1

CENTRE FOR RESEARCH IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Linguistics and English Language Department

Lancaster University

CRILE Working Papers No. 59 (2004)

Exploring the role of explicit knowledge in adult secondlanguage learning: language proficiency, pedagogical

grammar and language learning strategies

Karen Roehr

Abstract

It is often assumed that adults learn more successfully by drawing on explicit

knowledge. In the field of second language (L2) learning, this assumption has been

applied to both knowledge about language learning and knowledge about language,

as exemplified respectively by research into the use of language learning strategies

and the relationship between metalinguistic knowledge and L2 proficiency in

formal instructional settings. In order to further explore the relationship between

these three constructs, a small-scale empirical investigation involving 27 advanced

learners of L2 German at a British university was conducted. Participants' L2

proficiency, metalinguistic ability and use of language learning strategies were

assessed by means of a quantitative instrument; supplementary interview data were

collected from 5 volunteers. Findings suggest that metalinguistic knowledge cuts

both ways. Moderate correlations between metalinguistic ability and L2

proficiency contrast with generally positive learner perceptions of pedagogical

grammar; likewise, successful implementations of pedagogical grammar contrast

with misapplications during task performance. In order to identify factors

determining the relative usefulness of metalinguistic knowledge, further qualitative

investigation with a particular focus on online processes is proposed. The reported

CWP 59 (2004)

2

use of language learning strategies as measured by the SILL questionnaire did not

correlate significantly with either L2 proficiency or metalinguistic knowledge.

Keywords: second language learning; language teaching; pedagogical

grammar; metalinguistic knowledge; language learning strategies

1. Background

The majority of researchers in the fields of education, applied linguistics and

cognitive psychology assume that, in general, explicit or conscious knowledge

about a domain to be acquired will facilitate the attainment of proficiency in that

domain. Not surprisingly, this assumption has impacted on the area of second

language (L2) learning. At the level of educational policy, proponents of language

awareness regard explicit knowledge about the nature of language and an

appreciation of the role of language in society as a major educational goal (van

Lier, 1995). Furthermore, an understanding of the sociocultural functions of

language is seen as desirable, while tolerance and cross-cultural sensitivity are to

be fostered through the learning of an L2. This task is believed to be facilitated

through reflection on and analysis of first language (L1) intuitions (James &

Garrett, 1991).

These holistic educational aims were primarily formulated with school-age

learners in mind. In case of adult learners, conscious awareness about the

knowledge domain to be acquired is regarded as equally, or perhaps even more

important. The assumption that explicit knowledge about both the learning process

in general and the L2 to be acquired in particular is potentially beneficial is

reflected in research focusing on the metacognitive as well as the cognitive abilities

of adults.

At the metacognitive level, the role of the learner as an autonomous

individual is emphasised. Adults act intentionally to achieve their chosen goals;

they actively plan behaviour, analyse the situation they find themselves in, and

evaluate their own progress. Exercising their volition affords them a certain level

of both actual and perceived control over their development as (language) learners

(Benson & Lor, 1999; Oxford, 1990; Wenden, 1987; 1991; 1998; 2002). Hence,

adults employ their explicit knowledge about learning by approaching a task

strategically.

CWP 59 (2004)

3

In the area of L2 acquisition research, this phenomenon has been

investigated in the context of language learning strategies, defined as "the

conscious or semi-conscious thoughts and behaviors used by learners with the

explicit goal of improving their knowledge and understanding of a target language"

(Cohen, 2003, p.280). Language learning strategies typically refer to specific

problem-oriented actions or techniques that are deployed in response to a learning

need. Strategies tend to be used variably, depending on situational and task-related

factors as well as individual learner differences. What is more, researchers believe

that strategies can be taught and developed (Cohen, 1998; Ellis, 1994; MacIntyre,

1994; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990, 2003; Skehan, 1989; Wenden,

1987, 1991). Overall, it is thought that learners with a well-functioning repertoire

of strategies will be better able to complete language learning tasks successfully

and efficiently.

At the cognitive level, adult learners exploit their mature analytic ability,

since it permits them to think 'scientifically', i.e. to maximise efficiency in learning

by imposing systematicity and order on the domain to be acquired. This behaviour

pattern is reflected in society at large: We study and codify operational principles

in all knowledge domains, so that skills can be communicated more easily

(Anderson, 1995, 2000). Of course, this pervasive human tendency to take the

guesswork out of learning applies in equal measure to language acquisition. In

other words, adult L2 learners may gather knowledge about the L2 to be acquired

and employ this knowledge during the learning process.

In the field of L2 acquisition, this phenomenon has generated a large

amount of diverse empirical research, ranging from controlled laboratory

experiments aimed at uncovering psycholinguistic processes, to classroom-based

studies seeking to identify the relative merits of different L2 instructional methods.

At the most general level, these research efforts have resulted in the consensual

finding that explicit learning based on form-focused instruction is indeed

facilitative and will lead to more successful and more efficient acquisition than

mere exposure to L2 input, at least in the short term (DeKeyser, 1994, 2003;

Doughty, 2003; Ellis, 2001; Norris & Ortega, 2001).

It is worth noting that this claim has arisen from experimental

investigations focusing on a limited number of linguistic features and typically

involving educated young adult learners. Moreover, studies relied on relatively

CWP 59 (2004)

4

short instructional treatments, roughly ranging from one to ten hours, whilst the

nature of post-tests assessing learner improvement varied from written multiple-

choice formats to free oral productions. Despite these discrepancies in terms of

experimental design, however, the cumulative results tend to be considered

trustworthy.

