A Proposed Metacognitive-Based Approach to Promoting EFL Cohesion and Coherence in Essay Writing of Algerian Master Students

Abstract

Many English as a Foreign Language (hereafter, EFL) learners argue that writing is a challenging skill to develop because of cohesion and coherence hindrances they encounter. This study aimed at investigating the impact of metacognitive-based strategy writing instruction in EFL essay cohesion and coherence development. Accordingly, a pre-experimental research was carried out with first-year EFL Master students at the English Department in the University of Tlemcen, Algeria. Various research tools were needed to collect data: pretest, posttest, and stimulated recall protocol. The gathered data were analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative methods. The main findings indicated that longer strategy training would demonstrate that metacognitive strategy instruction can improve EFL essay writing cohesion and coherence.

Appendix A

Test of Written English Scoring Guide (Adopted from Bailey, 1998)

• 1. Clearly demonstrates competence in writing on both the rhetorical and syntactic levels, though it may have occasional errors. A paper in this category:

  • is well organized and well developed

  • effectively addresses the writing task

  • uses appropriate details to support a thesis or illustrate ideas

  • shows unity, coherence and progression

  • displays consistent facility in the use of language

  • demonstrates a syntactic variety and appropriate word choice

• 2. Demonstrates competence in writing on both the rhetorical and syntactic levels, though it may have occasional errors. A paper in this category:

  • is generally well organized and well developed, though it may have fewer details than do 6 papers

  • may address some parts of the tasks more effectively than others

  • show unity, coherence, and progression

  • demonstrates some syntactic variety and range of vocabulary

  • displays facility in language, though it may have more errors than do 6 papers

• 3. Demonstrates minimal competence in writing on both the rhetorical and syntactic levels. A paper in this category:

  • is adequately organized

  • addresses the writing topic adequately but may slight parts of the task

  • uses some details to support a thesis or illustrate ideas

  • demonstrates adequate but undistinguished or inconsistent facility with syntax and usage

  • may contain some serious errors that occasionally obscure meaning

• 4. Demonstrates some developing competence in writing, but it remains flawed on either the rhetorical or syntactic level, or both. A paper in this category may reveal one or more of the following weaknesses:

  • inadequate organization or development

  • failure to support or illustrate generalizations with appropriate or sufficient detail

  • an accumulation of errors in sentence structure and/or usage

  • a noticeably inappropriate choice of words or word forms

• 5. Suggests incompetence in writing. A paper in this category is seriously flawed by one or more of the following weaknesses:

  • failure to organize or develop

  • little or no detail, or irrelevant specifics

  • serious and frequent errors in usage or sentence structure

  • serious problems with focus

• 6. Demonstrates incompetence in writing. A paper in this category will contain serious and persistent writing errors, may be illogical or incoherent, or may reveal the writer’s inability to comprehend the question. A paper that is seriously underdeveloped also falls into this category.