CONCEPTUALIZACION SOBRE LOS DERECHOS MUSICALES

In Week 1 I distributed the syllabus and explained to students what we were going to do in class and what they might do outside of class, independent of my direction and supervision. The syllabus indicated that a number of specific strategies would be focused on each week, covering a total of 15 strategies across the semester (see lesson plan, appendix 3). These strategies aimed to develop students’ capacity to plan, monitor and evaluate their language learning, particularly their reading. The students were prompted to apply these strategies both in and outside of class.

Although they were taught these specific strategies, learners were not confined to, or limited by, these approaches. They were encouraged to pursue and experiment with their own strategies, in addition to those taught in class. Thus, while having specific strategies in focus such as activating background knowledge and summarising (see Brown, 1987; Chamot, et al., 1999; Anderson, 2001), learners had the freedom to pursue more “general” strategies such as reading extensively in order to improve their vocabulary size and studying grammar to improve their understanding of reading (see Griffiths, 2008, for a list of the strategies commonly used by learners of English). The emphasis was on learners’ conscious actions to regulate their learning based on an analysis of their strengths and weaknesses—in the form of planning, monitoring and evaluation, regardless of the strategy they used (Tseng et al., 2006, p. 95).

The data analysis below considers learners’ use of “specific” and “general” strategies. A particular focus is placed on data from students’ first and final reflections, enabling examination of students’ responses to the strategies and their overall development. This section also includes analysis of survey data concerning strategy use.

As indicated in the “feelings and attitudes” section (section 5.1.1), the majority of the students were positive about the strategies discussed and practised them in class. These included activating background knowledge (planning), setting goals (planning) and checking goals (monitoring and evaluation), or KWHL (What I know; What I want to know; How will I find information; what I learned). Many students mentioned that these strategies were new and that they had not been exposed to them in previous study. For example, Student 05 (Refl.1) recorded:

Today I feel happy when learning English because this strategy different from when I in the SMA (Senior High School). I can know about the KWHL strategy. I like this method, but I don’t know a vocabulary. I will teaching (learn) again about grammar and vocabulary. Go!!!Go!!! Go!!!

Being introduced to these strategies not only resulted in positive feelings about language learning but also prompted Student 05 to monitor her understanding of the passage and identify an alternative strategy to enhance her understanding of the passage. This student would not have been able to detect the source of the problem facing her reading unless she had monitored the text she had been reading and the strategies she had been using.

This pattern of monitoring and evaluating current processes, and planning to implement more effective strategies to improve reading comprehension, was evidenced by a number of students. In the initial stages of learning, however, this awareness did not always lead them to concrete actions, nor did they effectively evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies. Student 18 (Refl.1), for example, monitored her understanding of the text. Realising that she did not understand many words, she was determined to solve the problems by making the plan to read more and use a dictionary:

This day I have English class. In this class I and my friend learn about Koala, Little Hao and Golden Kites. I don’t understand many words because I don’t many the meaning of the word

(don’t know the meaning of many words). But I still try to learn English. I will study hard to

know the meaning of the word with read an article and read dictionary.

Being aware of her difficulty in understanding the text resulted in this student’s determination to take action to solve the problem.

Many students responded positively to the strategy ‘asking questions about the text’ (a monitoring strategy). Using this strategy, students thought of and wrote their own questions in relation to the text being read. Traditionally, students would be asked by their teacher to respond to the listed comprehension questions. Being given the freedom to personally and proactively engage with a text such as by asking questions about the text themselves raised the students’ optimism for future success. As student S18 (Refl.1) expressed it:

Dalam belajar bahasa Inggris hari ini saya mendapat ilmu baru, yaitu bukan sekadar menjawab pertanyaan saja, tetapi mambuat pertanyaan, bagaimana sesuatu bisa terjadi, Page | 146

kapan, siapa dan bagaimana. Tetapi masih ada banyak kesuliatan yaitu saya sulit memahami arti dari teks atau bacaaan, begitu juga untuk menulis dalam bahasa Inggris. Tapi jujur, saya mulai menyukai bahasa Inggris. Nilai rata-rata bahasa Inggris hari ini C. Semoga besok lebih baik lagi. Amin. (I gained new knowledge in learning English today, that is, not just the ability

to answer the questions but how to generate questions, how something happened, when, with whom. However, I still found difficulty understanding the text and writing in English. But to tell the truth I am beginning to like English and hope that in the future my English will be better).

This student demonstrated an important understanding of the need to be in charge of the passage. Rather than being overwhelmed by her language learning difficulty, she was able to focus on the strategy asking questions before and during reading (monitoring). This newly learned strategy resulted in her change of attitude towards English and expectations of possible future success in English. Although the monitoring and evaluation of her reading and writing competence had not yet led her to take concrete actions to fix the problem, this awareness indicated that she was on track toward becoming more self-regulated.