Nevertheless, several recent non-experimental research findings relating to

the role of metalinguistic knowledge, or explicit knowledge about language in

formal instructional settings are not nearly as encouraging as one might expect. As

a matter of fact, there appears to be little direct empirical support in support of the

intuitively appealing assumption that, given the overall facilitative effect of

instruction, more explicit types of instruction and learning will automatically be

superior to less explicit types of instruction and learning.

The most explicit type of instructional treatment is typically classified as

focus-on-forms, during which, as the label implies, teacher and learners intensively

focus on the formal aspects of language (Ellis, 2001). Normally, pedagogical

grammar rules are either presented directly, or students are encouraged to discover

such rules with the help of illustrative examples. Learners further engage in

production practice by performing controlled drills and/or functional exercises. As

focus-on-forms instruction relies on an explicit approach, pedagogical grammar

and the metalinguistic terminology used to describe its categories and relations are

an inherent part of the teaching and learning process. But how does such

metalinguistic knowledge relate to the L2 ability learners achieve in the long term?

Several cross-sectional studies aimed at investigating the relationship

between L2 proficiency and learners' metalinguistic knowledge led to largely

consistent results. When comparing participants' ability to judge the grammaticality

of L2 sentences, to identify errors, to correct these errors, and to state the violated

grammar rules, it was found that students do not necessarily learn the rules they are

taught (Green & Hecht, 1992; Sorace, 1985). However, not knowing the

pedagogical grammar rule does not mean that learners are consequently less able to

correct faulty L2 items instantiating the rule in question (Elder, Warren, Hajek,

Manwaring, & Davies, 1999; Green & Hecht, 1992; Sorace, 1985). Finally,

researchers unanimously report that some rules and categories of pedagogical

grammar are acquired and applied more successfully than others (Bialystok, 1979;

Green & Hecht, 1992; Renou, 2000).

CWP 59 (2004)

5

Large-scale correlational studies involving British and Australian

university students revealed the inter-learner variability of metalinguistic

knowledge as well as the variable application of such knowledge across tasks

(Alderson, Clapham, & Steel, 1997; Elder et al., 1999). In addition, only moderate

positive relationships between levels of L2 proficiency and levels of metalinguistic

ability were identified (Alderson et al., 1997; Elder et al., 1999; Renou, 2000), so it

appears that the facilitative role of pedagogical grammar in instructed language

learning may be less prominent than expected.

This finding is largely corroborated by a longitudinal project with L1

English learners of L2 German at a British university. Over four years, Klapper &

Rees (2003) tracked the progress of two groups of students respectively receiving

incidental form-focused instruction and traditional grammar instruction with a

focus on forms. After two years at university, the traditionally instructed group

showed more substantial gains on a written test battery assessing L2 ability, but at

the end of the degree programme and after spending a year abroad in an immersion

context, both groups performed equally well on the proficiency measure. The

researchers conclude that, given sufficient naturalistic exposure, there is little to

choose between less explicit focus-on-form and more explicit focus-on-forms

instruction.

In light of the apparently discrepant role of explicit teaching and learning

for long-term gains in overall L2 proficiency and short-term gains during

experimental treatments focusing on specific linguistic features, further inquiry

into the role of metalinguistic knowledge seems to be called for. As the facilitative

potential of explicit knowledge about learning in general appears to be all but

uncontested, do the divergent findings with respect to explicit knowledge about

language indicate that L2 acquisition is a special case? A possible avenue for

exploring this question would be to juxtapose these two types of explicit

knowledge with L2 ability. In the following, I will report on a project attempting to

gain preliminary insight into the relationship between L2 proficiency, knowledge

about language, and knowledge about language learning.

2. An exploratory study

In the context of my study, explicit knowledge was defined as conscious

knowledge that is potentially available for verbal report. The relationship between

CWP 59 (2004)

6

L2 proficiency and two types of explicit knowledge was investigated with the help

of an intact group of 27 British university-level learners of L2 German. Explicit

knowledge about language was operationalised as participants' metalinguistic

ability, while explicit knowledge about language learning was operationalised as

participants' reported use of language learning strategies.

2.1 Design and instrument

The study had a cross-sectional design and utilised a multi-method approach which

included both quantitative and qualitative measures. The quantitative component

consisted of a test aimed at assessing participants' L2 proficiency (henceforth

'language test'), a test aimed at assessing participants' metalinguistic ability

(henceforth 'metalanguage test'), and a self-report questionnaire aimed at assessing

participants' use of language learning strategies. The qualitative component

consisted of semi-structured interviews conducted with a small subsample of

informants.

Participants' L2 proficiency was operationalised in a narrow sense as their

knowledge of L2 structures and vocabulary, i.e. their grammatical knowledge in

Bachman & Palmer's (1996) terms. In view of previous research findings, this

aspect of language proficiency was chosen because it was most likely to exhibit a

relationship with learners' metalinguistic knowledge. Hence, results would be

obtained under optimal conditions.

Participants' L2 proficiency was measured by means of a language test

consisting of 50 discrete gap-fill and multiple-choice items, with 25 items each

focusing on structural knowledge and lexical knowledge respectively. Items were

classified as testing structural knowledge if they could be explained by means of a

pedagogical grammar rule; otherwise they were categorised as testing lexical

knowledge. The test items had been designed by professional item writers and were

taken from a pilot scale developed for the DIALANG online assessment project1.

