result of ha,ituation or classical conditionin&. %dditionally) !eo!le can learn ,ein& a-are of -ithout
conscious a-areness.
3n the !rocess of learnin&) different strate&ies can ,e used ,ut !layin& is the most common and
accurate -ay accordin& to s!ecialists on this to!ic. 5i&ots/y states that !layin& is essential for
children6s de#elo!ment as they ma/e meanin& of their en#ironment throu&h this. Playin& allo-s
learners e2!eriment -ith the -orld) internali"e rules as -ell as learn to interact
+
.
But) ho- children learn to s!ea/7 4o- does the !rocess of communication occur7
%lthou&h there is still uncertainty a,out ho- children learn to s!ea/) most 0ustifications in#ol#e
,oth) that children try to imitate -hat they hear and the inference that human ,ein&s ha#e an
inherent a,ility !resent in their mind -hich hel!s them ac1uire lan&ua&e and master its structural
!ro!erties.
8i nce lon&) e2!erts on thi s field ha#e tried to tac/le these in1ui res ,ut contro#ersy
has ari sen from the i ssue as there i s much that stil l needs cl ari fi cation. %t fi rst)
Ferdi nand de 8aussure-the father of modern li ngui stics- e2!ressed that lan&ua&e is a
structure) a functionin& -hole in -hich the different !arts are determined ,y 9one another9 :Course
in General Lin&uistics !. ;<. %ccordin& to the ,eha#iorist school of thou&ht) lan&ua&e learnin& is the
result of ha,it formation= this means that imitation and re!etition are all-im!ortant for the lan&ua&e
+
8ee Paul Tou&h, "Can the right kinds of play teach self-control?") New York Times) '**;>*;>'? :re#ie-in& the "Tools
of the Mind" curriculum ,ased on 5y&ots/y@s research<.
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
learnin& !rocess to ta/e !lace. 4o-e#er) this traditional ,eha#iorist assertion -as challen&ed ,y
Aoam Choms/y -ho later stated that lan&ua&e is innate) that crucial !arts of the human lan&ua&e
a,ility are ,uilt into the ,rain and are !ro&rammed into our &enes. Choms/y :+;B?< ,elie#es
"language to be a set finite or infinite! of sentences each finite in length and constructed out of a
finite set of elements""
Ta/in& into account Chom/y6s !ers!ecti#e) it is e#ident that the essence of &rammar is innate
and that there must ,e somethin& other than imitation in#ol#ed. Cith his &enerati#e theory) he
em!hasi"es that the lan&ua&e faculty humans ha#e is &enetically transmitted and !ro!er of the
s!ecie. 8u,se1uently) accordin& to Choms/y) there are se#eral com!le2 !ro!erties -hich are
uni#ersal to all lan&ua&es and yet) are ar,itrary.
Children can easily learn the sounds and #oca,ulary of their mother ton&ue ,y imitatin& adults
,ut &rammar is almost ne#er tau&ht to them e2!licitly. The fact that children easily ac1uire the
a,ility to s!ea/ &rammatically su!!orts Chom/y6s theory and other !ro!onents of transformational
&rammar. Thus) sta&es in the ac1uisition of a nati#e lan&ua&e can ,e measured ,y the increasin&
com!le2ity and ori&inality of a child@s utterances. Children at first may o#er&enerali"e &rammatical
rules and say) for e2am!le) goed :meanin& went<) a form they are unli/ely to ha#e heard)
su&&estin& that they ha#e deduced com!le2 &rammatical rules :in this case) ho- to con0u&ate
re&ular #er,s< and failed only to learn e2ce!tions that cannot ,e !redicted from a /no-led&e of the
&rammar alone. Peo!le learnin& a second lan&ua&e &o throu&h some of the same sta&es)
includin& o#er&enerali"ation) as children do -hen learnin& their nati#e lan&ua&e. 4o-e#er) !eo!le
rarely ,ecome as fluent in a second lan&ua&e as in their nati#e ton&ue. %ccordin& to some
lin&uists) in the earliest years of childhood) !eo!le ha#e the facility to assimilate ne- lan&ua&es ,ut
after this critical !eriod concludes) the ,rain loses that facility and the !rocess may ,ecome harder
for the learner.
Most traditional methods for learnin& a second lan&ua&e in#ol#e some systematic a!!roach to
the analysis and com!rehension of &rammar as -ell as to the memori"ation of #oca,ulary. The
co&niti#e a!!roach) increasin&ly fa#ored ,y e2!erts in lan&ua&e ac1uisition) em!hasi"es
e2tem!oraneous con#ersation) immersion) and other techni1ues intended to simulate the
en#ironment in -hich most !eo!le ac1uire their nati#e lan&ua&e as children :Richards) +;?D=
%ndersen) +;E+= Carroll :+;EF;= Radford)+;;*<.
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
3t is a fact that !eo!le6s need to learn a second lan&ua&e increases considera,ly e#ery day.
The teachin& of a second lan&ua&e is a !rocess that can ta/e !lace as a &eneral school su,0ect as
-ell as in a !articular lan&ua&e institution. %ccordin& to theorists) there are se#eral strate&ies that
can ,e im!lemented ,y teachers throu&hout the !rocess. 4o-e#er) some of them are no lon&er
used since no-adays they are considered as old-fashioned or not accurate for the !ur!ose of
teachin&.
The term lan&ua&e learnin& strate&y has ,een defined ,y many researchers. Cenden and
Ru,in :+;E?:+;< define learnin& strate&ies as """" any sets of operations, steps, plans, routines
used by the learner to facilitate the obtaining, storage, retrie#al, and use of information"" Richards
and Platt :+;;':'*;< state that learnin& strate&ies are "intentional beha#ior and thoughts used by
learners during learning so as to better help them understand, learn, or remember new
information"" Faerch Claus and Cas!er :+;E(:F?< stress that a learnin& strate&y is "an attempt to
de#elop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language"" %ccordin& to 8tern
:+;;':'F+<) "the concept of learning strategy is dependent on the assumption that learners
consciously engage in acti#ities to achie#e certain goals and learning strategies can be regarded
as broadly concei#ed intentional directions and learning techni$ues"" %ll lan&ua&e learners use
lan&ua&e learnin& strate&ies either consciously or unconsciously -hen !rocessin& ne- information
and !erformin& tas/s in the lan&ua&e classroom. 8ince lan&ua&e classroom is li/e a !ro,lem-
sol#in& en#ironment in -hich lan&ua&e learners are li/ely to face ne- in!ut and difficult tas/s &i#en
,y their instructors) learners@ attem!ts to find the 1uic/est or easiest -ay to do -hat is re1uired)
that is) usin& lan&ua&e learnin& strate&ies is inesca!a,le.
