Understanding Individual Differences in Metacognitive Strategy Use, Task Demand, and Performance in Integrated L2 Speaking Assessment Tasks

Abstract

This study investigated the concept of individual differences (IDs) in the use of metacognitive strategies (planning, problem-solving, monitoring, and evaluating) and its relationship with task demand and learner performance within Kormos’ Bilingual Speech Production Model from the lens of Chinese English-as-foreign-language (EFL) learners in the context of integrated L2 speaking assessment. To measure metacognitive strategies, we administered an inventory on 134 Chinese EFL learners after they completed four integrated L2 speaking assessment tasks. Descriptive analysis and multiple linear regression were adopted for data analysis, and results show that: (a) IDs displayed variance in Chinese EFL learners’ metacognitive strategy use; (b) among the four metacognitive strategies under investigation, problem-solving was reported to be used the most frequently in sharp contrast to monitoring, which had the lowest frequency; (c) metacognitive strategies worked interactively, responding to task demands involved in the four integrated L2 speaking assessment tasks; and (d) Chinese EFL learners’ use of metacognitive strategies, in individual and interactive working modes, had no relationship with their speaking performance. These results are expected to present some insights into the role of IDs in metacognitive strategy use during L2 speech production under assessment conditions, which will add robust evidence to the existing literature on L2 speaking, in particular on metacognitive strategy use in L2 speaking assessment. In the meantime, the findings will provide some empirical validation support for Kormos’ model, which will further provide some implications for L2 speaking instruction and L2 assessment.

From self-regulated learning to computer-delivered integrated speaking testing: Does monitoring always monitor?

“…Clearly, the mechanism of monitoring involved in L2 speech production has many similarities with Levelt’s (1983 , 1989) perceptual loop model of self-monitoring but with more emphasis on the indispensable part of self-monitoring in speech production. The similarities are well-illustrated by Kormos’ (2011) L2 speech production model which “has been widely applied in empirical studies on L2 speaking as the major bilingual speech production model” ( Zhang et al, 2022a , p. 1). In the model, Kormos strictly followed the foregoing three-loop version of Levelt’s (1983 , 1989) self-monitoring model accommodating the conceptual loop, the internal loop and the external loop, which operates in response to attentional control subject to task demand variability (see Kormos, 2011 ; Zhang et al, 2022a , for a review of the model).…”

“…The similarities are well-illustrated by Kormos' (2011) L2 speech production model which "has been widely applied in empirical studies on L2 speaking as the major bilingual speech production model" (Zhang et al, 2022a, p. 1). In the model, Kormos strictly followed the foregoing threeloop version of Levelt's (1983Levelt's ( , 1989 self-monitoring model accommodating the conceptual loop, the internal loop and the external loop, which operates in response to attentional control subject to task demand variability (see Kormos, 2011;Zhang et al, 2022a, for a review of the model). Briefly, Kormos' model vividly exemplifies the equally critical role that self-monitoring plays in L2 speech production as the construct does in L1 speech production displayed in Figure 2.…”

“…Speaking is “a process of oral language production” ( Tarone, 2005 , p. 485) in which information is received and processed before systematic utterances are produced to express meaning that occurs in the real time situations ( Levelt, 1989 ; Levelt et al, 1999 ; Yahya, 2019 ). Therefore, in the research discipline of speaking, whether it be L1 speaking or L2 speaking, speech production is typically treated as an information-processing procedure ( Luoma, 2004 ; Bygate, 2011 ; Kormos, 2011 ; Zhang et al, 2022a , b ) where monitoring plays a necessary role (e.g., Levelt, 1989 ; Levelt et al, 1999 ; Nozari and Novick, 2017 ; Broos et al, 2019 ), as it does in SRL.…”

“…In language testing research, monitoring is usually treated as one of the operational forms of strategic competence or metacognitive strategy use proposed to represent the essence of L2 testing (e.g., Bachman and Palmer, 2010 ; Phakiti, 2016 ; Purpura, 2016 ; Zhang et al, 2021a , 2022a , b ). However, since there is no conclusive definition of strategic competence, researchers tended to take an exploratory approach in investigating the working mode of the construct in L2 testing and its effect on test performance.…”

“…The investigation is expected to provide pedagogical implications for SRL: while fostering self-regulating learners, it is necessary for L2 teachers to purposefully reduplicate testing conditions in their classroom instructions for helping the self-regulating learners be equally self-regulating test-takers assisted by self-monitoring to pass certain high-stakes tests for either academic purposes or vocational objectives, the fundamental goal of L2 learning for a large proportion of L2 learners ( Shohamy, 2007 ; Bachman and Palmer, 2010 ). Moreover, the investigation is hoped to offer some insights into L2 testing through the perspective of self-monitoring, one proposed key component of strategic competence, a construct that has been extensively acknowledged to reflect the essence of L2 testing ( Bachman and Palmer, 2010 ; Zhang et al, 2021a , 2022a , b ).…”