The items were adapted for pen-and-paper administration and pre-tested by three

university lecturers specialising in German studies. Following the pre-testing round

and various amendments, the language test as used in the study exhibited high

reliability (alpha = 0.896).

1 See www.dialang.org for further details.

CWP 59 (2004)

7

Participants' metalinguistic ability was operationalised as their knowledge

of and capacity to implement the categories and rules of pedagogical grammar. The

metalanguage test designed to measure this construct was based on an instrument

used by Alderson et al. (1997) and incorporated improvements suggested by

Clapham (2001). The first part of the metalanguage test required participants to

appropriately attach eleven given metalinguistic labels to grammatical items in 22

L2 sentences. Labels exemplified the categories typically encountered in German

language instruction with a focus on forms, as experienced by the participants on a

regular basis. Thus, items included terms such as 'object in the accusative case',

'verb in the passive mood', 'adverb', 'subordinating conjunction' etc.

The second part of the metalanguage test required participants to identify

errors in ten L2 sentences, to correct these errors, and to supply the violated

pedagogical grammar rule. The targeted pedagogical grammar rules incorporated

the categories to be labelled in the first part of the test. Moreover, the rules were

chosen to reflect, as far as possible, the L2 forms occurring in the 25 language test

items aimed at assessing participants' structural knowledge. The metalanguage test

was pre-tested by the same three academic colleagues. Following item trimming

and amendments, the metalanguage test as used in the study also proved highly

reliable (alpha = 0.856).

Participants' reported use of language learning strategies was assessed by

means of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, or SILL (Oxford, 1990). I

employed published version 5.1 (version for English speakers learning a new

language), an 80-item questionnaire asking informants to respond to statements

about language learning strategy use on a five-point-scale ranging from 'never or

almost never true of me' to 'always or almost always true of me'. The strategies

represented are based on Oxford's (1990) taxonomy, which subdivides 62

individual language learning strategies into six groups. These groups include

memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies directly involving the language to

be acquired, as well as metacognitive, affective, and social strategies.

The qualitative component of the project was aimed at following up,

corroborating and, if possible, supplementing any findings resulting from the

quantitative component. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with five

participants selected from a group of volunteers. The interview questions focused

CWP 59 (2004)

8

on these informants' views of metalinguistic knowledge, their perceptions of the

language and metalanguage tests as well as their approaches to item resolution.

2.2 Participants and data collection

An intact group of 27 learners studying for a degree in German studies at Lancaster

University participated in the project. The informants were in their fourth and final

year of undergraduate study; furthermore, they had studied the L2 in school for

between four and ten years before entering university (mean = 5.7 years). The vast

majority of participants had spent the third year of their degree course in a

German-speaking country, and all participants had studied at least one other

foreign language in a formal educational setting. Accordingly, the participants

were not only advanced learners of German, but could also be described as

experienced language learners overall. At the time of data collection, the mean age

of the participant sample was 21.7 years. With the exception of one Greek L1

speaker, one Norwegian L1 speaker, and one English-French bilingual, all

participants were L1 speakers of English.

The quantitative data were collected in November and December 2001.

The participants completed the SILL questionnaire in their own time, while the

language and metalanguage tests were administered under supervision in class

time. Two separate sessions had been scheduled, and both tests were completed in

non-speeded conditions. On the basis of their test scores, I selected five learners

from a sample of 17 volunteers for participation in the follow-up interviews. Two

learners achieving scores in the top third of the sample (Jack and Sue), one learner

achieving scores in the bottom third of the sample (Amy), and two learners

attaining medium-level scores (Kay and Ros) were chosen2. The five selected

interviewees were all L1 speakers of English. I conducted the one-to-one

interviews in February and March 2002; all interviews were tape-recorded with the

consent of the participants.

2.3 Data analysis

The language test was scored dichotomously on the basis of an answer key

developed during the pre-testing phase. Unanticipated responses were added to the

2 All names are pseudonyms.

CWP 59 (2004)

9

answer key, provided they were deemed grammatically accurate and idiomatically

acceptable. If the acceptability of unanticipated responses was not immediately

apparent, scores were awarded on the basis of acceptability judgements performed

by three L1 German speakers. Non-standard spelling was ignored, since no errors

beyond the inappropriate use of capital letters or the inappropriate separation of

compound words occurred. In case of multiple responses to a single item, a score

was awarded only if all the alternatives given were correct.

The same scoring criteria were applied to the metalanguage test. In case of

the error identification, correction and explanation tasks, however, several

methodological issues arose. First, learners did not always identify the targeted

mistake, so that dependent corrections and explanations were automatically

irrelevant and thus had to be scored as incorrect. Second, even if the targeted

mistake had been identified and corrected appropriately, metalinguistic

explanations differed considerably in terms of scope and detail. In order to take

into account such qualitative differences as well as partially correct responses, I

decided to award two separate scores for 'description' and 'explanation'

respectively. Hence, one point was given if the learner had provided an appropriate

metalinguistic description of the targeted linguistic form, and one point was given

if the learner had provided the reason why a certain linguistic form was required,

i.e. if they successfully linked form and function.

Responses were awarded a score if they minimally reflected the relevant

formal description and functional explanation provided by the targeted pedagogical

grammar rule. The use of technical terminology was not set as a relevance

criterion, if an adequate non-technical description/explanation was offered.