Many e2!erts on the field of lan&ua&e teachin&) ha#e cate&ori"ed all learnin& strate&ies used
,y learners follo-in& their o-n ta2onomy= ho-e#er) in almost all classifications it can ,e found that
they differ from co&niti#e and metaco&niti#e strate&ies. Gn the one hand) co&niti#e learnin&
strate&ies refer to the ste!s or o!erations used in learnin& or !ro,lem-sol#in& that re1uire direct
analysis) transformation) or synthesis of learnin& materials. Gn the other hand) metaco&niti#e
strate&ies are used to o#ersee) re&ulate or self-direct lan&ua&e learnin&. They in#ol#e #arious
!rocesses as !lannin&) !rioritisin&) settin& &oals) and self-mana&ement :Ru,in)+;E?<. %ccordin& to
G2ford6s :+;;*<) metaco&niti#e strate&ies hel! learners to re&ulate their learnin& and they ,elon& to
the &rou! of indirect strate&ies. Ao-) accordin& to G@Malley@s :+;EB< contri,utions) metaco&niti#e is
a term to e2!ress e2ecuti#e function) strate&ies -hich re1uire !lannin& for learnin&) thin/in& a,out
the learnin& !rocess as it is ta/in& !lace) monitorin& of one@s !roduction or com!rehension) and
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
e#aluatin& learnin& after an acti#ity is com!leted. %mon& the main metaco&niti#e strate&ies) it is
!ossi,le to include ad#ance or&ani"ers) directed attention) selecti#e attention) self-mana&ement)
functional !lannin&) self-monitorin&) delayed !roduction) self-e#aluation.
3n this !art of the !a!er -e -ill mo#e to-ards a definition of autonomy. For authors such as
8inclair :'***< definin& autonomy is not an easy tas/ ,ecause this term is not s!ecifically in
connection -ith education or lan&ua&e learnin&) instead) there are #aryin& references to social)
!olitical or indi#idualistic !ur!oses or a,sence of constraint. 4o-e#er) concern -ith de#elo!in&
learner autonomy is not somethin& ne- and has ,een discussed ,y se#eral authors such as
Hressel and Thom!son :+;?(<) 4olec :+;E+<) Boud :+;E+< and Candy :+;;+< since the early ?*6s.
I! to these days) autonomy a!!ears to ,e almost uni#ersally acce!ted as an im!ortant) &eneral
educational &oal.
Thus) autonomy has ,een descri,ed in a num,er of -ays in connection -ith lan&ua&e
learnin& and teachin&. Gne of the most remar/a,le 1uotes is that of 4olec :+;E+<) -ho defines
autonomy as the %ability to take charge of one&s own learning' -hich im!lies to ha#e and to hold
the res!onsi,ility for all the decisions concernin& all as!ects of this learnin&) i.e.:
determinin& the o,0ecti#es
definin& the contents and !ro&ressions
selectin& methods and techni1ues to ,e used
monitorin& the !rocedure of ac1uisition
e#aluatin& -hat has ,een ac1uired.
For 4olec :+;E*:'?< autonomy is ac$uired and ,rin&s t-o different !rocesses into !lay. The
first of these is a &radual %deconditioning' !rocess -hich -ill cause the learner to ,rea/ a-ay from
ideas such as:
+. there is one ideal method=
'. the teacher !ossesses that method=
(. /no-led&e of the mother ton&ue is of no use for learnin& a second lan&ua&e=
D. e2!erience &ained as a learner of other su,0ects cannot ,e transferred=
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
B. he>she is inca!a,le of ma/in& any #alid assessment of !erformance.
The second of 4olec6s !rocesses consists of %ac$uiring the knowledge and know-how' needed
in order to assume res!onsi,ility for learnin&: it is throu&h the !arallel o!eration of these t-o
!rocesses that the learner -ill &radually !roceed from a !osition of de!endence to one of
inde!endence) from a non-autonomous state to an autonomous one.
For Ham :+;;B< %learner autonomy is characteri(ed by readiness to take charge of one&s own
learning in the ser#ice of one&s needs and purposes, This entails a capacity and willingness to act
independently in cooperation with others, as a socially responsible person"'
4olec :+;EB< and Little :+;;+< also see autonomy as a ca!acity) %autonomi(ation' ,ein& %a
matter of ac$uiring those capacities which are necessary to carry out a self-directed learning
programme' Little :+;;F< and Hic/inson e2tend this ca!acity to include an attitude to learnin&)
im!lyin& that it can occur in the classroom settin& as -ell as in self-access learnin& centres.
)earner autonomy presupposes a positi#e attitude to the purpose, content and process of learning
)ittle, *++,!
%s many teachers ha#e disco#ered) one of the &reatest ,arriers to the de#elo!ment of learner
autonomy is a ne&ati#e attitude on the !art of the learner to-ards ma/in& decisions a,out their
o-n learnin&. He#elo!in& !ositi#e attitudes to-ards this is crucial to the success of the
de#elo!ment of learner autonomy and is an essencial) lon& term aim of any learner trainin&
!ro&ramme :8inclair) '***<
%t this !oint it is im!ortant to mention Candy :+;;+<) -ho su&&ests that autonomy &oes ,eyond
!lacin& learners in situations -here they ha#e to ,e inde!endent:
%Taking control is not a sufficient condition for the de#elopment of learner autonomy"' Candy,
*++*!
-utonomous learning is not the same as de#eloping autonomy" 8inclair :'***< e2!lain the
difference ,et-een these t-o ,y sayin& that learners can ,e encoura&ed or left to -or/ on their
o-n -ithout or&ani"ed su!!ort) ,ut there is no &uarantee that they -ill ,enefit from this e2!erience
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
in terms of de#elo!in& a ca!acity for ma/in& informed decisions a,out their learnin& or in terms of
im!ro#in& their com!etence.
3n this res!ect) Hic/inson and Car#er :+;E*<) self-direction is an im!ortant !art of !re!aration
for autonomy) ,ut needs to &o hand in hand -ith !sycholo&ical and methodolo&ical !re!aration) i.e
the encoura&ement of !ositi#e attitudes to-ards ta/in& on more res!onsi,ility and the de#elo!ment
of &reater metaco&niti#e a-areness) res!ecti#ely. This im!lies an im!ortant su!!ortin& role for the
teacher) the learnin& consultant>counselor) the distance learnin& tutor and the self-access
facilitator.
