##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Abstract

The reform in teaching and curriculum involves not only in the teaching content, but more so in teachers’ methodology, the students’ learning strategies and the changed relationship between students and teachers in the classroom setting. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that what is needed for ESP is a different orientation to English study and to outline an approach which departs from that which is generally taken. Broadly, what is involved is a shift of the focus of attention from the grammatical to the communicative properties of language. This view that the difficulties which the students encounter arise not so much from a defective knowledge of the system of language but from unfamiliarity with English use is acceptable but not sufficient. It is suggested that although specification of language needs is necessary for ESP course and it will be useful for selecting and grading materials, in teaching ESP learning strategies should play an important role. Accordingly, autonomous learning and metacognitive strategies are suggested as basic essentials for teaching and learning ESP.

Keywords

Autonomy Cognition Metacognition Product

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
Dr. Irfan Tosuncuoğlu, Ali Abbas Jasim Mohammed, & Assist. Lect. Ghaith Saleh Mahdi. (2022). Autonomous Learning and Metacognitive Strategies Essentials in ESP Class. Texas Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 8, 24–31. Retrieved from https://zienjournals.com/index.php/tjm/article/view/1508

References

  1. Aebersold, J. A.M and M.L. Field. (1997). From Reader to Reading Teacher: Issues and Strategies for language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Atay, D. (2007). Memory strategy instruction, contextual learning and ESP vocabulary recall. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, Volume 26, issue1.
  3. Auerbach, E. R and Paxton, D. (1997). It’s Not the English Thing”: Bringing Reading Research Into ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 31,237-260.
  4. Autonomy and Independence in language learnin. New York: Addison Wesely Longman Limited. pp. 181-191. Wenden, A. ( 1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.
  5. Baker, L. and Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research Vol. 1, (pp. 353-394) New York: Longman.
  6. Block, C. (2004). Teaching Comprehension: The Comprehension Process Approach, Texas Christian University, Pearson Education, Inc.
  7. Brown, R. (2002). Straddling two worlds; Self-directed comprehension instruction for middle schoolers. In Block ,C, and Pressely, M. (eds.). Comprehension Instruction. Research Based Practice. NY; Guilford.
  8. Celce-Murcia, Marianne. (2001). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, Heine and Heine, Thomson Learning. U.S.A.
  9. Collins, N.D. (1994) Metacgnition and Reading to learn. Eric Digest 19 96.
  10. Cotteral, S. (2000). Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum; Principles of designing language courses. ELT Journal 52/2; 109-117
  11. Dovey, Teresa. (2006). What purposes, specifically? Re-thinkin purposes and specificity in the context of the new vocationalisn. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, Volume 25, issue 4.
  12. Duell O.K. (1986). Metacognitive skills. In G. Phye, and T. Andre (Eds.), Cognitive Classroom Learning. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  13. Flavell, J. H. (1971).First discussant’s comments: what is memory development the development of? Human Development 14, 272-78.
  14. Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definition and empirical foundations. In Hacker,D.J., Dunlosky. J. and Graesser,A.C., editors,
  15. Holec, H. (1987). The learner as manager: managing learning or managing to learn? In Wenden, and Rubin (eds.).
  16. Hutchinson T. and Waters A. (1987). English for specific Purposes: A learning Centered Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Kintch, w. and Van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of discourse comprehension and production. Psychological Review 85; 363-394.
  18. Learner strategies in Language Learning. Prentice hall international. UKO Ltd.
  19. Mackay, R. and Mountford, A. (1978). English for Specific Purposes. Longman group Ltd. Munby, J. (1978). Communicative Syllabus Design, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbraum, 1-24.
  21. Nunan, D. (1997). Strategy training in the language classroom; An empirical investigation. RELC Journal 26: 56-81.
  22. O’Malley, M.J. and Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Oxford. R. (1989). The best and the worst: an exercise to tap perceptions of language –learning experiences and strategies. Foreign Language Annuals 22, 44-54.
  24. Pitts, M. M. (1983). Comprehension monitoring: definition and practice. Journal of Reading . 26, 516-23. Richards, J. and Rodgers, S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
  25. Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In Wenden, and J. Rubin.(eds.). Learner strategies in language Learning. Prentice Hall International, (UK) Ltd.
  26. Shraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science 26, 113-25. Swales, J. (1985). Episodes in ESP, Perganon.
  27. Victori, M. (1995). Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language learning. System 23/2; 223-234.
  28. Voller, P. (1997). Does the teacher have a role in autonomous language learning. In B, P. and P. Voller (eds.0.
  29. Widdowson, H.G. (1983). Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H.J. (1979). Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
  30. Widdowson.H. G. (1984). Explorations in Applied Linguistics, Oxford University press. Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional Syllabuse. London: Oxford University Press.
  31. Yarmohammadi, Lotfollah. (2005). ESP in Iran from language planning perspective, Proceedings of the First National ESP/ EAP Conference, Volume 2. SAMT, Tehran.

Most read articles by the same author(s)