Scores on the SILL questionnaire were calculated in accordance with

Oxford's (1990) guidelines. Thus, average scores, rounded off to the nearest tenth,

for each of the six SILL categories were computed, as well as a mean total score,

again rounded off to the nearest tenth. As the response scale ranges from 1 point

for 'never or almost never true of me' to 5 points for 'always or almost always true

of me', all SILL scores fell within the range of 1.0 to 5.0.

For the purposes of the quantitative analysis, I used SPSS (version 10.0).

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were calculated for learners' scores

on the language test, the metalanguage test, and the SILL questionnaire as a whole,

as well as for various sub-test combinations.

CWP 59 (2004)

10

For the purposes of the qualitative analysis, I transcribed the tape-recorded

interviews, adhering to transcription conventions deemed adequate for a content

analysis. Given the exploratory nature of the study, the qualitative analysis was

primarily data-driven, but guided by the pre-established concepts of learners' views

and perceptions of metalinguistic knowledge and their approaches to test item

resolution. In accordance with the characteristics of the data set, I primarily used

the procedures employed by classic content-analytic approaches (Marshall &

Rossman, 1999; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Ryan & Bernard, 2000; Silverman,

2000), but, if applicable, I also drew on procedures more closely associated with

grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The interview transcripts were

managed and analysed with the help of Atlas/ti (version WIN 4.2, build 059).

3. Quantitative findings and discussion

The descriptive statistics for the language and metalanguage test are summarised in

table 1 below. In sum, the data suggest that the language test did not prove a major

challenge for the participants. Even more strikingly, the labelling task of the

metalanguage test was very easy for the learners, as indicated by the extremely

high mean score and the pronounced negative skew. On the other hand, providing

metalinguistic explanations proved to be the most difficult component of the

metalanguage test.

Table 2 summarises the descriptive statistics based on the SILL data. The

results show that cognitive and compensation strategies are used most frequently

by the learners. Social and metacognitive strategies are also employed fairly often,

while affective and memory strategies are least popular. Memory strategies have

the smallest standard deviation, variance, and range, so the use of this strategy type

appears to be quite homogeneous across the learner sample. Conversely, the wide

range obtained for affective strategies indicates that some informants reported quite

frequent use, while others hardly employ these strategies at all.

In light of previous research, most of these findings are not unexpected.

Memory strategies are mainly aimed at achieving automaticity, in particular with

regard to vocabulary learning, while affective strategies are employed to regulate

emotions. Accordingly, both of these strategy types tend to be associated with

lower proficiency levels (Bremner, 1998; Oxford, 1990), so they were not likely to

CWP 59 (2004)

11

be used very often by the advanced fourth-year undergraduate students

participating in the study.

The comparative popularity of cognitive, compensation and, to a lesser

extent, social strategies is also consistent with findings reported in existing

research. (Bremner, 1998; Green & Oxford, 1995; Park, 1997). While

compensation strategies permit learners to use the L2 despite gaps in their

knowledge (Bialystok, 1990), cognitive strategies comprise a broad range of

techniques aimed at the manipulation and transformation of the L2 for the purpose

of structural analysis and communicative practice. Both of these strategy types tend

to be used frequently across proficiency levels.

By contrast, it is somewhat surprising that the informants did not report

more frequent use of metacognitive strategies, since such strategies have been

found to be favoured by experienced, high-proficiency learners (Abraham & Vann,

1996; Anderson & Vandergrift, 1996; Purpura, 1999; Rivers, 2001; Wenden, 1991,

1999). As my participants appear to fit the profile of expert learners, this finding is

unexpected. Possible explanations for this result are not immediately apparent, but

the correlational statistics as presented in table 3 below might help shed light on

this issue.

Table 1: Language and metalanguage tests. Descriptive statistics

Lang

uage

test

tota

l

Met

alan

guag

e te

stto

tal

Labe

lling

subt

est

Corre

ctio

nsu

btes

t

Des

crip

tion

subt

est

Expl

anat

ion

subt

est

No. of valid tests 26 20 20 20 20 20No. of test items 50 52 22 10 10 10% correct 71 75 95 71 69 44Mean 35.6923 39.2000 20.8000 7.1000 6.9000 4.4000Standard error ofmean

1.6340 1.6183 0.4013 0.5568 0.4968 0.4724

Median 38.0000 42.0000 21.5000 8.0000 8.0000 5.0000Mode 40.00 30.00* 22.00 8.00* 8.00 5.00Standarddeviation

8.3320 7.2373 1.7947 2.4900 2.2219 2.1126

Variance 69.4215 52.3789 3.2211 6.2000 4.9368 4.4632Skewness - 0.648 - 0.480 - 2.095 - 1.286 - 0.756 - 0.106Standard error ofskewness

0.456 0.512 0.512 0.512 0.512 0.512

Range 32.00 23.00 7.00 9.00 8.00 7.00Minimum 16.00 26.00 15.00 1.00 2.00 1.00Maximum 48.00 49.00 22.00 10.00 10.00 8.00*Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown.