Terms such as Jlearner trainin&K) Jlearnin& to learnK) Jlearnin& learnin&K amon& others) refer to
techni1ues and !rocedures for !romotin& autonomy in lan&ua&e learnin&. For 8inclair :'***<)
!romotin& autonomy means more than teachin& strate&ies. 8he !oints out that one !ro,lem is that
learner strate&ies are not !ro!erly o,ser#a,le in terms of learner ,eha#ior) the trainer and the
researcher do not /no- -hat is &oin& on in a learner6s head and ha#e to rely on the learner6s self-
re!orts. 3n addition to this) it -ould a!!ear that trainin& a student in a !articular strate&y does not
necessarily mean that the student -ill use it re&ularly) not that it is a !ersonally suita,le strate&y for
that !articular student that enhances their learnin& success or a,ility to learn inde!endently.
Ae#ertheless) accordin& to Aunan :+;;?< trainin& learners in strate&ies does ha#e an im!ortant
!art to !lay in de#elo!in& autonomy since it !ro#ides o!!ortunities for learners to increase their
awareness of the learnin& !rocesses a#aila,le on them and such a-areness) is a crucial !art of
learner trainin&. llis and 8inclair :+;E;< e2tend the fact of raisin& learner6s a-areness to the
reflection on the #arious factors that may affect the learnin& !rocess) for e2am!le: attitudes)
moti#ation) ,eliefs a,out learnin&) affecti#e factors) cultural) social and !olitical conte2ts) etc.
%nother im!ortant statement related to autonomy that in#ol#es the role of the teacher and the
role of the student is that it can take place both inside and outside the classroom" The ca!acity to
ma/e informed decisions a,out learnin& can ,e de#elo!ed in different learnin& conte2ts and
throu&h a #ariety of different learnin& modes) includin& classroom instruction) self-access learnin&)
self-instruction and so on :8inclair) '***<.
%ccordin& to Little :+;;F<) learner autonomy is not the !roduct of one !articular !eda&o&ical
style) neither is it tied to one !articular or&ani"ational model. This is su!!orted ,y the claim that
these conte2ts and modes of learnin& do not) in themsel#es) &uarantee the de#elo!ment of
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
autonomy. Chen tal/in& a,out self-access learnin&) -e can refer to those students -ho find
themsel#es timeta,led to &o into self-access centers at s!ecific times) to ,e told -hat tas/s to
com!lete or -hat materials are useful for learnin& certain thin&s. 8o) this demonstrates that for
autonomy to de#elo!) it is necessary for learners to ,e encoura&ed to reflect consciously on their
learnin& throu&h !lannin&) e2!erimentin& and re#ie-in& and) most im!ortant of all) ma/e decisions
a,out their learnin& :8ee metacognition later on<
3n to!ics such as lan&ua&e) learnin&) teachin& and autonomy an author such as 5y&ots/y
cannot ,e left ,ehind. For him) learner autonomy is not only concerned -ith the indi#idual. 3n fact)
autonomy has a social and an indi#idual dimension. Benson :+;;F< also ma/es this distinction. Gn
the one hand Jindi#idualK autonomy stresses the im!ortance of indi#idual learnin& styles o#er
colla,orati#e learnin&. Gn the other hand) JsocialK autonomy reco&ni"es that a-areness raisin& and
learnin& ta/e !lace throu&h interaction and colla,oration as -ell as throu&h indi#idual reflection
and e2!erimentation. 3n 5y&ots/y6s definition of the "one of !ro2imal de#elo!ment
'
) he !roclaims
autonomy as the &oal of learnin& :Jinde!endent !ro,lem sol#in&K< -hile insistin& that the ne-
le#els of autonomy are achie#ed only throu&h interaction -ith others :Junder adult &uidance or in
colla,oration -ith more ca!a,le !eersK<.
Benson :+;;F< distin&uishes other t-o dimensions of autonomy: political and psychological"
%ccordin& to this author) the !olitical dimension of autonomy is o,ser#ed in re&ions such as 8outh
ast %sian -here autonomy has to do -ith contri,utin& to a society6s economic health ,y
de#elo!in& the a,ility to ada!t to and /ee! u! -ith the increasin& !ace of chan&e and com!etition
faced ,y that society. 3n contrast) the !sycholo&ical dimension of autonomy em!hasi"es the
im!ortance of the !sycholo&ical or JinternalK ca!acities of the learner) such as co&niti#e and
learnin& styles) moti#ation) attitudes) a!titude and so on. 3ts &oal is) ultimately) to instill in the
learners a sense of res!onsi,ility for their o-n successes and failures in learnin&. This dimension
of autonomy is !romoted in the Cest.
3n summary) the &oal of de#elo!in& learner autonomy must ,e to e1ui! learners -ith the
ca!acity to use and learn their tar&et lan&ua&e ,eyond the !hysical and tem!oral limits of their
'
ZPD (Zone of Proximal Development) is the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by
independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under
adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, !"#)
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
immediate learnin& en#ironment since autonomy in learnin& and usin& a lan&ua&e can only ,e
de#elo!ed ,y means of the !ractice of autonomous lan&ua&e learnin& and lan&ua&e use.
4a#in& in mind the statements related to autonomy it is time no- to deal -ith the to!ic of
metacognition" 3n order to do this) -e -ill attem!t to ans-er the follo-in& 1uestions:
Chat is metaco&nition a,out7
Chat is /no-led&e of co&nition7
Chat is re&ulation of /no-led&e7
Chat does metaco&nition im!ly for teachers and learners7
Chat is the relationshi! ,et-een autonomy and metaco&nition7
To ans-er the first 1uestion !osed a,o#e) -e -ill start -ith a definition of metacognition" 3t is
referred to as the indi#idual6s /no-led&e of their o-n co&niti#e !rocesses and their a,ility to control
these !rocesses ,y or&ani"in&) monitorin& and modifyin& them as a function of learnin&. 3t refers to
the a,ility to reflect u!on the tas/ demand and inde!endently select and em!loy the a!!ro!riate
readin&) -ritin&) math or learnin& strate&y :P83) '**B<.
Metaco&nition also in#ol#es the learners@ automatic a-areness of their o-n /no-led&e and their
a,ility to understand) control) and mani!ulate their o-n co&niti#e !rocesses. He#elo!in&
metaco&niti#e s/ills is im!ortant not only in school) ,ut throu&hout a !erson6s -hole life. 3n this
res!ect) Mumford :+;EF< claims that it is essential that an effecti#e mana&er ,e a !erson -ho has
learned to learn. 4e descri,es this !erson as one -ho /no-s the sta&es in the !rocess of learnin&
and understands his or her o-n !referred a!!roaches to it - a !erson -ho can identify and
o#ercome ,loc/s to learnin& and can ,rin& learnin& from off-the-0o, learnin& to on-the-0o,
situations.
