Intelligence and metacognition as predictors of foreign language achievement: A structural equation modeling approach

Abstract

This study examined the role of metacognition and intelligence in foreign language achievement on a sample of 143 Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners. Participants completed Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices as a measure of intelligence, and Metacognitive Awareness Inventory as a measure of metacognition. Learners' scores at the end of the semester were aggregated as a measure of foreign language achievement. The findings revealed that intelligence accounts for 12.2% of the variance in foreign language achievement, and metacognition accounts for 17.6% of the variance. Although each of them had a unique impact on foreign language achievement, metacognition outweighs intelligence as a predictor of foreign language achievement. Finally, the pedagogical implications were discussed in light of foreign language achievement.

Introduction

Foreign language teachers observe a wide range of performance in language classrooms. Some learners achieve high levels of proficiency, while others underachieve. This issue has attracted the attention of researchers to examine the factors that may affect foreign language achievement. Therefore, prediction of the second/foreign language achievement is of great importance among researchers (Bailey et al., 2000, Ho, 1987, Matsuda and Gobel, 2004, Onwuegbuzie et al., 2000, Pishghadam and Zabihi, 2011). Many factors have been identified to predict foreign language achievement, among them are different cognitive, affective, and personality variables (e.g. Onwuegbuzie et al., 2000). However, two factors, namely intelligence and metacognition, have been given less attention in the field of foreign/second language (L2) learning (e.g. Pishghadam, 2009), despite the fact that these two factors have been extensively examined in relation to learning in general (e.g. Eisenberg, 2010, Schneider, 2008).

There are very few studies that have examined the relationship between intelligence and language learning, as Dornyei (2005) has not mentioned a single one in his review of individual differences research (see Ellis, 2008). Also, research has indicated that metacognition is one of the strongest predictors of learning in general (Flavell, 1976, Flavell, 1979, Veenman and Elshout, 1995). However, to our best knowledge; no study has examined the simultaneous relationship of intelligence and metacognition in foreign language achievement.

The simultaneous analysis allows us to see which of these two factors can contribute more to foreign language learning. For these reasons, examination of the relationships between metacognition, intelligence, and L2 learning seems timely. In this study first, we examine the unique contribution of each of these two variables, and then the simultaneous effect of these two variables on foreign language achievement will be scrutinized. Results of this study will shed more light on the role of these two important cognitive variables in learning a foreign language.

In the realm of general education, intelligence has been found to be a strong predictor of learning (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2007, Primi et al., 2010). Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2005) found that the relation between intelligence quotient (IQ) and grades is not stable and it decreases as students continue their formal education from primary school to tertiary education. According to Pind, Gunnarsdóttir, and Johannesson (2003), the reason for this decline is due to the fewer number of students who enroll in upper educational system.

Within the domain of language education, the relationship between language learning and cognitive abilities is controversial. There are two contrasting views on this relationship.

First view states that there is a special talent for language learning, that is, learning a language is different from other skills (Skehan, 1998, Sparks and Artzer, 2000). Second view, in contrast, proposes that language learning ability is the same as other skills (Sparks, Patton, Ganschow, & Humbach, 2011). Support for the first view comes from students who have a high IQ, but are very weak in learning a language (Ganschow & Sparks, 2001) or students who have a low IQ, but are good language learners (Sparks & Artzer, 2000). After proposing the first view, this special ability for language learning was called language aptitude which is different from general cognitive ability. Language aptitude refers to a special ability for language learning which involves a number of separate factors including auditory ability, linguistic ability, and memory ability (Skehan, 1989, cited in Ellis, 2008).

Research shows that there is a positive relationship between L2 achievement and language aptitude (Ganschow and Sparks, 2001, Sparks, 2001, Sparks et al., 2008). Some researchers claimed that language aptitude is the best predictor of L2 achievement (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1992; Sparks and Ganschow, 1991, Sparks et al., 1995). Although language aptitude research did not receive much attention between 1960 and 1990 (because it was out-of-date, less relevant to communicative language teaching, and undemocratic to learners), it was revived again in the 1990s as the large number of studies confirm this (see Dornyei, 2005).

Considering these issues, language aptitude has become an interesting area of research during the past 22 years ago. In this respect, intelligence has been abandoned to a large extent as Dornyei (2005) has not mentioned even one single study on the relationship between intelligence and language learning. Researchers like Skehan (1989) speak extensively about aptitude but almost never about intelligence. In the same vein, Teepen (2006) stated that “those who regard innate capacity as aptitude fail to show how aptitude is fundamentally different from intelligence and what is indicated on an intelligence test” (p.8).

Sasaki (1993) examined the relationships between second language proficiency, foreign language aptitude, verbal intelligence, and reasoning ability. Results of her study indicated that 42% of the variance in second language proficiency could be accounted by the general cognitive factor. The other 58% of the variance in second language proficiency is accounted for by something other than general cognitive ability. Genesee (1976) found that intelligence is correlated with L2 French reading and usage skills, but it was not related to productive and interpersonal communication scores. Ekstrand (1977) also found a weak correlation between intelligence and tests of listening and speaking, but a stronger correlation with reading and writing tests. In a more recent study, Fahim and Pishghadam (2007) found a low-level correlation between IQ and foreign language achievement. Moreover, some other studies have found significant associations between multiple intelligences (Pishghadam & Moafian, 2008), emotional intelligence (Pishghadam, 2009) and L2 achievement. All of these studies reveal the fact that intelligence, whether it is psychometric, multiple, or emotional can predict to some extent success in L2 achievement.

Metacognition is defined as “the ability to reflect upon, understand, and control one's learning” (Schraw & Dennison, 1994, p. 460) or simply thinking about thinking (Flavell, 1979). According to Flavell, 1979, Flavell, 1987, metacognition entails metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experiences or regulation of cognition. Metacognitive knowledge refers to knowledge about cognitive processes used to control them (Livingstone, 1997). It is further divided into three types: declarative knowledge (knowledge about self and strategies), procedural knowledge (knowing how to use strategies), and conditional knowledge (knowing when and why use strategies) (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). Regulation of cognition involves processes that facilitate controlled aspect of learning. It includes five subcomponents: planning, information management strategies, comprehension monitoring, debugging strategies, and evaluation (Artzt and Armour-Thomas, 1992, Schraw and Dennison, 1994).

Metacognition has been identified as a strong predictor of learning (Coutinho, 2007; Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger, & Kruger, 2003; Flavell, 1976, Flavell, 1979; Kruger & Dunning, 1999; Veenman & Elshout, 1995). Research has shown that learners with higher levels of metacognition perform better than those with lower levels of metacognition (Garner & Alexander, 1989; Kruger & Dunning, 1999). The reason is that metacognitively aware learners plan, sequence, and monitor their learning in a way that improves their performance (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). They are aware of their thinking and use their awareness to control their thinking. According to Chamot and O'Malley (1994), metacognition “may be the major factor in determining the effectiveness of individuals' attempts to learn another language” (p. 372). It highlights the importance of teaching metacognition in L2 classes. Like many other subjects, metacognition can be taught to the learners. Therefore, teachers play an important role to help learners develop understanding and controlling over cognitive processes (Anderson, 2002). English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes, teachers can help learners plan, control, and evaluate their learning by teaching metacognition.

Some studies in field of general education have indicated that metacognition contributed to learning performance independent of intellectual ability (Prins et al., 2006, Van der Stel and Veenman, 2008).

Regarding the role of metacognition, intelligence, and learning, three models have been proposed (Veenman, 1993, Veenman and Elshout, 1991). The first model (intelligence model) considers metacognition as an integral part of intelligence. According to this model, metacognition cannot have a predictive value for learning independent of intellectual ability. In the second model (independency model), intelligence and metacognition are considered as entirely independent predictors of learning. The last model (mixed model) explains that metacognition and intelligence are related, but metacognition has an additional value above intelligence for prediction of learning. According to Veenman, van Hout-Wolters, and Afflerbach (2006), on average, intelligence accounts for 10% of variance in learning, metacognition accounts for 17% of variance in learning, while both predictors share another 20% of variance in learning for students with different backgrounds, ages, and fields of study. The implication is that metacognition may compensate for students' cognitive limitations. The present study aims at examining the mixed model.

Given the abovementioned relationships between intelligence, metacognition, and learning this study first examines the predictive power of intelligence and metacognition in L2 learning. Then, unique contribution of metacognition and intelligence beyond and above each other is estimated. Although some studies have examined the relations between language learning and intelligence (Ekstrand, 1977; Genesee, 1976), and language learning and metacognition (Green and Oxford, 1995, Oxford and Burry-Stock, 1995), no study has examined the simultaneous relationship of these two variables as predictors of language learning. Results will have many implications for language teachers and researchers.