CWP 59 (2004)

12

Table 2: SILL questionnaire. Descriptive statistics

SILL

tota

l

Mem

ory

strat

egie

s

Cogn

itive

strat

egie

s

Com

pens

atio

nstr

ateg

ies

Met

acog

nitiv

estr

ateg

ies

Affe

ctiv

estr

ateg

ies

Soci

alstr

ateg

ies

No. valid tests 25 25 25 25 25 25 25Max. score possib 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Min. score possib. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0Mean 3.0400 2.3160 3.4840 3.3440 3.0000 2.4520 3.2000Standard error ofmean

8.622 9.086 0.1003 0.1134 0.1260 0.1269 0.1434

Median 3.0000 2.5000 3.4000 3.5000 3.1000 2.6000 3.1000Mode 2.90* 2.60 3.20 3.50 3.50 2.60 3.10Standarddeviation

0.4311 0.4543 0.5014 0.5672 0.6298 0.6345 0.7171

Variance 0.1858 0.2064 0.2514 0.3217 0.3967 0.4026 0.5142Range 2.00 1.90 2.40 2.40 2.60 2.90 2.50Minimum 1.80 1.30 2.20 1.90 1.40 1.00 1.70Maximum 3.80 3.20 4.60 4.30 4.00 3.90 4.20*Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown.

Table 3: Language test, metalanguage test and SILL questionnaire:Correlations (Spearman's rho)3

Lang

uage

Stru

ctur

alkn

owle

dge

Lexi

cal

know

ledg

e

Met

alan

g.te

st to

tal

Met

alan

g.te

st

Labe

lling

subt

est

Corre

ctio

nsu

btes

t

Des

crip

tion

subt

est

Expl

anat

ion

subt

est

SILL

tota

l

Lang testtotal

1.000 0.971**p=0.000

0.971**p=0.000

0.510*p=0.011

0.461*p=0.020

NS 0.580**p=0.004

0.438*p=0.027

0.481*p=0.016

NS

Structural subtest

1.000 0.901**p=0.000

0.467*p=0.019

0.428*p=0.030

NS 0.516**p=0.010

0.418*p=0.033

0.439*p=0.026

NS

Lexicalsubtest

1.000 0.519**p=0.010

0.471*p=0.018

NS 0.597**p=0.003

0.409*p=0.037

0.495*p=0.013

NS

Metal.test total

1.000 0.984**p=0.000

0.584**p=0.003

0.925**p=0.000

0.935**p=0.000

0.958**p=0.000

NS

Meta test(L,D,E)

1.000 0.665**p=0.001

0.862**p=0.000

0.901**p=0.000

0.970**p=0.000

NS

Label.subtest

1.000 0.382*p=0.048

0.404*p=0.039

0.566*p=0.005

NS

Correct.subtest

1.000 0.938**p=0.000

0.832**p=0.000

NS

Descrip.subtest

1.000 0.853**p=0.000

NS

Explan.subtest

1.000 NS

SILLtotal

1.000

3 In view of the small sample size, the ordinal data resulting from the SILL and considerabledivergence from normality in case of the metalanguage test data, a non-parametric test was used.

CWP 59 (2004)

13

Most strikingly, scores obtained on the SILL questionnaire do not correlate

significantly with either the participants' metalinguistic knowledge or indeed their

L2 proficiency as measured by the instrument. At first glance, this outcome does

not appear to tally with the predictions made in theoretical discussions concerned

with the use of language learning strategies, which assign an overwhelmingly

positive role to strategy use (Cohen, 1998; MacIntyre, 1994; O'Malley & Chamot,

1990; Skehan, 1989; Wenden, 1991). Yet, the supposition that increased strategy

use alone may be indicative of increased proficiency or vice versa (Green &

Oxford, 1995; Park, 1997; Vogely, 1995) has not been supported unequivocally.

Rather, empirical findings indicate that more proficient learners tend to use

language learning strategies differently from less proficient learners (Abraham &

Vann, 1996; Anderson & Vandergrift, 1996; Bremner, 1998; Bruen, 2001;

Griffiths, 2003; Rivers, 2001). Since the targeted and appropriate deployment of

strategies was found to be more relevant than raw frequency, it appears that quality

is more important than quantity (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Bialystok, 1981;

Purpura, 1999).

Crucially, it has further been suggested that the strength of any relationship

between L2 ability and strategy use as measured by the SILL depends on the

availability of respondents at a range of proficiency levels (Green & Oxford,

1995). It is of course possible that this caveat applies not only to the strength but

also to the significance of a correlation. Thus, the small number of informants

participating in my study as well as the fact that data were collected from a

relatively homogeneous group of advanced learners may explain the absence of a

statistically significant relationship.

Furthermore, the homogeneity of the participant sample might account for

the apparently low frequency of metacognitive strategy use referred to above. The

expected popularity of metacognitive strategies may only become apparent if direct

comparisons between learners at different levels of proficiency are possible; in the

absence of a comparison group, raw frequencies might be deceptive.

Table 3 reveals that the participants' language test scores correlate

positively and significantly with their metalanguage test scores, though at a

moderate level of strength. This finding is consistent with previous large-scale

research employing more comprehensive but still comparable measures of L2

proficiency and metalinguistic knowledge (Alderson et al., 1997; Elder et al.,

CWP 59 (2004)

14

1999). The coefficients calculated for the individual metalanguage test subtests

indicate that the overall association between L2 proficiency and metalinguistic

ability is mainly due to the description and explanation tasks rather than the

labelling subtest, which shows a non-significant correlation4. If viewed in

conjunction with the weak intra-test correlations between the labelling task and the

description and explanation subtests, this result suggests that the ability to identify

and apply terminologically appropriate labels to L2 parts of speech is not

particularly relevant to either L2 proficiency or indeed the implementation of

pedagogical grammar rules.