After a few months of being exposed to the metacognitive approach, the majority of the students evidenced tangible and more sophisticated use of language learning strategies as indicated by their ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate strategies, and their increased capacity to monitor and evaluate their understanding of the English text. They demonstrated an awareness of the need to employ a wide range of strategies when dealing with a difficult reading passage, as indicated in Student 18’s (Refl.5) reflection:

The text “Literature” is a long text. When I read this text I feel enjoy. Before I read “Literature” I make planning to understand this text. I make list about fiction and non-fiction. But I get some problems. I don’t know about some words. I know my vocabulary is limited. So I make planning to study about vocabulary. In this text I make planning to read this text once more. From this text, myself more understand some new words. And my strategies is achieve.

(My strategies helped me achieve my reading goals).

The metacognitive process thus helped Student 18 to consciously adopt multiple strategies to gain understanding of the text. She made a summary box for the text she was reading and practised organisational planning (she planned and made a list of fiction and non-fiction words); she indicated the ability to monitor what she was reading as evidenced by her awareness that her vocabulary was limited; she implemented evaluation strategies and self-evaluation (she acknowledged achieving what she had planned before and understood the text despite encountering new

words).The process which she undertook in engaging with the text indicated that she was becoming more self-regulated.

The developing capacity to monitor and evaluate their progress in English language learning enabled the majority of students to identify which areas of English they needed to focus on and which they were already good at. Student 18 (Refl.5) chose to increase the size of her vocabulary as a strategy to improve her English language competence:

I think I don’t have many more vocabulary (a lot of vocabulary). I must study hard if I want my vocabulary more many (to increase my vocabulary size). I will still study English because English is very important to me. Although I not including understand about English (I was not

amongst those who understand English). (Its Indonesian version would be: saya tidak termasuk orang yang memahami bahasa Inggris). Next I will study English hard.

Monitoring and evaluating her progress in English, Student 06 (Refl.5) acknowledged that she had improved in several ‘areas’ of English as a result of a focus on regulating strategies. In addition to improvement in reading, she identified improvement in other areas of English:

All of my reflection I write now. From first study English until now. All of my English is better. From study English especially reading. I found a news (new strategies) strategies. I feel that strategies is prever evective (are effective and preferable??). But not to all I am good. Especially predict. I still more false. But I’m not give up. I still learning it. Study not just reading. Listening and watching also can. For a day I watch Indonesia Good Morning in Metro TV. In this news teel (tell) about viction (victims) of Merapi Volcano. It’s so pity. I feel sad. But I just pray for them.

Back to campus and study English hard. Spirit... (she is motivating herself). After I study English for four months, maybe, I feel my English better. I get more vocab, I get tenses, I can speak better, and I was starting chatting with my friend with English.

This improvement boosted her confidence in her potential to be successful in the future, as indicated below:

I will not excellent (am not yet excellent) but I must can (I was determined to be excellent). Every people have false (weaknesses) but with study we can “memperbaikinya” (correct/fix

it). Learning as long life.

Demonstrating the capability to monitor and evaluate her language learning progress, this student was able to develop her reading strategies, listening skills, vocabulary, grammar, and speaking skills after studying English using the metacognitive approach. More importantly, she took the learning responsibility into her own hands.

Comparing the strategies taught in class and those used prior to semester, as indicated in the pre-assessment survey, Student 15 (Refl.5) acknowledged:

The first time I learned English, I was given a questionnaire and on point L there is a lot of questions about how to me to understand a reading. I chose the first hesitant to implement the purpose of my reading, focus and first understand the existing information. (I was not

sure about how to implement the strategies on Purpose of Reading, Directed Attention and Activating Background Knowledge). But now, after I learned a lot of strategy so now I can

focus on the reading material that I will read. And now I become more able to understand and comprehend the text.

She indicated that with the strategies learnt in class, she was able to be in control of reading and was able to comprehend a reading text.

Student 22 (Refl.5) demonstrated her awareness of the importance of planning, monitoring and evaluation strategies in reading, and is worth quoting at some length:

After I lesson with the teacher. First I don’t can. (I couldn’t). Now I already know to working, how to true (find true answers). I read with my goal. The teacher always give information with strategy. I always to remember from the teacher. All of lesson already given for all student. So before reading, I thinking What already I know from topic!!! Predicting. Before I reading I doing prediction. It’s to use how method of reading. After doing, we can to reading too, after prediction. At reading (during reading) I also “mengecek” (check/monitor) what the text is good? (what was good about the text/information in the text). At reading I also “ menerka”

(predict/guess), “membayangkan” (use imagery) or using immaginari the text. Actually if

there are reading, I always to self-talk. After I’m reading I can know what I want to know??? Self-talk can make me to be want to know (know what I wanted to know). When I working, I always difficult in working. I always cooperate with my friend if I true don’t know. All can finish quickly. If there are words of difficult, I try to answer and can (find) meaning with dictionary, or with something can help me. If I already reading, I always to make verifine summary (summary to verify my predictions). For problem in strategy and self, I “pernah”

(once) forget to make evaluation. In reading, I always focus and care with word, phrase or

others. I also to make taking not for word and concept very important (not focusing on word

but concept/meaning/information).

Rather than being overwhelmed by the language difficulty, this student chose to implement a wide range of strategies, i.e. planning strategies (goal-setting, activating background knowledge and predicting), monitoring strategies (predicting/guessing, using imagery, self-talk, asking a friend, checking a dictionary), and evaluation strategies (summary to verify predictions) while reading.

