Tap into Students’ Metacognitive Strategies Report via the Internet-Mediated Contextualized English for Domestic Tourism Lessons (InConMedt)

Malinee Phaiboonnugulkij


The objectives of this paper were to compare total and individual metacognitive strategies by four groups of university students from different majors in five different tourism situational lessons. The total of 34 students participated in this study, and they were categorized into four groups based on their major of study and English proficiency level. The research instruments were a web-based speaking test in English for Tourism (WBST-EFT), a strategy coding scheme and the Internet-mediated contextualized English for Domestic Tourism lessons (InConMedt).  Mixed methods of quantitative and qualitative approaches were employed in the present study. The quantitative analysis included Kruskal Wallis, Mann-Whitney U test as well as Chi-square, mean rank, frequency and percentages. Qualitative content analysis from the verbal reports in the stimulated recall session on metacognitive strategies was employed in this study. The findings showed that four groups significantly and differently employed total metacognitive strategies in five lessons, 2(3, N = 34) = 10.00, p = .01. The significant difference was evident in the use of individual metacognitive strategies including goal setting and planning of the groups and in a particular lesson. The insights from the verbal report content analysis revealed significant information on how the high proficiency group effectively employed their metacognitive strategy in their speaking performances; whereas the information from the low proficiency group also shed more light in the instructional approach on how to train these students to improve their speaking ability using effective strategies.



Metacognitive strategies, Online speaking lesson, English for Tourism

Full Text:



Barhoumi, C., & Hamza kabli, T.B.H. (2013).The improvement of lifelong learning in Saudi Arabian University from individual learning to social constructivist E-learning environment based new education technologies. European Scientific Journal, 9(13),78-98.

Cabaysa, C.C. and Baetiong, L.R. (2010). Language learning strategies of students at different levels of speaking proficiency. Education Quarterly, 68(1),16–35.

Churcher, K.M.A, Downs, E., & Tewksbury, D. (2014). Friending Vygotsky: A social constructivist pedagogy of knowledge building through classroom social media use. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 14(1), 33-50.

Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing languages for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fulcher, G. (2003). Interface design in computer-based language testing. Language Testing, 20(4), 384–408.

Hon-Nam, K. & Leavell, A. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English learning context. System, 34, 399-415.

Islam, J. Md. and Aktar, T. (2011). Metacognitive language-learning strategies and language-learning motivation: A study on Bangla-speaking undergraduate EFL learners. Outlooks: VUB,l(1), 130-148.

Ismaili, M. (2014). Integrating CALL into the EFL classroom. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purpose, 2(4), 697-702.

Lam, W.Y.K. (2009). Examining the effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on ESL group discussions: A synthesis of approaches. Language Teaching Research,13(2), 129-150. doi: 10.1177/1362168809103445

Lam, W.Y.K. (2010). Implementing communication strategy instruction in the ESL oral classroom: What do low-proficiency learners tell us? TESL Canada Journal, 27( 2), 11-30.

Leavell, A.G. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English learning context. System, 34(3), 399-415. doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.02.002

Liu, Y., & Feng H. (2011). An empirical study on the relationship between metacognitive strategies and online-learning behavior & test achievements. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,2(1),183-187. [Online] Available: http://dx.doi.org/11.5679/elt.v7n6g7h13 (May 22, 2015)

Luksaneeyanawin, S. (2008). The paradigm shift in language learning: Toward autonomy of learning. Paper presented at ThaiPOD conference. Bangkok:Thailand.

Ma, T. (2009). An empirical study on the comparison between strategies on oral English classes and writing English classes. English Language Teaching,2(2), 39-45.

McMahon, M. (1997). Social constructivism and the world wide web: A paradigm for learning. Paper presented at the ASCILTE conference. Perth:Austria.

Mitchell, H., & Myles, F. (1988). Second language learning theories. London: Arnold.

NakhonRatchasimaRajabhat University. (2008). Curriculum for bachelor of arts in English. Nakhon Ratchasima: Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University.

NakhonRatchasimaRajabhat University. (2008). Curriculum for bachelor of arts in tourism industry. NakhonRatchasima: Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University.

O'Malley, J.M. and Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R., Cho, Y., Leung, S. and Kim, H-J. (2004). Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 42(1), 1–47. DOI: 10.1515/iral.2004.001

Phaiboonnugulkij, M. and Prapphal, K. (2011). Why should the web-based achievement tests in English for tourism be implemented? ABAC Journal, 3(1),36–52.

Phaiboonnugulkij, M. and Prapphal, K. (2013). Online speaking strategy assessment for improving speaking ability in the area of language for specific purposes: The case of tourism. English Language Teaching, 6(9), 19–29.

Phaiboonnugulkij, M. (2015). Insights into InConMedt: A practical guideline. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (JSSH), 23(4), 1179 – 1192.

Phaiboonnugulkij, M. (in press). Comparative analysis of metacognitive strategies used in the internet-integrated test to enhance English speaking ability in Thai tourism context. International Journal of Economic Policy in Emerging Economies.

Schcolnik, M., Kol, S., & Abarbanel, J. (2006).Constructivism in theory and practice. English Teaching Forum, 4, 12 20.

Swain, M., Huang, L., Barkaoui, K., Brooks, L. and Lapkin, S. (2009). Educational testing service (ETS)’, The Speaking Section of the TOEFL iBT (SSTiBT): Test-takers’ Reported Strategic Behaviors, TOEFL iBT Research Report No. 10 [Online] Available: http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-09-30.pdf (February, 20 2014).

Tarnopolsky, O. (2013). Developing ESP students English speaking, reading, listening and writing skills in Internet-assisted project work. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purpose, 1(1),11-20.

The Authority of World Travel and Tourism. (2015). 2015 Annual research: Key facts. [Online] Available: http://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic%20impact%20research/countries%202015

/thailand2015.pdf (October, 28 2015)

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.) The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 1, Problems of general psychology (pp.39-285). New York: Plenum Press.

Wen, Qiufang & Wang, J. (2006). Learning strategies analysis system. [Online] Available: http://www.jyw.cn/Index.html (October, 28 2015)

Wilson, K. (1999). Note-taking in academic writing process of non-native speaker students: Is it important as a process or a product? Journal of College Reading and Learning, 29(2), 166-179.

Winke, P. (2014). Review of open English. Language Learning &Technology, 18(2),75-84.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.2p.171


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2022 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.