Finally, it is worth noting that the intra-test correlations between the

structural knowledge subtest and the lexical knowledge subtest of the language test

are extremely strong and highly significant. In view of this result, a conceptual

distinction between these two components of grammatical knowledge may be

redundant. The convergent nature of structural and lexical knowledge is further

emphasised by the fact that the latter correlates more strongly with the

metalanguage test than the former. As the metalanguage test was specifically

designed to reflect the grammatical items featuring in the structural knowledge

subtest, this result is quite surprising, although the difference between the two

coefficients is admittedly small.

4. Qualitative findings and discussion

As expected, the analysis of the interview transcripts allowed for insight into the

five interviewees' perceptions of and beliefs about metalinguistic knowledge.

Furthermore, and perhaps more interestingly, the learners' ad hoc implementations

of metalinguistic knowledge while discussing selected test items gave some

tentative indications with regard to the usefulness or otherwise of pedagogical

grammar during L2 task performance.

When asked whether they found metalinguistic terminology and

pedagogical grammar rules useful, all interviewees responded in the affirmative.

Judging from the informants' various comments, metalinguistic knowledge appears

to be seen as generally facilitating language learning. As pedagogical grammar is 4 As the correction task may be completed successfully on the basis of implicitknowledge, it does not necessarily entail the use of metalinguistic knowledge andis therefore not included in the discussion.

CWP 59 (2004)

15

perceived as providing the building blocks of the language to be acquired, the

learners believe that it can help them construct L2 output. In addition, the

interviewees report that metalinguistic knowledge enables them to analyse the L2

and understand why certain forms are required to express certain meanings.

Although the interviewees' responses incorporate some or all of the above

points, the learners' respective endorsements of pedagogical grammar differ

somewhat in terms of strength, with Amy, Jack and Sue displaying overall greater

conviction and enthusiasm than Kay and Ros. Despite their generally positive

comments, the interviewees also recognise the limitations of metalinguistic

knowledge. Jack, Amy and Sue point out that structures are not everything and that

vocabulary is needed to flesh out the skeleton provided by grammar. Ros further

states that she sometimes finds certain grammatical concepts and explanations too

complicated to be helpful, while Kay has realised that learning grammar rules and

applying them in practice are two different issues. In accordance with the

participants' critical perceptions, the interview data reveal several instances of

unsuccessful implementations of metalinguistic knowledge.

In sum, the data suggest that metalinguistic knowledge may be misapplied

either because a learner fails to focus on the structural aspects which are pertinent

to the resolution of the given test item, or because they oversimplify or

unnecessarily complicate otherwise suitable pedagogical grammar rules. In the

following example, Ros seems to have failed to recognise the relevant grammatical

category, i.e. whether the sentence is rendered in the active or the passive mood.

Instead, she ponders the tense-related question whether the verb einladen combines

with haben or sein in the perfect. Notwithstanding this inappropriate attentional

focus and despite changing her mind, she answered the item in question correctly

in the original test.

KR: (…) Oh, there's another one where you changed your mind.R: Oh, quite a few...KR: Number 315. So first you went for a), and then finally you decided that itshould be c).

5 Language test item 31:Die Party war lustig, weil Willy auch da war. Wenn Willya) nicht eingeladen hätte,b) nicht eingeladen worden ist,

CWP 59 (2004)

16

R: ... (pause)...KR: Do you remember if that was more intuition again or did you actually gothrough the different... trying to work out...?R: No, it wasn't intuition because I'm sitting here thinking now why did I... I'mtrying to work out... (pause)...KR: Can you say what you're thinking?R: Oh, sorry... Erm... I was just trying to think... I think that one's wrong, I thinkit's that actually, a).KR: No...R: Is it...?KR: No, c) is fine, yeah.R: Is it c)? Because what I was thinking is why... why... What's the differencebetween hätte and worden wäre? And I was just thinking, well, does einladen takehaben or is it with sein? That's what was going through my head.KR: Mhm.R: That's why I was thinking...KR: Yeah, it's actually sein, it's passive.(...)

Even though the learners' metalinguistic knowledge was on occasion either flawed

or being misused, the majority of related test items was still answered correctly.

Thus, only a minority of misapplications resulted in confusion and incorrect item

resolution. What is more, successful or partly successful implementations of

metalinguistic knowledge were also in evidence, as exemplified in the following

excerpts from the interviews with Amy and Kay.

KR: (…) And maybe another one, 406, on another page.A: Oh. Das Auto gehört meinem jüngeren Bruder. Which of the sentences has thesame meaning? So the car belongs to my younger brother. So, the car of myyounger brother... that is the car from my younger brother. That is my youngerbrother's car... That is my... mhm... I don't know why I put that. Das ist das Automeines jüng... it's genitive, and I thought that that showed.KR: Mhm.A: Das ist meinen jüngeren... That wasn't... c) isn't right. Das ist meines jüngeren...that d) isn't right because they're not grammatically correct.

c) nicht eingeladen worden wäre,d) nicht eingeladen würde,wäre es langweilig gewesen.6 Language test item 40:Das Auto gehört meinem jüngeren Bruder.Which of the following sentences has the same meaning?a) Das ist das Auto meines jüngeren Bruders.b) Das ist das Auto von meinem jüngeren Bruders.c) Das ist meinen jüngeren Bruders Auto.d) Das ist meines jüngeren Bruder Auto.

