Implementation Of Case Method In Virtuality PDF

**Implementation of Case Method within Virtuality:** **Promoting EFL Students' Metacognitive Awareness in Writing** **Roslaini^1^, Tri Wintolo Apoko^2^** **^1,\ 2^ Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. Dr. Hamka** (roslaini\@uhamka.ac.id) **ABSTRACT** Online learning has been conducted mostly all over the world during the pandemic era; in new normal situation even until now online learning or hybrid learning is still conducted for several reasons. Therefore, it is greatly intriguing to know the effectiveness of case method in learning writing. It is supposed to make students learn actively and think critically in learning. Thus, this research tries to explore the EFL students' perceptions of metacognitive awareness in writing through online learning. To get the data of the research, thirty-four students participated in answering a closed-ended questionnaire. After analyzing the questionnaires, the results show that the highest strategy used by students in learning writing is debugging strategy with the percentage of 89.22%, followed by planning strategy with percentage of 85.29%, and information management strategy with percentage of 79.41%. It can be concluded that when learning writing by online, the students are still able actively to discuss, interact, and think critically to solve the problems or the tasks given. In other words, a case method can develop students' activity and creativity as well as thinking critically using learning strategy in writing. Finally, it is implicated that a case method can be effective for teaching and learning process conducted by online if the learning process can trigger students' collaboration in learning. **Key Words:** *case method; metacognitive awareness; learning writing* **INTRODUCTION** In the era of online learning, many educational institutions are trying to explore the effective and appropriate methods to support teaching learning process. One of the methods that is considered to be effective for teaching learning process in the era of online learning is a case method. Case method is a participatory learning process based on discussion to solve a case or problem within small groups of students under the guidance of a teacher (Servant-Miklos, 2019). In the implementation of case method, the class is designed to encourage learners to participate in an interactive discussion. The learners are required to produce an individual analysis of the problems, and they also have to observe and evaluate the contributions of other learners (Emblen-Perry, 2022) One thing that is essential for implementing a case method in class is that it can stimulate learner's critical thinking (Brooke, 2006) and teamwork ability (Li et al., 2022). Classes based on case can challenge students to apply concepts and content; it enables them to develop critical and analytical thinking to solve the given situation or problem (Guess, 2014). Moreover, case method can optimize their critical thinking and creativity in solving a problem (Anggriani et al., 2022). So, it is said that critical thinking is very essential in learning process, especially in learning writing. Learning writing for most EFL students are considered something difficult. It really needs a critical thinking. According to (Raimes, 1983), writing is the ability to express ideas, feelings, and thoughts that are arranged in the form of words, sentences, and paragraphs. To give a reader a clear idea or information, it is necessary to pay attention on the use of sentence structure as well as correct tenses, idioms, and vocabulary in writing. Durga & Rao (2018) stated that writing is an indirect productive skill of communication that differs from verbal communication. Communication is not only done through speech but also through writing (Neuendorf & Kumar, 2015). Writing requires the activation of a complex range of elements. Content knowledge, linguistic knowledge (vocabulary, grammar, and text structure), and strategic understanding are among them (provision of relevant information). Planning the writing (e.g., producing information, setting targets, and organizing information), turning ideas into text, and assessing the manuscript (e.g., evaluating and revising text) are all defined as part of the writing process (Johansson-Malmeling et al., 2021; Oxford, 2011). Therefore, it is important to be aware of the thought process in order to control learning and to make learning more effective (Farahian, 2015). In the academic field, students should be able to master writing skills for the continuity of them as language learners and in order to survive in an academic environment (Shi et al., 2020). Writing can support language learners to communicate in written form with a variety of specialized goals and accents (Fareed et al., 2016). It is becoming increasingly significant in fields of education because it is among the most important ways to assess students\' success in their subjects of study. In fact, learning writing is not an easy task for English learners, whether it is done online or offline. It becomes complicated for learners to write especially an essay. In writing an essay, there are several steps to be followed. According to (Langan, 2012), the steps of writing include: pre-writing, drafting, revising, and editing and proofreading. In pre-writing, learners need to make a list of ideas for outline. Another step for drafting is to let learners start writing for the first draft based on the ideas in the outline. In revising, the first draft should be check and revise related to the coherence of the ideas developed. The other step, editing and proofreading encourages learners to edit starting from grammatical errors, words, sentences, or paragraphs. Looking at the process of writing above, it is extremely necessary to conduct the process of learning writing which can support and encourage the learners to think critically. Thinking critically and analytically in learning is absolutely important. For this reason, a case method is supposed to be important to be implemented in learning writing, for it can stimulate the learners to apply their critical thinking. They can discuss and interact with their peers in finding solution to the situation or the problem given. Critical thinking is a high level of thinking. According to (Abdelrahman, 2020), a higher level of thinking process is named metacognitive as person\'s understanding of his own thinking process. Metacognition also allows learners to be able to manage their cognitive processes and identify their weaknesses, and allowing them to correct errors in their learning process (Schraw, 2001). In the context of learning, students are required to understand their abilities, know how to organize learning, and what strategies they use. It means that by activating their metacognitive, the students are aware of their learning process. In addition, metacognition is a concept that refers to thinking about one\'s academic capability in various subjects to be aware of one\'s own mental process (Sato, 2022). It can support learners to do a better process and use the information needed as well as find