From the !oint of #ie- of co&niti#e theory) metaco&nition is a,out self-reflection) self-res!onsi,ility
and initiati#e) as -ell as &oal settin& and time mana&ement.
%ccordin& to Cinn L 8nyder :+;;E<:
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
%Metacognition consists of two basic processes occurring simultaneously which are monitoring
your progress as you learn, and making changes and adapting your strategies if you percei#e
you are not doing so well'
Metaco&nition refers to thin/in& a,out one6s o-n thin/in& -hich is e2aminin& one6s o-n
information !rocessin&. 3t is thin/in& a,out your o-n thin/in& and a,out ho- you !rocess
information effecti#ely. %s 4yde and Bi"ar :+;E;) !B+< stated:
%Metacognition refers to our ability to understand and manipulate our own cogniti#e processes" .t
in#ol#es thinking about our thinking and purposely making changes in how we think"'
Chen dealin& -ith the to!ic of metaco&nition one must also mention and ma/e the distinction
,et-een knowledge of cognition and regulation of knowledge -hich ans-ers the second and third
1uestion !osed at the ,e&innin& of this section.
Mno-led&e of co&nition is defined ,y 8chra- L Moshman :+;;B< as -hat indi#iduals /no-
a,out their o-n co&nition
(
or a,out co&nition in &eneral. 3t usually includes three different /inds of
metaco&niti#e a-areness: declarati#e, procedural, and conditional /no-led&e :Bro-n) +;E?=
Jaco,s and Paris) +;E?<.
/eclarati#e knowledge refers to /no-in& Ja,outK thin&s. Heclarati#e /no-led&e includes
/no-led&e a,out oneself as a learner and a,out -hat factors influence one6s !erformance. For
e2am!le) research in#esti&atin& metamemory :i.e.) /no-led&e a,out memorial !rocesses<
indicates that adults ha#e more /no-led&e than children a,out the co&niti#e !rocesses associated
-ith memory :see Ba/er) +;E; for a re#ie-<.

0rocedural knowledge refers to /no-in& Jho-K to do thin&s. Procedural /no-led&e refers to
/no-led&e a,out the e2ecution of !rocedural s/ills. 3ndi#iduals -ith a hi&h de&ree of !rocedural
/no-led&e use s/ills more automatically :8tano#ich) +;;*<) are more li/ely to se1uence strate&ies
effecti#ely :Pressley) Bor/o-s/i L 8chneider) +;E?<) and use 1ualitati#ely different strate&ies to
sol#e !ro,lems :Glaser and Chi) +;EE<.
(
Cognition: it is a term referring to the mental processes involved in gaining knowledge and comprehension,
including thinking, knowing, remembering, $udging and problem%solving& 'hese are higher%level functions of the brain
and encompass language, imagination, perception and planning ((herry, )**)
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
Conditional knowledge refers to /no-in& the J-hyK and J-henK as!ects of co&nition. Conditional
/no-led&e refers to /no-in& -hen and -hy to a!!ly #arious co&niti#e actions :Garner) +;;*=
Lorch) and Mluse-it") +;;(<. Conditional /no-led&e is a,out -hen to use a !rocedure) s/ill) or
strate&y and -hen not to use it= -hy a !rocedure -or/s and under -hat conditions= and -hy one
!rocedure is ,etter than another :Pierce) '**(<
Many studies su!!ort the claim that s/illed learners !ossess declarati#e) !rocedural) and
conditional /no-led&e a,out co&nition.
Re&ardin& regulation of cognition -e must start -ith its definition. 3t refers to metaco&niti#e
acti#ities that hel! control one6s thin/in& or learnin&. Three essential s/ills are included in all
accounts: planning, monitoring, and e#aluation :Jaco,s and Paris) +;E?= Mlu-e)+;E?<.
0lanning in#ol#es the selection of a!!ro!riate strate&ies and the allocation of resources that affect
!erformance. 2am!les include ma/in& !redictions ,efore readin&) strate&y se1uencin&) and
allocatin& time or attention selecti#ely ,efore ,e&innin& a tas/ :Miller) +;EB<.
Monitoring refers to one6s a-areness of com!rehension and tas/ !erformance. The a,ility to
en&a&e in !eriodic self-testin& -hile learnin& is a &ood e2am!le. Research indicates that
monitorin& a,ility de#elo!s slo-ly and is 1uite !oor in children and e#en adults :Glen,er&) 8anoc/i)
!stein) and Morris) +;E?= Pressley and Ghatala) +;;*<. 4o-e#er) se#eral recent studies ha#e
found a lin/ ,et-een metaco&niti#e /no-led&e and monitorin& accuracy. 8tudies also su&&est that
monitorin& a,ility im!ro#es -ith trainin& and !ractice :8chra- L Moshman) +;;B<.
1#aluation refers to a!!raisin& the !roducts and re&ulatory !rocesses of one6s learnin&. Ty!ical
e2am!les include re-e#aluatin& one6s &oals and conclusions. % num,er of studies indicate that
metaco&niti#e /no-led&e and re&ulatory s/ills such as !lannin& are related to e#aluation :see
Ba/er) +;E; for a summary<. Cith res!ect to te2t re#isions) for e2am!le) Bereiter and 8cardamalia
:+;E?< found that !oor -riters -ere less a,le than &ood -riters to ado!t the reader6s !ers!ecti#e
and had more difficulty Jdia&nosin&K te2t !ro,lems and correctin& them.
Researchers a&ree that re&ulatory com!etence im!ro#es !erformance in a num,er of -ays)
includin& ,etter use of co&niti#e resources such as attention) ,etter use of strate&ies) and a &reater
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
a-areness of com!rehension ,rea/do-ns. % num,er of studies re!ort si&nificant im!ro#ement in
learnin& -hen re&ulatory s/ills and an understandin& of ho- to use these s/ills are included as !art
of classroom instruction :Cross and Paris) +;EE= Bro-n and Palincsar) +;E;<.
4o-e#er) Bro-n :+;E?< ar&ued that re&ulatory !rocesses !lannin&) monitorin& and e#aluation-
may ha#e ,een de#elo!ed ,y the learner -ithout any conscious reflection and therefore) are not
stata,le in many learnin& situations.
Learners -ith &ood metaco&niti#e s/ills are a,le to monitor and direct their o-n learnin&
!rocesses. Chen learnin& a metaco&niti#e s/ill) learners ty!ically &o throu&h the follo-in& ste!s
:Pressley) Bor/o-s/i) L 8chneider) +;E?<:
+. They esta,lish a moti#ation to learn a metaco&niti#e !rocess. This occurs -hen either they
themsel#es or someone else !oints &i#es them reason to ,elie#e that there -ould ,e some
,enefit to /no-in& ho- to a!!ly the !rocess.