CWP 59 (2004)

17

KR: Yeah.A: b) Das ist das Auto von meinem jüngeren Bruders... that's not grammaticallycorrect either because there's an -s on the end.KR: Yeah.A: So it's a).KR: Mhm.A: That must be why. I must have gone... I went through that process ofelimination then to find out which one was grammatically correct, but I knew Iwanted to put it in the genitive.KR: So, then, what was foremost in your mind? The rules, or how it sounded, inyour head, when you sort of read it out silently? Or maybe both?A: I think both simultaneously. Erm... I think it... because it was the first, the firstone is the correct ans... Is the first one the correct answer?KR: Yeah, it is.A: Erm... I think I read it and I thought that sounds right, but I'll check it, and then Iread through and I thought, perhaps, that doesn't sound right, and anyway... Itcould be b), but I think... I don't think it is. Oh no, it's not, it's not b) because of the-s.KR: Yeah.A: I think I read b) and thought: Oh, it could be that. But it's not c) and it's not d)because they're grammatically incorrect. So I think it was a process of... checking.It was an intuitive feeling, and then checking by process of elimination.(...)

KR: Do you remember how you went about finding the mistakes? What... again,how did you approach the task?K: The first would have been almost intuition, erm... just what sounds wrong. Youcan hear sometimes a mistake when you read it. Others needed a bit more analysis.Okay, I can't see anything, so I would go through each section of the sentence then,have a look and see whether I think it's right or not.KR: So... so you would say, just to rephrase what you... or if I've understood youcorrectly: With some sentences, you read them and the error sort of sprang out andyou knew straight away...K: Yeah.KR: ... and with others, you weren't sure, so you used... you actually usedgrammatical rules?K: Erm, yeah. I split it down and looked at each part of the sentence, yeah, usedgrammar rules.(...)

In these cases, pedagogical grammar appears to be employed to back up implicit

L2 knowledge. The learner may draw on their metalinguistic knowledge to verify

spontaneous responses or to prop up potentially insufficient linguistic competence,

as exemplified in the first quote. Alternatively, pedagogical grammar seems to

have been used to systematically analyse task sentences, as illustrated by the

second quote.

CWP 59 (2004)

18

5. Conclusions

Given the exploratory nature of the investigation, conclusions about the

relationship between L2 proficiency, metalinguistic ability and reported use of

language learning strategies must remain largely tentative. Nevertheless, new

questions with regard to the interplay of these variables have arisen; moreover

several conceptual and methodological issues have emerged.

First, a conceptual distinction between structural and lexical knowledge

may be unnecessary because the respective language subtests exhibited extremely

similar statistical properties on both descriptive and correlational measures.

Second, the difficulties encountered with the metalanguage test indicate

that it may be more efficient to highlight targeted L2 mistakes, especially if the

measure is aimed at assessing metalinguistic description and explanation, rather

than the participants' ability to perform grammaticality judgements. In addition, the

labelling task appears to be largely redundant, since it contributed little to the

notion of metalinguistic knowledge as operationalised in the study. Moreover,

labelling ability did not correlate significantly with L2 proficiency.

Third, the non-significant correlations resulting from the SILL

questionnaire suggest that the use of language learning strategies may be

investigated more fruitfully by means of a qualitative approach and in a task-

specific context rather than with the help of a non-contextualised psychometric

measure, especially if only a comparatively small and homogenous learner sample

is involved.

Fourth, the participants' views of metalinguistic knowledge as reported

during the interview sessions as well as the ad hoc implementations of pedagogical

grammar during the discussion of selected test items indicate that the role of

metalinguistic knowledge in L2 learning is multifaceted. This interpretation seems

especially appropriate if qualitative and quantitative findings are considered

jointly. Moderate correlations with L2 proficiency and misapplications of

metalinguistic knowledge contrast with generally positive learner perceptions and

successful implementations of pedagogical grammar during task performance.

This apparently complex relationship between L2 proficiency and

metalinguistic ability appears to be worthy of further examination. In particular, the

various factors determining the relative usefulness of metalinguistic knowledge

CWP 59 (2004)

19

need to be uncovered. The brief glimpse into learners' online use of metalinguistic

knowledge during task performance that was obtained during the interview

sessions seems to suggest an especially fruitful avenue for future research. Thus,

verbal protocols of learner introspections during, or retrospections immediately

after item resolution may provide interesting insights.

References

Abraham, R. G., & Vann, R. J. 1987. Strategies of Two Language Learners: A

Case Study. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in

Language Learning. New York: Prentice Hall. Pp. 85-102.

Abraham, R. G., & Vann, R. J. 1996. Using Task Products to Assess Second

Language Learning Processes. Applied Language Learning, 7(1-2), 61-89.

Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Steel, D. 1997. Metalinguistic Knowledge,

Language Aptitude and Language Proficiency. Language Teaching

Research, 1, 93-121.

Anderson, J. R. 1995. Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach. New York:

John Wiley & Sons.

Anderson, J. R. 2000. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (5th ed.). New

York: Worth Publishers.

Anderson, N. J., & Vandergrift, L. 1996. Increasing Metacognitive Awareness in

the L2 Classroom by Using Think-Aloud Protocols and Other Verbal

Report Formats. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language Learning Strategies

Around the World: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Honolulu: University of

Hawai'i Press. Pp. 3-18.

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. 1996. Language Testing in Practice: Designing

and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Benson, P., & Lor, W. 1999. Conceptions of Language and Language Learning.

System, 27(4), 459-472.

Bialystok, E. 1979. Explicit and Implicit Judgements of L2 Grammaticality.

Language Learning, 29(1), 81-103.

Bialystok, E. 1981. The Role of Conscious Strategies in Second Language

Proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 65, 24-35.

Bialystok, E. 1990. Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of

Second-Language Use. Oxford: Blackwell.

CWP 59 (2004)

20

Bremner, S. 1998. Language Learning Strategies and Language Proficiency:

Investigating the Relationship in Hong Kong. Canadian Modern Language

Review, 55(4), 490-514.

Bruen, J. 2001. Strategies for Success: Profiling the Effective Learner of German.

Foreign Language Annals, 34(3), 216-225.

Clapham, C. 2001. The Assessment of Metalinguistic Knowledge. In C. Elder & A.

Brown & E. Grove & K. Hill & N. Iwashita & T. Lumley & T. Macnamara

& K. O'Loughlin (Eds.), Experimenting with Uncertainty: Essays in

Honour of Alan Davies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 31-

41.

Cohen, A. D. 1998. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. London:

Longman.

Cohen, A. D. 2003. The Learner's Side of Foreign Language Learning: Where Do

Styles, Strategies, and Tasks Meet? IRAL, 41, 279-291.

DeKeyser, R. M. 1994. How Implicit Can Adult Second Language Learning Be?

AILA Review, 11, 83-96.

DeKeyser, R. M. 2003. Implicit and Explicit Learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H.

Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Malden,

MA: Blackwell. Pp. 313-348.

Doughty, C. J. 2003. Instructed SLA: Constraints, Compensation, and

Enhancement. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of

Second Language Acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Pp. 256-310.

Elder, C., Warren, J., Hajek, J., Manwaring, D., & Davies, A. 1999. Metalinguistic

Knowledge: How Important Is It in Studying a Language at University?

Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 81-95.

Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Ellis, R. 2001. Introduction: Investigating Form-Focused Instruction. Language

Learning, 51(1), 1-46.

Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. L. 1995. A Closer Look at Learning Strategies, L2

Proficiency, and Gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.

Green, P. S., & Hecht, K. 1992. Implicit and Explicit Grammar: An Empirical

Study. Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 168-184.

CWP 59 (2004)

21

Griffiths, C. 2003. Patterns of Language Learning Strategy Use. System, 31, 367-

383.

James, C., & Garrett, P. 1991. The Scope of Language Awareness. In C. James &

P. Garrett (Eds.), Language Awareness in the Classroom. London:

Longman.

Klapper, J., & Rees, J. 2003. Reviewing the Case for Explicit Grammar Instruction

in the University Foreign Language Learning Context. Language Teaching

Research, 7(3), 285-314.

MacIntyre, P. D. 1994. Toward a Social Psychological Model of Strategy Use.

Foreign Language Annals, 27(2), 185-195.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. 1999. Designing Qualitative Research (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. 2001. Does Type of Instruction Make a Difference?

Substantive Findings from a Meta-Analytic Review. Language Learning,

51(1), 157-213.

O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language

Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. L. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should

Know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Oxford, R. L. 2003. Language Learning Styles and Strategies: Concepts and

Relationships. IRAL, 41, 271-278.

Park, G.-P. 1997. Language Learning Strategies and English Proficiency in Korean

University Students. Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 211-221.

Purpura, J. E. 1999. Learner Strategy Use and Performance on Language Tests: A

Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Renou, J. M. 2000. Learner Accuracy and Learner Performance: The Quest for a

Link. Foreign Language Annals, 33(2), 168-180.

Rivers, W. P. 2001. Autonomy at All Costs: An Ethnography of Metacognitive

Self-Assessment and Self-Management among Experienced Language

Learners. Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 279-290.

CWP 59 (2004)

22

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. 2000. Data Management and Analysis Methods. In

N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Silverman, D. 2000. Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Skehan, P. 1989. Individual Differences in Second-Language Learning. London:

Arnold.

Sorace, A. 1985. Metalinguistic Knowledge and Language Use in Acquisition-Poor

Environments. Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 239-254.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and

Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks:

Sage.

van Lier, L. 1995. Language Awareness. London: Penguin.

Vogely, A. 1995. Perceived Strategy Use During Performance on Three Authentic

Listening Comprehension Tasks. Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 41-56.

Wenden, A. L. 1987. Conceptual Background and Utility. In A. L. Wenden & J.

Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning. New York:

Prentice Hall. Pp. 3-14.

Wenden, A. L. 1991. Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. New York:

Prentice Hall.

Wenden, A. L. 1998. Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning. Applied

Linguistics, 19(4), 515-537.

Wenden, A. L. 1999. An Introduction to Metacognitive Knowledge and Beliefs in

Language Learning: Beyond the Basics. System, 27(4), 435-441.

Wenden, A. L. (2002). Learner Development in Language Learning. Applied

Linguistics, 23(1), 32-55.

Author’s contact details:Karen RoehrLinguistics and English Language DepartmentLancaster UniversityLancaster, LA1 4YTUnited Kingdomk.roehr@lancaster.ac.ukCopyright remains with the author.

CRILE Working Papers are freely available online athttp://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/groups/crile/workingpapers.htm