the most effective strategy to practice and strengthen what they\'ve learned (Vandergrift et al., 2006). Thus, metacognitive awareness can be used to improve, direct, and expand learner's knowledge and mental process (Goh & Vandergrift, 2021). It can be inferred that metacognitive awareness has a positive impact in leaner's learning process, for it can activate learners to manage their own learning in finding new information or knowledge. The knowledge they have can be supportive for their own thinking process, so they know what to do to improve their comprehension (Stephanou & Mpiontini, 2017). Several studies have proven that the role of metacognitive awareness in learning is required. Students who are aware of their own cognitive processes become active and can manage and direct their own learning. It really supports them in determining the best techniques for practicing and strengthening their knowledge. The capability to reflect, understand, and manage one\'s learning is referred to as metacognitive awareness. Metacognitive awareness enables learners to plan, organize, and monitor their own learning thoughts and ideas so that it has a significant influence on their performances (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). It can improve the ability to comprehend information and implement the essential solutions to a problem more conveniently. It has been all recognized that metacognitive awareness as a trait of a successful writer. It also supports in improving thinking and comprehension (Özçakmak et al., 2021; Ramadhanti & Yanda, 2021; Tuononen et al., 2023). Moreover, Briesmaster & Etchegaray (2017) stated that metacognitive learning occurs when students monitor and control their own learning process to the given assignments, also known as self-regulated learning. Therefore, metacognition is a technique that students use to regulate their own learning. Metacognition also involves their activities such as deciding how to approach a specific learning task, measuring the understanding of their assignment, and evaluating their progress. In other words, metacognition is the process of recognizing and managing one\'s own learning. This means that the students can critically reflect upon their own knowledge while learning writing. So, metacognitive is supposed to be able to encourage them to become more aware of their own thoughts and mental process in order to make progress from memorization to a deeper understanding of the material (Morari, 2017). Hence, students are conscious of their own thought processes, they can better plan their learning steps, strategies, and what information to record (Jalok & Idris, 2020). Schraw & Dennison (1994) divide metacognition into knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. Metacognitive knowledge refers to one's understanding of cognitive processes in which one can supervise, control, and regulate one's own cognitive processes. It consists of three sub-components such as declarative knowledge (knowledge about oneself related to one\'s skills, abilities, and strategies), procedural knowledge (knowledge about how to apply and use one's strategies), and conditional knowledge (knowledge about when and why to use one's strategies). Metacognitive regulation refers to activities that regulate and control learning. There are three components such as planning (plan and set goals and allocate resources before learning), information management strategies (skills and strategies used to improve the efficiency of learning and information process), comprehension monitoring (assessment of the learning strategy used), debugging strategies (strategies for correcting the understanding and errors in learning), and evaluation (review and analyze the performance and strategies used after the learning process) (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). Guterman (2003) also stated that metacognitive awareness refers to learning awareness and recognizing; learners are aware of knowledge as a means of knowing and getting information. The level of a learner\'s understanding, performance, and achievement is determined by his or her knowledge and awareness of that knowledge. So, learners\' metacognitive awareness can help them organize, monitor, and assess their learning process which can help them take charge of their language learning process (De Silva & Graham, 2015). In some ways, high metacognitive users are more likely to prepare for successful learning, arrange when and how to use specific methods, understand how to evaluate strategy used, learn how to incorporate various tactics, and evaluate the effectiveness of strategy use (McEvoy et al., 2015). In addition, students who are aware of metacognitive knowledge has more positive attitudes towards language learning (Feiz, 2016). Concerning with the previous relevant studies above, it is said that in learning process or learning writing, metacognitive awareness is absolutely important, for it can support students to manage and plan their learning and to achieve the learning objectives. Referring to the importance of metacognitive awareness in learning in which students have to apply their higher thinking process, in this research a case method is implemented to know how far the students use and develop their metacognitive awareness in learning writing through online. Thus, this current study on metacognitive awareness in writing through online learning in university level is believed to be rare to conduct. Thus, this study has two research questions: 1. How do students in the university perceive their metacognitive awareness from knowledge of recognition and regulation of recognition in writing through case method? 2. What is the most dominant metacognitive awareness development within online learning? **METHODS** **Research design** To explore how university students perceive their metacognitive awareness in writing through the case method and identify the most dominant metacognitive awareness development within online learning, a survey-based research design was employed. Thus, the quantitative data are obtained by using a questionnaire and analyzed descriptively (Creswell, 2018). **Research site and participants** There are thirty-four students as the participants of the research. They are the students who had taken Essay Writing course through online learning at the Study Program of English Education of one reputable private university in Jakarta, Indonesia. In relation to the course, the participants were facilitated with case method-based the learning activities during six meetings. In each meeting, a group of students were provided with some cases to discuss together, and students might ask and respond the cases. Each group was then discussing on the case for inquiry and trying to write an essay as well as presenting the result of the essay to other groups. The essays from all the groups were analyzed and evaluated for the improvement. **Data collection and analysis** After learning process was completed, the students who had taken the Essay Writing class were given a questionnaire in the form of Google Form. The questions or the statements in the questionnaire are adapted