Considering the students’ reflections above, we could conclude that students in my class showed an ability to understand the learning task demands, to devise and use strategies in regulating their learning, and were able to benefit from the metacognitive

approach implemented in class. The students were developing into self-regulated English language learners, both in reading and other domains of English.

Table 12 presents the students’ responses to the survey questions on English language learning strategies.

Table 12: Students’ survey responses regarding on strategy knowledge

Statement

No. Disagree Pre-Semester Undecided Agree Disagree Post-Semester Undecided Agree

ST1 I decide in advance what my reading purpose is, and I read with that goal in mind.

51% 8% 41% 8% 92%

ST2 I decide in advance specific aspects of information to look for, and I focus on that information when I read.

33% 8% 58% 4% 96%

ST3 Before I read, I think of what I already know about the topic.

30% 21% 50% 4% 96%

ST4 I try to predict what the text will be about 21% 8% 71% 4% 96% ST5 While reading, I periodically check if the

material is making sense to me.

21% 42% 38% 4% 96%

ST6 I imagine things, or draw pictures of what I am reading.

21% 17% 62% 8% 92%

ST7 I encourage myself as I read by saying positive statements such as “You can do it.”

25% 21% 54% 8% 92%

ST8 I work with classmates when reading English texts or solve problems.

21% 4% 75% 100%

ST9 When I encounter a difficult or unfamiliar word I try to work out its meaning from the context surrounding it (such as other words or pictures)

4% 25% 71% 4% 96%

ST10 I identify what I don’t understand in the reading, and I ask a precise question to solve the problem.

37% 17% 46% 13% 87%

ST11 I focus on key words, phrases, and ideas. 17% 29% 54% 4% 4% 82% ST12 I write down important words and

concepts.

33% 46% 13% 87%

ST13 I use reference materials (such as a dictionary, textbook, or website) to help solve a comprehension problem.

13% 4% 84% 100%

ST14 After reading, I check to see if my prediction is correct.

33% 8% 58% 8% 92%

ST15 I summarise (in my head or in writing) important information that I read.

51% 25% 25% 8% 92%

ST16 I evaluate my comprehension by reflecting on how much I understand what I read.

50% 17% 33% 13% 87%

ST17 After reading, I decide whether the strategies I used helped me understand, and think of other strategies that could have helped.

37% 29% 34% 8% 82%

ST18 I check whether I have accomplished my goal for reading

46% 25% 29% 17% 83%

Eighteen statements focused on planning, monitoring and evaluation strategies in reading. Statements ST1-ST4 focused on planning strategies (i.e. before they were

engaged in reading); Statements ST5-ST13 focused on monitoring strategies (i.e. while they were reading) and statements ST14-ST18 focused on evaluation strategies (i.e. after reading).

There was an increase in the proportion of the students using the four planning strategies ranging between 25% to 51%, with prediction (statement ST4) up by 25%, directed attention (statement ST2) up by 38%, activating background knowledge (statement ST3) up by 46% and goal-setting (statement ST1) up by 51%.

Students were more likely to use each of the nine monitoring strategies after their engagement in the metacognitive approach, with these increases ranging from between 16% and 58% of students. The number of students who used reference materials to solve a comprehension problem (statement ST13) showed an increase of 16% (it should be noted, however, that students already reported a high percentage of using reference materials before their participation (84%). There was an increase by 25% of the percentage of students who used cooperative learning (statement ST8) and using context (statement ST9). The number of students who focused on key words (statement ST11) increased by 28%; those using imagery (ST6) went up 30%; self-talk (statement ST7) showed an increase of 38%; asking to question to clarify (statement ST10) and note-taking (statement ST12) each increased by 41%; and periodic checking of the material being read (statement ST5) went up 58%.

Likewise, students were more likely to use each of the five evaluation strategies after their engagement in the metacognitive approach, with these increases ranging from between 34% to 67%of students. Checking prediction after reading (Statement ST14) increased by 34%; checking one’s understanding of the text (statement ST16) and checking if goals were accomplished (statement ST18) went up 45%; and summarising important information (statement ST15) rose by 67%.

Notes need to be made to statements ST1, ST15, ST16 and ST18, since they showed the biggest changes in the number of students who disagreed with the statements after their participation. Before the semester, 51% (statement ST1) of the students read without a purpose. None of them did so after the semester. While 51% of them (statement ST15) did not summarise important information before their participation, none of them did so after the participation. In a similar vein, 50% (statement ST16) of

the students did not evaluate their comprehension compared to none after their participation. The percentage of the students who did not check whether their reading goals had been achieved dropped to none after the semester compared to 46% of them before the participation.

A Wilcoxon signed-ranked test examining students’ strategy knowledge prior to, and after the research demonstrated a significant improvement between pre-participation (Mdn,= 4.22), and post-participation (Mdn = 5.83, z = -4.102, p = <.05).

Overall, the survey responses indicated that more students employed (planning, monitoring and evaluation strategies at the end of the semester, indicating that they were becoming more self-regulated after their engagement in the metacognitive approach.