'. They focus their attention on -hat it is that they or someone else does that is
metaco&niti#ely useful. This !ro!er focusin& of attention !uts the necessary information into
-or/in& memory. 8ometimes this focusin& of attention can occur throu&h modelin& and
sometimes it occurs durin& !ersonal e2!erience.
(. They tal/ to themsel#es a,out the metaco&niti#e !rocess. This tal/ can arise durin& their
interactions -ith others) ,ut it is their tal/ to themsel#es that is essential. This self -tal/
ser#es se#eral !ur!oses:
o 3t ena,les them to understand and encode the !rocess.
o 3t ena,les them to !ractice the !rocess.
o 3t ena,les them to o,tain feed,ac/ and to ma/e ad0ustments re&ardin& their effecti#e
use of the !rocess.
o 3t ena,les them to transfer the !rocess to ne- situations ,eyond those in -hich it has
already ,een used.
D. #entually) they ,e&in to use the !rocess -ithout e#en ,ein& a-are that they are doin& so.
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
3t can ,e said) then) that metaco&nition is an im!ortant as!ect of student learnin&. 3t in#ol#es
self-re&ulation) reflection u!on an indi#idual6s !erformance stren&ths) -ea/nesses) learnin& and
study strate&ies. Gur classrooms are full of students -ho ha#e not de#elo!ed metaco&niti#e
strate&ies. They are de!endent learners -ho are not a-are of -hat they need. They rely u!on
teachers and tutors for constant su!!ort. Thus) as it -as stated at the ,e&innin& of this literature
re#ie-) it is im!ortant that instruction focuses on the teachin& of metaco&niti#e strate&ies in order
to raise a-areness in the students a,out their learnin& !rocess.
Many students fail to thin/ a,out their thin/in&. They do not thin/ a,out ho- they thin/) -hich
means they cannot control their information !rocessin&. They fail to en&a&e in the Jself- !lannin&)
self-monitorin&) self-re&ulatin&) self-1uestionin&) self-reflectin&) self-re#ie-in&K that is necessary to
critical thin/in& and learnin& :4yde and Bi"ar) +;E;<. This is the reason -hy teachin& students to
learn !ur!osefully and reflecti#ely is crucial for the learnin& !rocess to ,e successful. 3n this -ay)
the fourth 1uestion !osed a,out the im!lication for teachers and learners re&ardin& metaco&nition
has ,een ans-ered.
To ans-er the 1uestion a,out the relationshi! ,et-een metaco&nition and autonomy it is -orth
mentionin& the -or/ of 8inclair :'***<. For this author) de#elo!in& autonomy re1uires conscious
a-areness of the learnin& !rocess) that is) conscious reflection and decision ma/in&. 3f autonomy
is a construct of ca!acity) the de#elo!ment of metaco&niti#e a-areness in the learner) or
/no-led&e is crucial. Bruner :+;EF< adds in this res!ect:
%Much of the process of education consists of being able to distance oneself in some way from
what one knows by being able to reflect on one&s knowledge'
3n short) -ithout an e2!licit and conscious a-areness of the !rocesses in#ol#ed in learnin& a
lan&ua&e) learners -ill not ,e in !osition to ma/e informed decisions a,out their o-n learnin&. 3t
can also ,e said that metaco&nition is the foundation u!on -hich students ,ecome autonomous
learners. There is no autonomy -ithout metacognition. %utonomy and metaco&nition &o hand in
hand and they ,oth must ,ecome the rationale of teachin&.
Guiding Principles
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
rror analysis is im!ortant in teachin& if used a !osteriori ,ecause it re#eals the difficulties
the learner has) due to the fact that difficulties in the tar&et lan&ua&e -ill sho- u! as errors
in !roduction :Gass) '**D<.
%ccordin& to 8a!ir :+;'+<) lan&ua&e is a !urel y human and non-i nst i nct i #e met hod
of communi cat i n& i deas) emot i ons and desi r e ,y means of
#ol unt ar i l y !roduced sym,ols. This means that onl y humans can use lan&ua&e.
4o-e#er) all creatures on arth ha#e other -ays of communicatin&.
Richards and Platt :+;;':'*;< state that learnin& strate&ies are 9intentional ,eha#ior and
thou&hts used ,y learners durin& learnin& so as to ,etter hel! them understand) learn) or
remem,er ne- information.9
%ccordin& to G@Malley@s :+;EB< contri,utions) metaco&niti#e is a term to e2!ress e2ecuti#e
function) strate&ies -hich re1uire !lannin& for learnin&) thin/in& a,out the learnin& !rocess
as it is ta/in& !lace) monitorin& of one@s !roduction or com!rehension) and e#aluatin&
learnin& after an acti#ity is com!leted.
4olec :+;E+<) defines autonomy as the %ability to take charge of one&s own learning' -hich
im!lies to ha#e and to hold the res!onsi,ility for all the decisions concernin& all as!ects of
this learnin&
From the !oint of #ie- of co&niti#e theory) metaco&nition is a,out self-reflection) self-
res!onsi,ility and initiati#e) as -ell as &oal settin& and time mana&ement.
%ccordin& to 5y&ots/y learner autonomy is not only concerned -ith the indi#idual. 3n fact)
autonomy has a social and an indi#idual dimension. Gn the one hand Jindi#idualK autonomy
stresses the im!ortance of indi#idual learnin& styles o#er colla,orati#e learnin&. Gn the
other hand) JsocialK autonomy reco&ni"es that a-areness raisin& and learnin& ta/e !lace
throu&h interaction and colla,oration as -ell as throu&h indi#idual reflection and
e2!erimentation.
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
5i&ots/y states that !layin& is essential for children6s de#elo!ment as they ma/e meanin& of
their en#ironment throu&h this. Playin& allo-s learners e2!eriment -ith the -orld) internali"e
rules as -ell as learn to interact.
Description of the Model
The researchers of this !a!er ha#e desi&ned and created a model that is intended to hel! students
to reco&ni"e le2ical differences ,et-een n&lish and 8!anish and also to understand the -ay false
co&nates can con#ey different meanin&s -hen e2!ressin& ideas) thou&hts and o!inions to others.
The moti#ation ,ehind this model is deri#ed from the results o,tained ,y our research in the false
co&nate6s !henomenon that studied a tar&et !o!ulation of students from Ini#ersidad 3ndustrial de
8antander at second) fourth and si2th semesters of the n&lish teachin& !ro&ram. These research
results -or/ as the ,asis for the creation of a ,oard &ame that incor!orates as!ects of Mono!oly)
Pictionary and memory &ames) all of them influencin& the desi&n of &ame cards that mana&e three
main elements= translation) &uessin& and actin& out. The three main dri#ers ha#e ,een created
-ith the !ur!ose of assistin& students to identify and reco&ni"e the use of false co&nates -hen
con#eyin& meanin&.
3n e2!eriments conducted ,y 4eu#en) Hi0/stra L Greiner :+;;E< it -as su&&ested that missin&
false-friend reco&nition can ,e corrected -hen cross-lan&ua&e acti#ation is used sounds)
!ictures) additional e2!lanation and feed,ac/. Cith this data in mind) researchers ha#e mirrored
three instructional desi&n models= Ga&neNs nine e#ents of instruction) %HH3 model and Mem!Ns
instructional desi&n model. ach one ,rin&s a uni1ue !ers!ecti#e to the instructional desi&n model
for learnin& false co&nates.
3n +;FB) Ro,ert Ga&ne introduced his idea of JThe Conditions of Learnin&K. 3t s!ecified the mental
conditions for learnin& -hich -ere ,ased on the information !rocessin& model of the mental e#ents
that occur -hen adults are !resented -ith #arious stimuli. Ga&n$6s theory sti!ulates that there are
se#eral le#els of learnin& and that each le#el re1uires a uni1ue ty!e of instruction. Ga&neNs
instructional desi&n model incor!orates nine e#ents that intend to mentally stimuli learners. The
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
nine e#ents are= &ainin& attention) inform learners of o,0ecti#es) !resent stimulus material)
stimulate recall of !rior learnin&) !ro#ide learner &uidance) elicit !erformance) !ro#ide feed,ac/)
assess !erformance) enhance retention and transfer.
Ga&neNs first e#ent of learnin& is titled J&ainin& attentionK -hich has ,een desi&ned to arouse the
student6s interest -ith no#elty or sur!rise. Ta/in& Ga&neNs lead -ith this conce!t our model #isually
&ra,s studentsN attention -ith ,ri&ht colors) ,ri&ht yello-s and &reens) #i,rant reds alon& -ith
&eometric sha!es such as rectan&les) s1uares and circles. 8tudents -ould therefore immediately
,e introduced and dra-n to this research6s false co&nates teachin& initiati#e. Ga&neNs second
e#ent deals -ith informin& the learners a,out the o,0ecti#es. This is mimic/ed in the instructions
that are to ,e &i#en to the students ,efore the &ame starts. 3t is im!ortant to inform the learner -hat
is e2!ected of them. By doin& this) studentsN le#el of an2iety -ill ,e reduced. Ga&neNs third e#ent)
stimulate recall of !rior learnin&) is addressed in the ,oard &ame ,y ha#in& students recall the
n&lish le2ical items already learned in order to translate from 8!anish to n&lish or #ice #ersa.
Present stimulus material is Ga&neNs fourth e#ent. Throu&hout the model) students are !resented
-ith a #ariety of methods= translation) actin& out and &uessin&) a!!ealin& to all learnin& styles that
allo- them to retain information and master it. (H materials such as the ,oard itself) cards) dices
and &ame !ieces all ha#e s!ecific functions and !lay im!ortant roles in the !rocess of ena,lin&
student interaction -ith the &ame and therefore) !ro#idin& a meanin&ful learnin& en#ironment
-here students can reco&ni"e the use of false co&nates -hen con#eyin& meanin&.
Gur model also !ro#ides students -ith &uidance) -hich is incor!orated -ithin the #isual materials
such as ima&es) hi&hli&hted -ords and ,ri&htly-colored cards that assist the learner in retainin&
and encodin& the information into their lon&-term memory. Moreo#er) elicitin& !erformance) the
si2th Ga&neNs e#ent) !ro#ides students -ith the o!!ortunity of !racticin& the lan&ua&e content or
le2ical items that are included -ithin the main o,0ecti#es. The model is an e2ercise that constantly
allo-s students to !erform and !ut into !ractice the use of !re#ious /no-led&e to identify -hat the
translation of the -ord in 8!anish or n&lish mi&ht ,e.
The !ro#ision of feed,ac/ is &i#en immediately throu&h the use of flashcards that ha#e the
re!resented -ord first in 8!anish) then in n&lish) then a short sentence !resentin& the n&lish
-ords in conte2t and finally the false co&nate !air -ritten -ithin a sentence that con#eys a different
meanin& from the correct translation of the -ord or conce!t. The -ay feed,ac/ is !resented to
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
students allo-s them to understand ho- the use of false co&nates can con#ey different meanin&s
-hen e2!ressin& ideas) thou&hts and o!inions to others.
Ga&neNs ei&hth e#ent assesses !erformance and is !resented at the end of the ,oard &ame)
students6 !erformance is assessed throu&h a memory &ame that includes the already !resented
le2ical items in order to determine if the desired learnin& has occurred. Finally) -hen the ,oard
&ame is finished) students mi&ht ha#e the o!!ortunity to mo#e on to Ga&neNs ninth le#el of
learnin&) enhance retention and transfer= they -ould a!!ly the learned /no-led&e to areas outside
of the course.
%nother instructional desi&n model that has ,een used as a reference and -hich -e ha#e dra-n
crucial elements from is the %HH3 model of instructional desi&n.
3t is a &eneric !rocess traditionally used ,y instructional desi&ners and trainin& de#elo!ers. There
are fi#e !hases= analysis) desi&n) de#elo!ment) im!lementation) and e#aluation that re!resent a
dynamic) fle2i,le &uideline for ,uildin& effecti#e trainin& and !erformance su!!ort tools) of -hich
-e dre- t-o of these !hases for our research. The analysis and desi&n !hases -ere the most
a!!ro!riate for our research. Cithin the analysis -e chose a s!ecific tar&et !o!ulation of
students= second) fourth and si2th semester students from Ini#ersidad industrial de 8antander
studyin& n&lish teachin& !ro&ram to identify -hether the false co&nates !henomenon -as
ha!!enin& or not. To collect data) a 1uestionnaire -as desi&ned and the results 1uantified) -hich
influenced the &enesis of a model that -ould address the ram!ant use e#ident of false co&nates. 3n
the analysis !hase) the instructional !ro,lem -as clarified) the instructional &oals and o,0ecti#es
-ere esta,lished and the learnin& en#ironment and learner@s e2istin& /no-led&e -ere identified.
The desi&n !hase dealt -ith o,tainin& clear learnin& o,0ecti#es) identifyin& the correct instruments
to assist in achie#in& those o,0ecti#es) creatin& attracti#e e2ercises) ensurin& that the content -as
rele#ant) ha#in& enou&h su,0ect matter to analy"e a com!lete lesson !lan and an effecti#e media
selection !rocess that -ould ta/e limited resources into account. The desi&n !hase -as systematic
and s!ecific to false friends) false co&nates.