from (Schraw & Dennison, 1994) for the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) to know about the development of students\' metacognitive awareness strategies during the process of learning writing. The questionnaire is a close-ended one. The questions are about the MAI consisting two aspects with twenty-four items. The aspects are knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition. Knowledge about cognition has three sub-aspects comprising declarative knowledge, conditional knowledge, and procedural knowledge. Meanwhile, regulation of cognition has five sub-aspects such as planning, information management strategies (IMS), monitoring, debugging strategies, and evaluation. After getting the data, 5-point Likert scale is employed with five criteria, that is, 5=Strongly Agree (SA), 4=Agree (A), 3=Neutral (N), 2=Disagree (D), 1=Strongly Disagree (SD). The reliability analysis of the close-ended questionnaires is calculated using Cronbach's Alpha. The result is shown below: **Table 1. Reliability Statistic** Cronbach's Alpha N of Items ----- ------------------ ------------ MAI 0.923 24 Table 1 presents the reliability analysis for the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI). It has a Cronbach\'s Alpha value of 0.923, which suggests a very high level of reliability. This means that the 24 items included in the MAI are consistently measuring the construct of metacognitive awareness, indicating that the responses to these items are reliable for assessing this particular construct. **FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION** **Findings** *Students' perceptions of their metacognitive awareness in writing through case method* The findings of the research are related to the students' metacognitive awareness development when studying writing based on case. There are two aspects to be found, i.e., knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. **Learners' metacognitive awareness on knowledge of cognition** **Table 2. Declarative Knowledge** +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Stateme | Mean | SA | A | N | D | SD | | nt | | | | | | | +=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | 1. | 4.09 | 29.41 | 50 | 20.59 | 0 | 0 | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 2. I | 4.12 | 35.29 | 41.18 | 23.53 | 0 | 0 | | kno | | | | | | | | w | | | | | | | | wha | | | | | | | | t | | | | | | | | kin | | | | | | | | d | | | | | | | | of | | | | | | | | inf | | | | | | | | ormatio | | | | | | | | n | | | | | | | | is | | | | | | | | mos | | | | | | | | t | | | | | | | | imp | | | | | | | | ortant | | | | | | | | to | | | | | | | | lea | | | | | | | | rn. | | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 3. I | 3.59 | 0 | 61.76 | 35.29 | 2.94 | 0 | | am | | | | | | | | goo | | | | | | | | d | | | | | | | | at | | | | | | | | rem | | | | | | | | emberin | | | | | | | | g | | | | | | | | inf | | | | | | | | ormatio | | | | | | | | n. | | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 4. I | 4.47 | 52.94 | 41.18 | 5.88 | 0 | 0 | | lea | | | | | | | | rn | | | | | | | | mor | | | | | | | | e | | | | | | | | whe | | | | | | | | n | | | | | | | | I | | | | | | | | am | | | | | | | | int | | | | | | | | erested | | | | | | | | in | | | | | | | | the | | | | | | | | top | | | | | | | | ic. | | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ The data from Table 2 presents an intriguing look into individuals\' perceptions of their own learning processes and cognitive strengths. The first statement, \"I understand my intellectual strengths and weaknesses,\" received a mean score of 4.09, indicating a strong agreement among participants. With 29.41% of respondents selecting Strongly Agree and 50% Agree, it is evident that a majority feel confident in their self-awareness regarding their intellectual capabilities. Only a small fraction (20.59%) remained neutral, suggesting a negligible disagreement on this aspect. For the second statement, \"I know what kind of information is most important to learn,\" the mean score slightly increased to 4.12. This suggests a similar level of confidence among respondents in identifying crucial information for learning, with 35.29% strongly agreeing and 41.18% agreeing. A considerable 23.53% remained neutral, indicating some uncertainty or variability in the perceived importance of information. The third statement, \"I am good at remembering information,\" revealed a more moderate consensus with a mean score of 3.59. No respondents strongly agreed, while a majority of 61.76% agreed, and a significant 35.29% were neutral. A small percentage (2.94%) disagreed, highlighting a more varied perception of memory capabilities among individuals. Lastly, the statement \"I learn more when I am interested in the topic\" garnered the highest mean score of 4.47, reflecting a strong consensus on the impact of interest on learning efficiency. An impressive 52.94% strongly agreed, and 41.18% agreed, indicating that nearly all respondents believe their learning is enhanced when they are engaged with the subject matter. Only a small portion (5.88%) remained neutral, showcasing a widely held belief in the importance of interest for effective learning. **Table 3. Procedural Knowledge** +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Stateme | Mean | SA | A | N | D | SD | | nt | | | | | | | +=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | 1. | 3.85 | 11.76 | 61.76 | 26.47 | 0 | 0 | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 2. I | 3.50 | 11.76 | 41.18 | 35.29 | 8.82 | 2.94 | | fin | | | | | | | | d | | | | | | | | mys | | | | | | | | elf | | | | | | | | usi | | | | | | | | ng | | | | | | | | hel | | | | | | | | pful | | | | | | | | lea | | | | | | | | rning | | | | | | | | str | | | | | | | | ategies | | | | | | | | aut | | | | | | | | omatica | | | | | | | | lly. | | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ Table 3 delves into respondents\' self-assessment regarding their awareness and application of study strategies, offering insight into how individuals perceive their approach to learning. The first statement, \"I am aware of what strategies I use when I study,\" has a mean score of 3.85, suggesting a relatively high level of awareness among respondents about their study strategies. A modest 11.76% of respondents strongly agree with this statement, while a significant majority, 61.76%, agree. This indicates that most participants are somewhat conscious of the strategies they employ during study sessions. A further 26.47% of respondents remain neutral, which could imply either a partial awareness or variability in their use of strategies. Notably, there are no respondents who disagree or strongly disagree, indicating a general consensus on the awareness of study strategies. The second statement, \"I find myself using helpful learning strategies automatically,\" presents a mean score of 3.50, slightly lower than the first statement, which reflects on the automaticity of employing learning strategies. Here, 11.76% strongly agree, and 41.18% agree, suggesting that a little over half of the respondents feel they use learning strategies in an automated manner. However, the increase in neutral responses to 35.29%, along with 8.82% disagreeing and 2.94% strongly disagreeing, indicates a more varied experience regarding the automatic application of these strategies. This could suggest that while some individuals have internalized their learning strategies to the point of automaticity, others may still be in the process of developing this skill or may not find their strategies to be as instinctual. **Table 4. Conditional Knowledge** +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Stateme | Mean | SA | A | N | D | SD | | nt | | | | | | | +=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | 1. | 4.09 | 29.41 | 52.94 | 14.71 | 2.94 | 0 | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 2. I | 3.97 | 29.41 | 44.12 | 20.59 | 5.88 | 0 | | kno | | | | | | | | w | | | | | | | | whe | | | | | | | | n | | | | | | | | eac | | | | | | | | h | | | | | | | | str | | | | | | | | ategy | | | | | | | | I | | | | | | | | use | | | | | | | | wil | | | | | | | | l | | | | | | | | be | | | | | | | | mos | | | | | | | | t | | | | | | | | eff | | | | | | | | ective. | | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ Table 4 explores respondents\' self-perceptions regarding the adaptability and strategic application of their learning strategies across different contexts. The first statement, \"I use different learning strategies depending on the situation,\" received a mean score of 4.09. This indicates a strong agreement among participants that they modify their learning strategies to fit various contexts. A significant portion of respondents, 29.41%, strongly agree with this statement, and more than half, 52.94%, agree, suggesting a widespread recognition of the importance of adaptability in learning strategies. A smaller fraction, 14.71%, remains neutral, while a very minimal percentage, 2.94%, disagrees. This distribution underscores a general consensus on the flexibility and situational application of learning strategies, with nearly all participants acknowledging some level of adaptability in their approach. The second statement, \"I know when each strategy I use will be most effective,\" has a slightly lower mean score of 3.97, reflecting a positive but slightly more reserved consensus on respondents\' understanding of the efficacy of their learning strategies. Here, 29.41% strongly agree, indicating a robust confidence among these respondents in their ability to discern the optimal use of various strategies. A further 44.12% agree, adding to the majority who feel competent in this aspect. However, there is a notable increase in neutrality (20.59%) and disagreement (5.88%), compared to the first statement. This suggests that while many respondents feel confident in their strategic adaptability, there\'s a slightly greater uncertainty or variability in their ability to judge the effectiveness of these strategies across different situations. **Regulation of Cognition** Regulation of cognition consists of five aspects: planning, information management strategies (IMS), comprehension monitoring, debugging strategies, and evaluation. **Table 5. Planning** +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Stateme | Mean | SA | A | N | D | SD | | nt | | | | | | | +=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | 1. | 3.91 | 23.53 | 50 | 20.59 | 5.88 | 0 | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 2. I | 4.06 | 23.53 | 61.76 | 11.76 | 2.94 | 0 | | thi | | | | | | | | nk | | | | | | | | of | | | | | | | | sev | | | | | | | | eral | | | | | | | | way | | | | | | | | s | | | | | | | | to | | | | | | | | sol | | | | | | | | ve | | | | | | | | a | | | | | | | | pro | | | | | | | | blem | | | | | | | | and | | | | | | | | cho | | | | | | | | ose | | | | | | | | the | | | | | | | | bes | | | | | | | | t | | | | | | | | one | | | | | | | |. | | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 3. I | 4.47 | 50 | 47.06 | 2.94 | 0 | 0 | | rea | | | | | | | | d | | | | | | | | ins | | | | | | | | tructio | | | | | | | | ns | | | | | | | | car | | | | | | | | efully | | | | | | | | bef | | | | | | | | ore | | | | | | | | I | | | | | | | | beg | | | | | | | | in | | | | | | | | a | | | | | | | | tas | | | | | | | | k. | | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ Table 5 sheds light on respondents\' approaches to planning and preparation before engaging in learning tasks or problem-solving activities. The first statement, \"I think about what I really need to learn before I begin a task,\" has a mean score of 3.91, indicating a positive agreement among respondents about the importance of identifying learning objectives upfront. With 23.53% strongly agreeing and 50% agreeing, a substantial majority of the participants acknowledge the value of setting clear goals before starting a task. However, there is a noteworthy proportion (20.59%) of neutral responses, suggesting some variability in the application of this planning strategy. A small fraction (5.88%) disagrees, indicating that not all individuals consistently engage in this preparatory step. The second statement, \"I think of several ways to solve a problem and choose the best one,\" received a slightly higher mean score of 4.06. This reflects a strong consensus on the use of strategic problem-solving among the respondents, with 23.53% strongly agreeing and a significant majority of 61.76% agreeing. This suggests that most participants are inclined to consider multiple solutions before deciding on the most effective one, demonstrating a thoughtful and reflective approach to problem-solving. Only a small percentage of respondents expressed neutrality (11.76%) or disagreement (2.94%), underscoring a widespread recognition of the importance of evaluating various options. The third statement, \"I read instructions carefully before I begin a task,\" achieved the highest mean score of 4.47, indicating an overwhelming agreement on the importance of understanding instructions thoroughly. An impressive 50% of respondents strongly agree, and 47.06% agree, revealing that nearly all participants place a high value on comprehending task requirements before proceeding. This near-unanimous agreement, with a negligible proportion of neutrality (2.94%) and no disagreement, highlights a fundamental aspect of the planning process that is widely acknowledged and practiced among the respondents. **Table 6. Information Management Strategies (IMS)** +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Stateme | Mean | SA | A | N | D | SD | | nt | | | | | | | +=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | 1. | 4.26 | 41.18 | 44.12 | 14.71 | 0 | 0 | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 2. I | 4.00 | 23.53 | 55.88 | 17.65 | 2.94 | 0 | | cre | | | | | | | | ate | | | | | | | | my | | | | | | | | own | | | | | | | | exa | | | | | | | | mples | | | | | | | | to | | | | | | | | mak | | | | | | | | e | | | | | | | | inf | | | | | | | | ormatio | | | | | | | | n | | | | | | | | mor | | | | | | | | e | | | | | | | | mea | | | | | | | | ningful | | | | | | | |. | | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 3. I | 3.94 | 23.53 | 47.06 | 29.41 | 0 | 0 | | try | | | | | | | | to | | | | | | | | tra | | | | | | | | nslate | | | | | | | | new | | | | | | | | inf | | | | | | | | ormatio | | | | | | | | n | | | | | | | | int | | | | | | | | o | | | | | | | | my | | | | | | | | own | | | | | | | | wor | | | | | | | | ds. | | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 4. I | 4.00 | 20.59 | 61.76 | 14.71 | 2.94 | 0 | | try | | | | | | | | to | | | | | | | | bre | | | | | | | | ak | | | | | | | | stu | | | | | | | | dying | | | | | | | | dow | | | | | | | | n | | | | | | | | int | | | | | | | | o | | | | | | | | sma | | | | | | | | ller | | | | | | | | ste | | | | | | | | ps. | | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ Table 6 provides insight into how respondents utilize various techniques to process and understand information effectively. The first statement, \"I consciously focus my attention on important information,\" received a mean score of 4.26, indicating a strong consensus on the deliberate concentration of attention towards critical information. A significant portion of respondents, 41.18%, strongly agree, while 44.12% agree, suggesting that the majority of participants are intentional in their focus to sift through and prioritize information. The second statement, \"I create my own examples to make information more meaningful,\" has a mean score of 4.00. This score reflects a high level of agreement that personalizing information through the creation of examples is a valuable strategy, with 23.53% strongly agreeing and 55.88% agreeing. This approach likely aids in enhancing the meaningfulness and relatability of the information, facilitating better understanding and retention. The third statement, \"I try to translate new information into my own words,\" garnered a mean score of 3.94. This suggests a positive, though slightly more varied, application of rephrasing as a tool for comprehension, with 23.53% strongly agreeing and 47.06% agreeing. The act of translation into personal language can deepen understanding by ensuring the learner actively processes the information. Lastly, the fourth statement, \"I try to break studying down into smaller steps,\" also received a mean score of 4.00, indicating a common strategy of segmenting study material into manageable parts. This method, supported by 20.59% strongly agreeing and 61.76% agreeing, highlights a widespread appreciation for the effectiveness of incremental learning. **Table 7. Comprehension Monitoring** +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Stateme | Mean | SA | A | N | D | SD | | nt | | | | | | | +=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | 1. | 4.09 | 20.59 | 67.65 | 11.76 | 0 | 0 | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 2. I | 4.18 | 32.35 | 52.94 | 14.71 | 0 | 0 | | per | | | | | | | | iodical | | | | | | | | ly | | | | | | | | rev | | | | | | | | iew | | | | | | | | to | | | | | | | | hel | | | | | | | | p | | | | | | | | me | | | | | | | | und | | | | | | | | erstand | | | | | | | | imp | | | | | | | | ortant | | | | | | | | rel | | | | | | | | ationsh | | | | | | | | ips. | | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 3. I | 3.85 | 23.53 | 44.12 | 29.41 | 0 | 2.94 | | fin | | | | | | | | d | | | | | | | | mys | | | | | | | | elf | | | | | | | | ana | | | | | | | | lyzing | | | | | | | | the | | | | | | | | use | | | | | | | | fulness | | | | | | | | of | | | | | | | | str | | | | | | | | ategies | | | | | | | | whi | | | | | | | | le | | | | | | | | I | | | | | | | | stu | | | | | | | | dy. | | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 4. I | 3.94 | 29.41 | 38.24 | 29.41 | 2.94 | 0 | | fin | | | | | | | | d | | | | | | | | mys | | | | | | | | elf | | | | | | | | pau | | | | | | | | sing | | | | | | | | reg | | | | | | | | ularly | | | | | | | | to | | | | | | | | che | | | | | | | | ck | | | | | | | | my | | | | | | | | com | | | | | | | | prehens | | | | | | | | ion. | | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ Table 7 delves into the self-reported strategies individuals employ to ensure they are understanding and effectively engaging with the material or problems at hand. The first statement, \"I consider several alternatives to a problem before I answer,\" has a mean score of 4.09. This high score signifies a strong consensus among participants on the importance of evaluating multiple solutions before settling on an answer, with a significant majority (20.59% strongly agreeing and 67.65% agreeing) indicating that this reflective practice is a common approach. This suggests that learners are taking a thorough and deliberate path in problem-solving, underscoring the value of exploring various perspectives. For the second statement, \"I periodically review to help me understand important relationships,\" the mean score slightly increases to 4.18. This indicates an even stronger agreement with the practice of regular review to grasp crucial connections within the material. With 32.35% strongly agreeing and 52.94% agreeing, the data reflects a widespread recognition of the benefits of revisiting content to deepen understanding, highlighting the role of review in effective learning. The third statement, \"I find myself analyzing the usefulness of strategies while I study,\" received a mean score of 3.85. Although this score is somewhat lower than the previous statements, it still reflects a positive inclination towards strategic self-reflection, with 23.53% strongly agreeing and 44.12% agreeing. However, a considerable proportion of respondents (29.41%) remain neutral, indicating variability in how actively learners evaluate their study strategies\' effectiveness. Lastly, the fourth statement, \"I find myself pausing regularly to check my comprehension,\" garnered a mean score of 3.94. This score suggests a good level of engagement in active comprehension monitoring, with 29.41% strongly agreeing and 38.24% agreeing. The practice of pausing to assess understanding is acknowledged by many as a valuable component of the learning process, although a notable percentage of participants (29.41%) are neutral, and a small fraction (2.94%) disagree, pointing to differences in how individuals approach this aspect of comprehension monitoring. **Table 8. Debugging Strategies** +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Stateme | Mean | SA | A | N | D | SD | | nt | | | | | | | +=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | 1. | 4.35 | 47.06 | 41.18 | 11.76 | 0 | 0 | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 2. I | 4.24 | 38.24 | 47.06 | 14.71 | 0 | 0 | | cha | | | | | | | | nge | | | | | | | | str | | | | | | | | ategies | | | | | | | | whe | | | | | | | | n | | | | | | | | I | | | | | | | | fai | | | | | | | | l | | | | | | | | to | | | | | | | | und | | | | | | | | erstand | | | | | | | |. | | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 3. I | 4.41 | 50 | 44.12 | 2.94 | 2.94 | 0 | | sto | | | | | | | | p | | | | | | | | and | | | | | | | | rer | | | | | | | | ead | | | | | | | | whe | | | | | | | | n | | | | | | | | I | | | | | | | | get | | | | | | | | con | | | | | | | | fused. | | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ Table 8 focuses