Finally) Mem!Ns instructional desi&n model also influenced our -or/ in that this model ado!ted
Mem!sN nine /ey elements. Ce identified the su,0ect content as false co&nates. The tas/
com!onents related to stated &oals and !ur!oses -ere analy"ed and set u! ,y reflectin& u!on the
a,o#e mentioned research results. Guessin&) actin& out and translatin& are the tas/ com!onents
included -ithin the model desi&n. Moreo#er) instructional o,0ecti#es for the learner -ere stated and
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
included -ithin flashcards that -ould ,e !resented and read ,y the students ,efore the &ame
starts so they /no- -hat is e2!ected from them durin& and at the end of the &ame. 8e1uence
content is incor!orated throu&h the mechanics of the ,oard &ame as a randomi"ed #aria,le.
3nstructional strate&ies -ere also !lanned in the form of rules and instructions and dri#en ,y an
autonomous e2ercise so that each learner can master the o,0ecti#es. Moreo#er) the instructional
messa&e and deli#ery -as !lanned and desi&ned to ease studentsN interaction -ith the &ame and
also to &et students in#ol#ed in it so an internali"ation of le2ical items can actually ha!!en. %n
e#aluation instrument to assess o,0ecti#es is im!lemented throu&h a memory &ame -here
students -ould ha#e to recall the already learned le2ical items -ith its corres!ondin& false co&nate
!air to match the correct n&lish to 8!anish or 8!anish to n&lish translation. Finally) the ,oard
&ame has -or/ed as the selected resource to su!!ort instruction and learnin& acti#ities.
Gur model has as a fundamental element that !romotes studentsN autonomy in learnin&. 8elf
access learnin& s!onsors the a!!roach -here students study inde!endently choosin& from a
di#erse set of tas/s that ha#e ,een introduced -ithin the model desi&n. Forei&n lan&ua&e students
learn ,etter if they ha#e a #ote in ho- they learn n&lish. 8elf-access lan&ua&e learnin& focuses
on studentNs accounta,ility and acti#e !artici!ation for their o-n learnin&) allo-in& them to reflect
more !roducti#ely on mista/es and successes. The infrastructure of a ,oard &ame holds as a
cornerstone autonomous learnin& ,y allo-in& the students to learn throu&h the !rocess of !layin&
the &ame) recei#in& feed,ac/ and autocorrectin& -hen a mista/e has ,een identified. 8tudents -ill
,e self-&uided throu&h a scaffoldin& !rocess -here they -ill learn ho- to follo- instructions)
mana&e !ro,lematic situations) and recei#e feed,ac/ and finally internali"e the desired le2ical
items -ithout usin& false co&nates.
Cithin the conte2t of autonomous learnin&) a tas/-,ased is the sylla,us that ,etter descri,es our
model desi&n. 3t includes a set of tas/s that the students need to !erform usin& ,oth the nati#e and
the tar&et lan&ua&e. The tas/s are set u! throu&h a ,oard &ame that has the !ur!ose of
de#elo!in& an autonomous learnin& e2!erience. The e2ecution of the &ame is a!!roached in a
-ay that is intended to de#elo! a-areness of false co&nates -hen con#eyin& meanin& at the !oint
of #er,al and -ritten communication. There is a -ide array of tas/s that allo- students to
assimilate lan&ua&e. Cithin our conte2t one tas/ fits our o,0ecti#es= the acti#ation tas/s. %n
acti#ation tas/ is a !iece of classroom -or/ that in#ol#es direct interaction throu&h communication)
,ut not in the form of rehearsed !resentations rather an e2ercise de#ised to force the acti#ation of
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
the assimilation and learnin& !rocess. The ,oard &ame itself can ,e defined as the Jacti#ation tas/K
due to the fact that its randomi"ed nature forces students into unrehearsed communication. 3n
addition) all of its com!onents ena,le studentsN interaction -hich leads to autonomous lan&ua&e
learnin&.
%s a descri!tion of the ,oard &ame) a s!ecific !rocedure is set. %s a microcosm to the &ame) the
!layer roles a dice and mo#es his>her &ame !iece the corres!ondin& amount of s!aces. Three
cards stac/s are dis!layed alon& the &ame ,oard= translation) &uessin& and !icture. The students
that fall on translation s!ot on the ,oard initiates the turn) then the o!!osite team dra-s a card on
the translation stac/ and reads it to the !layer and the !layer must translate the -ord in 1uestion
correctly from 8!anish to n&lish to ,e a-arded the !oints.
%lthou&h the &ame has clear instructions and has ,een /e!t sim!le) !ossi,le !ro,lems may arise.
Gne !ro,lem that may occur is that the translation students &i#e are outside of the &ameNs domain)
meanin& they &i#e a com!letely different -ord that has not ,een included -ithin the sco!e of the
&ame. The solitary solution to this !ro,lem is to &i#e a -ider ran&e of !ossi,le ans-ers in order to
a#oid limit outside influences. The second !ro,lem that may occur is that students mi&ht not
understand and effecti#ely inter!ret the &i#en feed,ac/ due to the fact that is in n&lish. The most
a!!ro!riate solution -ould ,e to !ro#ide students -ith feed,ac/ in ,oth n&lish and 8!anish. 3n
this -ay) students -ould more li/ely internali"e the correct use and meanin& of the chosen le2ical
items.
Biliograph!
Ba/er) L. :+;E;<. JMetacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult readerK. ducational
Psycholo&y Re#ie- +: ((E.
Benson) P. :+;;F<. %Concepts of autonomy in language learning'. 3n R. Pem,erton) 8.L. d-ard)
C.C.F.
or) and 4.H. Pierson :ds.<. JTaking Control2 -utonomy in )anguage )earning'" 4on& Mon&: 4on&
Mon& Ini#ersity Press: '?-(D.
Bereiter) C.) and 8cardamalia) M. :+;E?<. JThe 0sychology of 3ritten Composition' rl,aum:
4illsdale) AJ
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
Boud) H :+;E+< %Mo#ing Towards -utonomy'" 3n Boud) H :ed< %/e#eloping 4tudent -utonomy in
)earning'"
Bro-n) %. :+;E?<. %Metacognition, e5ecuti#e control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious
Mechanisms'. 3n F.Ceinert L R. Mlu-e) eds.) JMetacognition, Moti#ation, and 6nderstanding'
:!!. FB++F<. 4illsdale) AJ: rl,aum.
Bro-n) %. L.) and Palincsar) %. 8. :+;E;<. %7uided, cooperati#e learning and indi#idual knowledge
ac$uisition'" 3n Resnic/) L. B. :ed.<) J8nowing and )earning2 1ssays in 9onor of :obert
7laser'" rl,aum) 4illsdale) AJ) !!. (;(DB+.
Candy) P. C. :+;;+<. J4elf-direction for lifelong learning2 - comprehensi#e guide to theory and
practice'. 8an Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Co!yri&ht ducational Performance 8ystems 3nc. '**B %ll Ri&hts Reser#ed
htt!:>>education.calumet.!urdue.edu>#oc/ell>edPsy,oo/>d!sy?>ed!sy?Ometa.htm
Choms/y)A :+;B?<. J4yntactic 4tructuresK The 4a&ue) Paris: Mouton
Cross) H.) and Paris) 8 :+;EE<. %/e#elopmental and instructional analyses of children&s
metacognition and reading comprehension'. J. duc. Psychol2 E*: +(++D'
Ham) L. +;;B. )earner autonomy from theory to classroom practice. Hu,lin: %uthenti/.
Faerch) C.) L. Mas!er) G :+;E(<. %4trategies in .nterlanguage CommunicationK. London: Lon&man.
Finch) %. %-utonomy2 3here are we?' 4on& Mon&: Polytechnic Ini#ersity.
%#alai,le on
htt!:>>e,oo/freetoday.com>#ie--!df.!h!7,tP%utonomy---Chere-are-
-eLl0Phtt!:>>---.finch!ar/.com>arts>%utonomy.!df
Garner) R. :+;;*!" %3hen children and adults do not use learning strategies2 Toward a theory of
4ettings'" Re#. duc. Res" F*: B+?B';.
Gass) 8. L 8chachter) J :'**D<. J)inguistic 0erspecti#es on 4econd )anguage -c$uisition'.
London : Cam,rid&e Ini#ersity Press.
Glaser) R. L Chi) M. :+;EE<. G#er#ie- in M. Chi) R. Glaser) L M. Farr :ds.< %The Nature of
15pertise' :!!. 2#-22#ii<. 4illsdale) AJ: rl,aum.
Glen,er&) %.= 8anoc/i) T.= !stein) C.= and Morris) C. :+;E?<. J1nhancing calibration of
comprehension'
4olec) 4.) +;E+: -utonomy and foreign language learning. G2ford: Per&amon. :First !u,lished
+;?;) 8tras,our&: Council of uro!e<
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas

4yde L Bi"ar :+;E;< %Thinking in conte5t'" Chite Plains. AQ: Lon&man
Jaco,s) J L Paris) 8.G. :+;E?<. %Children&s metacognition about reading2 .ssues in
definition,measurement, and instruction'" ducational Psycholo&ist '': 'BB'?E.
Mlu-e) R. 4. :+;E?<. %15ecuti#e decisions and regulation of problem sol#ing beha#ior'" 3n F. .
Ceinert L R. 4. Mlu-e :ds.< %Metacognition, Moti#ation, and 6nderstanding' :!!. (+-FD<.
4illsdale) AJ: rl,aum.
Little) H. :+;;F<. %;reedom to learn and compulsion to interact2 promoting learner autonomy
through the use of information systems and information technologies'" 3n R. Pem,erton) 8.L.
d-ard) C.C.F. Gr) and 4.H. Pierson :ds.<. JTaking Control2 -utonomy in )anguage )earning'"
4on& Mon&: 4on& Mon& Ini#ersity Press. '*(-'+;.
Lorch) R.) Lorch) .) and Mluse-it") M. %. :+;;(<. %College students& conditional knowledge about
reading'"
J. duc. Psychol" EB: '(;'B'.
Miller) P. 4. :+;EB<. JMetaco&nition and %ttention) 3n Forrest-Pressley) H. L.) McMinnon) . G.)
and Caller T. G. :eds.< JMetacognition, Cognition, and 9uman 0erformance' %cademic Press) Ae-
Qor/) !!. +E+''+.
G@malley) J) Michael) C.) %nna I.) 8te-ner-Man"anares) G.) Russo) Rocco P.) L Mu!!er) L.
:+;EB<. ")earning 4trategy -pplications with 4tudents of 1nglish as a 4econd )anguage" in T8GL
Ruarterly +;: BB?-BED.
G2ford) R : +;;*< J)anguage )earning 4trategies2 3hat 1#ery Teacher 4hould 8now'" Boston:
4einle L 4einle.
Pressley) M. Bor/o-s/i) J L 8chneider) C :+;E?< %Cogniti#e 4trategies2 7ood 4trategy 6ser
Coordinate Metacognition and 8nowledge' 3n R. 5asta L G. Chitehurst :ds< %nnals of child
de#elo!ment :5ol. B) !!. E;-+';< Ae- Qor/: J%3 Press
Pressley) M. L Ghatala) . :+;;*<. %4elf-regulated learning2 Monitoring learning from te5t'" 1duc"
0sychol" 'B: +;((.
Richards)J :+;?D< J1rror -nalysis2 0erspecti#es on 4econd )anguage -c$uisition' R. %ndersen)
ed.) New /imensions in 4econd )anguage -c$uisition :esearch :+;E+<= H. C. Carroll) 0sychology
of )anguage :+;EF<= %. Radford) 4yntactic Theory and the -c$uisition of 1nglish 4ynta5 :+;;*<.
Richards) J.L Platt) J :+;;'<. %)ongman /ictionary of )anguage Teaching and -pplied )inguistics'.
sse2: Lon&man.
8chra- L Moshman :+;;B< Metaco&niti#e Theories. Ini#ersity of Ae,ras/a. Lincoln: Ae,ras/a
Barros- Colmenares- Garca Meneses Rodas
8inclair) et al. :'***< %)earner -utonomy, teacher autonomy" ;uture directions'. Pearson
ducation Limited. n&land
8tano#ich) . :+;;*<. %Concepts in /e#elopmental Theories of :eading2 Cogniti#e :esources,
-utomaticity, and Modularity'" /e#elopmental :e#iew, 5ol.+*) Ao. +) ?'-+**.
8tern)4. :+;;'< %.ssues and <ptions in )anguage Teaching'" G2ford: GIP.
Cenden) %. L Ru,in) J. :+;E?<. J)earner strategies in language learningK. London: Prentice 4all.
Cinn) C. L 8nyder H. :+;;F<. %Cogniti#e perspecti#es in 0sychology'. 3n H.4. Jonassen) ed.
9andbook of research for educational communications and technology) ++'-+D'. Ae- Qor/: 8imon
L 8chuster Macmillan