on the methods individuals employ to address and rectify comprehension issues or obstacles encountered during the learning process. The first statement, \"I ask others for help when I don't understand something,\" received a mean score of 4.35, indicating a strong inclination among participants to seek external support in instances of confusion. With 47.06% strongly agreeing and 41.18% agreeing, a substantial majority of respondents recognize the value of collaborative problem-solving and the importance of utilizing external resources to enhance understanding. This approach highlights a proactive stance towards learning, where individuals are willing to reach out to others for clarification and assistance. The second statement, \"I change strategies when I fail to understand,\" has a mean score of 4.24. This score reflects a significant agreement on the flexibility and adaptability in learning methods, with 38.24% strongly agreeing and 47.06% agreeing. The willingness to adjust approaches when confronted with comprehension difficulties underscores a strategic and responsive attitude towards learning, demonstrating that learners are actively seeking more effective strategies to grasp challenging concepts. Lastly, the third statement, \"I stop and reread when I get confused,\" garnered a mean score of 4.41, the highest among the three statements. This indicates an overwhelming consensus on the effectiveness of revisiting and reviewing material as a method of addressing confusion, with 50% strongly agreeing and 44.12% agreeing. Such a strategy points to a meticulous and thorough approach to learning, where individuals are committed to deepening their understanding by carefully re-examining the content that poses challenges. **Table 9. Evaluation** +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | Stateme | Mean | SA | A | N | D | SD | | nt | | | | | | | +=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+=========+ | 1. | 4.26 | 41.18 | 44.12 | 14.71 | 0 | 0 | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ | 2. I | 3.91 | 32.35 | 32.35 | 32.35 | 0 | 2.94 | | sum | | | | | | | | marize | | | | | | | | wha | | | | | | | | t | | | | | | | | I'v | | | | | | | | e | | | | | | | | lea | | | | | | | | rned | | | | | | | | aft | | | | | | | | er | | | | | | | | I | | | | | | | | fin | | | | | | | | ish. | | | | | | | +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ Table 9 examines the reflective practices individuals engage in upon completing tasks or learning activities, focusing on their self-assessment and consolidation of learned material. The first statement, \"I ask myself if there was an easier way to do things after I finish a task,\" received a mean score of 4.26, indicating a strong inclination among participants towards post-task reflection on efficiency and potential improvements. A significant portion of respondents, 41.18%, strongly agree, and another 44.12% agree, suggesting that a majority of individuals actively engage in critical self-reflection to assess the effectiveness of their methods. This reflective practice highlights a proactive approach to learning and problem-solving, where learners seek to optimize their approaches by considering alternative strategies that may increase efficiency in future tasks. The second statement, \"I summarize what I've learned after I finish,\" garnered a mean score of 3.91. This score suggests a positive, though slightly more moderate, engagement in the practice of consolidating learning outcomes post-task. With equal percentages (32.35%) of respondents strongly agreeing, agreeing, and remaining neutral, the data indicates a diverse range of practices regarding the summarization of learned material. While a significant number of learners recognize the value of this reflective exercise in enhancing understanding and retention, the equal proportion of neutrality suggests variability in the application of this strategy. A minimal percentage (2.94%) strongly disagrees, indicating that while most see the benefit, a small fraction does not regularly engage in this practice. *The metacognitive awareness development within online learning* **Table 10. Recapitulation of Students' Metacognitive Awareness Development** **Metacognitive Awareness Development** **Percentage** ----------------------------------------- ---------------- -------- ---------- **SA+A** **N** **D+SD** Debugging Strategies 89.22% 9.80% 0.98% Planning 85.29% 16.67% 2.94% Information Management Strategies 79.41% 19.12% 1.47% Declarative Knowledge 77.94% 21.32% 0.74% Conditional Knowledge 77.94% 17.65% 4.41% Comprehension Monitoring 77.21% 21.32% 1.47% Evaluation 75% 23.53% 1.47% Procedural Knowledge 63.24% 30.88% 5.88% Table 10 provides a comprehensive overview of how students perceive their development across various aspects of metacognitive awareness. At the top of the list, \"Debugging Strategies\" received the highest approval, with 89.22% of students indicating strong development in this area. This suggests that the majority of students feel confident in their ability to identify and address learning challenges, highlighting a proactive approach to overcoming obstacles and refining understanding. The low percentage of neutrality and disagreement underscores a widespread acknowledgment of the importance and effectiveness of these strategies in the learning process. \"Planning\" follows closely, with 85.29% of students reporting strong development. This high percentage reflects students\' recognition of the value of preparatory strategies and their ability to set goals, organize tasks, and allocate resources effectively. The relatively low rates of neutrality and disagreement further suggest that planning is a well-established component of students\' learning processes. \"Information Management Strategies\" and \"Declarative Knowledge\" also show considerable development, with 79.41% and 77.94% of students, respectively, reporting positive progress. These areas focus on the effective organization, prioritization, and understanding of information, indicating that a substantial number of students are adept at managing learning content and aware of their cognitive strengths and weaknesses. \"Conditional Knowledge\" and \"Comprehension Monitoring\" have similar levels of development, with around 77% of students feeling confident in these areas. These percentages reflect students\' abilities to adapt strategies based on the context and actively monitor their understanding, respectively, essential skills for dynamic and reflective learning. \"Evaluation\" strategies have slightly lower development at 75%, suggesting that while most students engage in reflective practices post-task, there is room for growth in consistently assessing learning outcomes and processes. \"Procedural Knowledge\" has the lowest reported development at 63.24%, indicating that students feel less confident in their awareness and application of specific learning strategies. The higher rates of neutrality and disagreement in this category suggest a potential area for targeted improvement in metacognitive skill development. **Discussion** This study is aimed at exploring the EFL students' perceptions of metacognitive awareness in writing through online learning. Based on the results, it was found that knowledge of cognition had positive impacts in students' learning process of writing (Siqueira et al., 2020; Tuononen et al., 2023). In the declarative knowledge, it illustrated a confident outlook among individuals regarding their understanding of their intellectual strengths, weaknesses, and learning preferences. Dealing with procedural knowledge, the current study underscores a general awareness among individuals regarding the study strategies they employ, with a majority acknowledging a conscious understanding of their approaches to learning. In the domain of conditional knowledge, it highlights a strong inclination towards adaptive learning strategies among respondents, with a majority demonstrating awareness and application of different approaches based on situational demands. Thus, the parameters of cognition knowledge including declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and conditional knowledge were positively correlated with EFL writing performance (F. Teng, 2020). This current study also demonstrated positive views on the regulation of cognitions which was supported with a study by (Özçakmak et al., 2021) who disclosed that the pre-service teachers were capable of making predictions, planning, monitoring and evaluating about their own cognitive activities. Planning as one of regulation cognitions potrays a strong orientation towards meticulous planning on collaborative writing and strategic thinking among the survey participants as well as qualitative analyses (Chen & Hapgood, 2021). Another result on information management strategies (IMS) indicated a strategic approach to information management among learners, emphasizing focused attention, personalization of content, active engagement through rephrasing, and the breakdown of learning into smaller, more digestible steps. Related to the current study on comprehension monitoring, it viewed a proactive approach towards comprehension monitoring among learners, with strategies such as considering multiple problem-solving alternatives, periodic review, strategic analysis, and regular comprehension checks being widely recognized to develop their writing skills and become independent students (Ramadhanti et al., 2020). The current study also pointed out that debugging strategies was the most dominant metacognitive strategy as it presented a proactive and adaptive approach to debugging learning challenges among respondents. Strategies like seeking help from others, changing learning methods, and revisiting confusing sections were widely endorsed, reflecting a strong commitment to overcoming obstacles and enhancing comprehension. These debugging strategies signified an active engagement with the learning material, emphasizing the importance of flexibility, collaboration, and persistence in the learning process of academic writing (M. F. Teng, 2022). The final result of this study underscored the importance of evaluative practices in the learning process, with a strong emphasis on reflective questioning and summarization of learning outcomes. This study is in line with a study (Meinawati et al., 2021) who found that the students used metacognitive strategy in the EFL academic writing performances with different patterns. The students' activity patterns comprised planning, identifying, correcting errors, revising, rereading, monitoring, evaluating as well as information management, and debugging strategies (Rosdiana et al., 2023; M. F. Teng et al., 2022). Overall, the students' metacognitive awareness development provides a snapshot of the areas where students feel most and least confident in their metacognitive awareness development. The data highlights strengths in debugging, planning, and information management, while pointing to procedural knowledge as an area requiring further attention and support. This insight can guide educators and learners in focusing their efforts on enhancing metacognitive skills that are crucial for effective learning and problem-solving. **CONCLUSIONS** In summary, the study\'s theoretical contribution is significant in understanding how the case method facilitates the development of metacognitive awareness in online learning environments. It underscores the effectiveness of this pedagogical approach in enhancing various metacognitive skills essential for writing, such as error correction, planning, and strategy application. However, the relatively lower positive response in procedural knowledge suggests that further research and pedagogical adjustments are necessary to fully support students in applying writing strategies effectively. This insight opens avenues for future research to explore targeted interventions that can enhance procedural knowledge and overall metacognitive awareness in online learning settings. While this study contributes valuable insights into the development of metacognitive awareness in online learning environments, its limitations underscore the need for further research. By expanding the methodological approaches and exploring the intricacies of procedural knowledge, future studies can build on the current findings to enhance our understanding of how to best support students in becoming more effective and self-regulated writers. These findings suggest several practical implications for teachers and instructional designers. Firstly, there is a need to integrate more case-based learning activities into online writing courses to foster metacognitive awareness. Teachers should focus on designing cases that require EFL students to engage in planning, debugging, and information management as part of the writing process. Secondly, to address the gap in procedural knowledge, teachers should incorporate explicit instruction on the application of writing strategies, accompanied by practice opportunities in a scaffolded learning environment. This could include peer review, iterative writing assignments with formative feedback, and reflective exercises that prompt students to think about how they apply strategies in their writing. **Acknowledgments** The authors would like to thank Universitas Muhammadiyah Prof. Dr. Hamka through Institute for Research and Development that has fully provided the funding for conducting this research. **REFERENCES** Abdelrahman, R. M. (2020). Metacognitive awareness and academic motivation and their impact on academic achievement of Ajman University students. *Heliyon*, *6*(9).Anggriani, M. D., Haryanto, H., & Atmojo, S. E. (2022). The impact of problem-based learning model assisted by Mentimeter Media in science learning on students' critical thinking and collaboration skills. *International Journal of Elementary Education*, *6*(2), 350--359.Briesmaster, M., & Etchegaray, P. (2017). Coherence and cohesion in EFL students' writing production: The impact of a metacognition-based intervention. *Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura*, *22*(2), 183--202.Brooke, S. L. (2006). Using the Case Method to Teach Online Classes: Promoting Socratic Dialogue and Critical Thinking Skills. *International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education*, *18*(2), 142--149.Chen, W., & Hapgood, S. (2021). Understanding knowledge, participation and learning in L2 collaborative writing: A metacognitive theory perspective. *Language Teaching Research*, *25*(2), 256--281.Creswell, J. W. J. D. C. (2018). *Fifth edition Research Design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches* (Fifth Edit). SAGE Publications.De Silva, R., & Graham, S. (2015). The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students of different proficiency levels. *System*, *53*, 47--59.Durga, V. S. S., & Rao, C. S. (2018). Developing Students' Writing Skills in English - A Process Approach. *Journal for Research Scholars and Professionals of English Language Teaching*, *2*(6). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325489625Emblen-Perry, K. (2022). Auditing a case study: Enhancing case-based learning in education for sustainability. *Journal of Cleaner Production*, *381*, 134944.Farahian, M. (2015). Assessing EFL learners' writing metacognitive awareness. *Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies*, *11*(2), 39--51.Fareed, M., Ashraf, A., & Bilal, M. (2016). ESL learners' writing skills: Problems, factors and suggestions. *Journal of Education and Social Sciences*, *4*(2), 81--92. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20547/jess0421604201Feiz, J. P. (2016). Metacognitive awareness and attitudes toward foreign language learning in the EFL context of Turkey. *Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences*, *232*, 459--470.Goh, C. C. M., & Vandergrift, L. (2021). *Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action*. Routledge.Guess, A. K. (2014). A methodology for case teaching: Becoming a guide on the side. *Journal of Accounting & Finance (2158-3625)*, *14*(6).Guterman, E. (2003). Integrating written metacognitive awareness guidance as a 'psychological tool'to improve student performance. *Learning and Instruction*, *13*(6), 633--651.Jalok, Q., & Idris, F. (2020). Using metacognition in lowering writing anxiety and improving writing performance among low-intermediate ESL students. *International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences*, *10*(3), 733--748.Johansson-Malmeling, C., Hartelius, L., Wengelin, Å., & Henriksson, I. (2021). Written text production and its relationship to writing processes and spelling ability in persons with post-stroke aphasia. *Aphasiology*, *35*(5), 615--632.Langan, J. (2012). *Exploring writing: Paragraphs and essays*. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Li, T., Wang, W., Li, Z., Wang, H., & Liu, X. (2022). Problem-based or lecture-based learning, old topic in the new field: a meta-analysis on the effects of PBL teaching method in Chinese standardized residency training. *BMC Medical Education*, *22*(1), 221.McEvoy, P. M., Erceg-Hurn, D. M., Anderson, R. A., Campbell, B. N. C., Swan, A., Saulsman, L. M., Summers, M., & Nathan, P. R. (2015). Group metacognitive therapy for repetitive negative thinking in primary and non-primary generalized anxiety disorder: An effectiveness trial. *Journal of Affective Disorders*, *175*, 124--132.Meinawati, E., Purwaningrum, P. W., Setianingrum, H. W., Alawiyah, S., Nurmalia, L., Dewi, N., Sulistyawati, M. E. S., & Lestari, V. L. (2021). Students' metacognitive strategy pattern in english academic writing learning using zoom. *Al-Ishlah: Jurnal Pendidikan*, *13*(1), 610--616.Morari, M. (2017). Conceptual framework for non-algorithmic education in STEAM education: toward metacognitive strategies. In *Metacognition and successful learning strategies in higher education* (pp. 178--195). IGI Global.Neuendorf, K. A., & Kumar, A. (2015). Content analysis. *The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication*, 1--10.Oxford, R. L. (2011). Strategies for learning a second or foreign language. *Language Teaching*, *44*(2), 167--180.Özçakmak, H., Köroglu, M., Korkmaz, C., & Bolat, Y. (2021). The Effect of Metacognitive Awareness on Academic Success. *African Educational Research Journal*, *9*(2), 434--448.Raimes, A. (1983). *Techniques in teaching writing.* ERIC.Ramadhanti, D., Ghazali, A., Hasanah, M., Harsiati, T., & Yanda, D. (2020). The use of reflective journal as a tool for monitoring of metacognition growth in writing. *International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET)*, *15*(11), 162--187.Ramadhanti, D., & Yanda, D. P. (2021). Students' Metacognitive Awareness and Its Impact on Writing Skill. *International Journal of Language Education*, *5*(3), 193--206.Rosdiana, L. A., Damaianti, V. S., Mulyati, Y., & Sastromiharjo, A. (2023). The role of metacognitive strategies in academic writing skills in higher education. *International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research*, *22*(6), 328--344.Sato, M. (2022). Metacognition. In *The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differences* (pp. 95--110). Routledge.Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In *Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice* (pp. 3--16). Springer.Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. *Contemporary Educational Psychology*, *19*(4), 460--475.Servant-Miklos, V. F. C. (2019). The Harvard connection: How the case method spawned problem-based learning at McMaster University. *Health Professions Education*, *5*(3), 163--171.Shi, B., Huang, L., & Lu, X. (2020). Effect of prompt type on test-takers' writing performance and writing strategy use in the continuation task. *Language Testing*, *37*(3), 361--388.Siqueira, M. A. M., Gonçalves, J. P., Mendonça, V. S., Kobayasi, R., Arantes-Costa, F. M., Tempski, P. Z., & Martins, M. de A. (2020). Relationship between metacognitive awareness and motivation to learn in medical students. *BMC Medical Education*, *20*, 1--10.Stephanou, G., & Mpiontini, M.-H. (2017). Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation in self-regulatory learning style, and in its effects on performance expectation and subsequent performance across diverse school subjects. *Psychology*, *8*(12), 1941.Teng, F. (2020). The role of metacognitive knowledge and regulation in mediating university EFL learners' writing performance. *Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching*, *14*(5), 436--450.Teng, M. F. (2022). Effects of cooperative--metacognitive instruction on EFL learners' writing and metacognitive awareness. *Asia Pacific Journal of Education*, *42*(2), 179--195.Teng, M. F., Qin, C., & Wang, C. (2022). Validation of metacognitive academic writing strategies and the predictive effects on academic writing performance in a foreign language context. *Metacognition and Learning*, *17*(1), 167--190.Tuononen, T., Hyytinen, H., Räisänen, M., Hailikari, T., & Parpala, A. (2023). Metacognitive awareness in relation to university students' learning profiles. *Metacognition and Learning*, *18*(1), 37--54.Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C. M., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. *Language Learning*, *56*(3), 431--462.

Implementation Of Case Method In Virtuality PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue