Developing Learners’ Metacognition of Planning: Pedagogical Implications for

Teaching Argumentative Writing for Indonesian Universities’ EFL Teachers

(This research proposal has been produced as a part of the assessment

for ESOL 9000B Directed Studies in Master of Arts TESOL)

Written by: Ainol Mardhiah

Supervised by: DR. Mai Ngo

Flinders University
2018

1
Table of Contents 2

1. Introduction 3-6
1.1 Context of the Study: Global, National and Local Context 3-4
1.2 Research Problem, Aim and Questions
1.2.1 Research Problem 5
1.2.2 Research Aim 6
1.2.3 Research Questions 6-7

2. Literature Review 7
2.1 Key Concepts of Metacognition
2.1.1 Key Aspects of Metacognition
2.1.2 Relationship between Metacognition and Writing
2.2 Key Concepts of Planning
2.2.1 Definition of Planning
2.2.2 Benefits of Developing Metacognition of Planning in
Teaching Writing
2.2.3 Studies Advocating for the Integration of Metacognition
of Planning in Teaching Writing
2.3 Overview of Argumentative Writing
2.3.1 Key concepts of Argumentative Writing
2.3.2 Ways to Develop Metacognition of Planning in Teaching
Argumentative Writing

3. Research Design and Methods

3.1 Research Method
3.2 Participant Sampling
3.3 Procedures
3.4 Data Analysis
3.5 Ethical Considerations
3.6 Ensuring Rigour of the Study
3.7 The Significance of the Study
3.8 The Limitations of the Study
3.9 Timeline and Budget

4. Discussion
4.1 Anticipated Findings and Possible Solution

5. Conclusion

References
Appendix

2
 Abstract

Argumentative writing is one of the critical skills that should be possessed by the
university students in order to succeed in the academic contexts. Nonetheless, many
Indonesian university students still lack control upon the structure and language features
of their argumentative essays leading to the poor quality of their writing product. It is
mentioned that such phenomenon occurs due to Indonesian EFL teachers’ inefficient
ways of teaching argumentative writing which often ignore the importance of developing
learners’ metacognition of planning. This indicates teachers’ lack of understanding about
the important role of metacognition of planning when teaching writing. Hence, this study
aims to raise the awareness of EFL university argumentative writing teachers particularly
those teaching in the non-provincial capital cities in Indonesian regarding the importance
of enhancing students’ metacognition of planning. To do so, a qualitative study exploring
the teachers’ current teaching argumentative writing practices will be undertaken at eight
universities located in the non-provincial capital cities in Aceh, Indonesia. Sixteen EFL
argumentative writing teachers will be interviewed to collect the data. The interview
results then will be transcribed and analysed using NVivo. In undertaking this study, the
ethical consideration and the limitation of the study will also be taken into account. It is
expected that the results of the study will provide meaningful pedagogical implications
for EFL argumentative writing teachers in Indonesian universities particularly for those
teaching in the non-provincial capital cities.

1. Introduction
1.1 Context of the Study: Global, National and Local Context
Argumentative writing is one of the paramount important skills that needs to be
mastered by EFL students particularly those studying in the tertiary level of education in
order to succeed in the academic settings. This genre of writing is viewed as a thinking
tool because it demonstrates one’s way of thinking, understanding, and critical thinking
about a particular discipline of knowledge (Björk & Räisänen, 1997; Javid & Umer, 2014;
Sanu, 2016). Despite its importance, the majority of EFL students encounter difficulties
when accomplishing argumentative writing tasks. Several studies conducted in the EFL
contexts reveal that many EFL university students suffer when writing argumentative
essay (Abas, 2016; Javid & Umer, 2014; Nunan, 1999; Ruan, 2014).
Similar to other EFL contexts, Indonesian EFL university students also encounter
difficulties when accomplishing argumentative writing. It has been discovered that there
are two major challenges facing Indonesian university students when writing

3
argumentative essays; students’ lack of knowledge on how to start writing and lack of
skills to generate ideas (Aunurrahman, Hamied, & Emilia, 2017; Husin & Nurbayani,
2017; Rahmatunisa, 2015; Sari, 2018; Setyowati, Sukmawa, & Latief, 2017). These
problems consequently lead to students’ lack of ability to control upon the structure and
language features of their argumentative writing implying the lack of metacognition
particularly in the aspect of planning (Husin & Nurbayani, 2017; Setyowati et al., 2017).
It is believed that such writing problems are strongly associated with the teaching
practices of EFL argumentative writing teachers (Mistar, Zuhairi, & Parlindungan, 2014;
Sadik, 2009; Setyono, 2014). Ariyanti (2016) and Sari (2018) further elaborates that the
lack of exposure from teachers on how to take control, monitor, and reflect throughout
the process of writing cause the low performance in students’ writing .
To be effective writers, the aspect of metacognition entailing planning, monitoring,
and evaluation is of utmost importance because it will allow writers to have a greater
control upon the process of writing (Macaro & Erler, 2008). Nonetheless, there are still
limited number of studies investigating the role of metacognition in developing writing
skills particularly in the EFL contexts (Ariyanti, 2016; Israel, Block, Bauserman, &
Kinnucan-Welsch, 2006; Teng, 2016). The existing literature mostly focus on the
exploration of metacognition and its effectiveness on students’ language learning.
Meanwhile, no study considers teachers’ teaching practices related to metacognition in
writing classrooms particularly in the Indonesian contexts. Thus, to fill in the gap in the
literature, this study attempts to explore the current teaching argumentative writing
practices in Indonesian universities in developing students’ metacognition of planning in
order to provide several pedagogical implications for the better teaching writing practices.
Aceh is located in the most western part of Indonesia. This province is chosen as
the target of this research. As Indonesian former minister of Education, Anies Baswedan,
mentions that limited attention and support is given to the education in the non-provincial
capital cities (USAID, n. d. ), the focus of this study will be all university with Teaching
English department in all over Aceh except the universities located in provincial capital
city, Banda Aceh. There will be eight universities involved in this study namely IAIN
Malikussaleh, Malikussaleh University, Al-Muslim University, IAIN Cot Kala, Samudera
University, STAIN Gajah Putih, STKIP Muhammadiyah, and STAIN Teungku Dirundeng.
The writing topics focusing on argumentative writing are taught in the topics of writing II
and III in semester 5 and 6. There will be approximately sixteen EFL argumentative
writing teachers from eight universities located in the non-provincial capital cities of Aceh

4
involved in this study. By doing so, it is expected that this study can represent the
portrayals of the argumentative writing teaching in Indonesian university classrooms.

1.2 Research Problem, Aim, and Questions

1.2.1 Research Problem
English has long been the concern of Indonesian curriculum since all Indonesian
student is required to learn English starting from the elementary level to the tertiary level
of education (Mattarima & Hamdan, 2011). Of skills emphasized to be mastered by
Indonesian university students is argumentative writing skill. This can be seen from the
regulation of The Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE) number
152/E/T/2012 stating that each undergraduate student should produce a good quality of
a thesis as the requirement to graduate (Wiryawan, 2014). However, several studies
investigating the quality of Indonesian undergraduate students’ thesis reveal that the
majority of students’ final thesis is still lack of control over the structure and language
features (Aunurrahman et al., 2017; Husin & Nurbayani, 2017; Indah, 2017).
Students’ lack of control upon their own writing indicates the lack of metacognition
as this aspect has a significant role in the writing process enabling students to monitor
and reflect upon their writing (Farahian, 2017; Lee & Mak, 2018). It is mentioned that
such phenomenon occurs due to Indonesian university students’ lack of skills to start
writing and generate ideas (Husin & Nurbayani, 2017; Setyowati et al., 2017). As idea
development often occurs in the stage of planning, it becomes important to develop
learners’ metacognition of planning (Flower & Hayes, 1997; Setyowati et al., 2017). In
fact, Indonesian EFL teachers are not well informed on how to teach argumentative
writing effectively (Mistar et al., 2014; Sadik, 2009; Setyono, 2014). To address the issue,
Indonesian universities’ EFL argumentative writing teachers should understand the
importance of developing students’ metacognition of planning by helping students to
develop setting goals, strategy selection, and time management skills for a greater
control upon the structure and language features of the thesis.

1.2.2 Research Aim

The aim of this research is to raise the awareness of EFL argumentative writing
teachers particularly those teaching in the non-provincial capital cities of Indonesian
universities pertaining the importance of enhancing learners’ metacognition of planning.
By achieving this aim, this research can fill in the gap as revealed in the literature which
is limited in number of studies investigating teachers’ teaching writing practices in
developing students’ metacognition of planning in Indonesian contexts.

5
1.2.3 Research Questions
In order to raise the teachers’ awareness regarding the importance of developing
learners’ metacognition of planning, it is important for them to understand the benefits of
raising students’ metacognition of planning when writing argumentative essay. As the
concept of metacognition might still new for Indonesian university EFL argumentative
writing teachers, it is then necessary to provide them with some insights and information
on how to teach writing metacognitively. Hence, to achieve the aim of the study, two
research questions are formulated as follows:
1. To what extend does metacognition of planning help Indonesian university
students when writing argumentative essay?
2. How should EFL writing teachers in Indonesia develop students’ metacognition
of planning when teaching argumentative writing?

2. Literature Review
2.1 Key Concepts of Metacognition
2.1.1 Key Aspects of Metacognition
The term of metacognition was firstly introduced by Flavell (1971) who defines it
as thinking about thinking. He further explains it as people’s ability to take control upon
their thinking process allowing them to regulate their own learning (Flavell, 1979).
Similarly, Vandergrift and Goh (2012) assert that metacognition is a process to modify,
redirect, or improve actions or ways of thinking. All these definitions imply the important
role of metacognition as a control centre to reflect on the effectiveness of learning
strategies to be used by learners when accomplishing a specific task. As a result,
metacognition can be described as one’s ability to reflect upon both their learning and
their strategies (Auerbach & Paxton, 1997). For a narrow focus, in this particular study,
metacognition will be only referred to as one’s ability to control and reflect upon their
argumentative writing.
Metacognition entails two aspects of knowledge of thinking and regulation of
thinking (Brown, 1980; Bruning, 2011). The former (knowledge of thinking) relates to
cognitive knowledge that may assist students to improve their learning processes, and
comprises three components. The first component refers to declarative knowledge
involving knowledge about ourselves as learners such as the right strategies or factors
affect our learning performances. The second component includes procedural
knowledge associating with cognitive strategies such as knowing how to implement the
strategy whereas the third component is conditional knowledge referring to knowing why

6
and when to apply the strategy. In relation to the later aspect, Bruning (2011) as well as
Jacobs and Paris (1987) assert that it typically involves the sub-aspects of planning,
regulation, and evaluation. To keep this study focused, rather than including many sub-
aspects, this study chose to focus on only the sub-aspect of planning which is significant
for students’ writing performance.

2.1.2 Relationship between Metacognition and Writing

Writing involves the implementation of a set of complex skill. Not only does writing
require one’s knowledge about specific tasks assigned, it also involves one’s linguistic
knowledge and metacognition (Flavell, 1979; Panahandeh & Asl, 2014). It has also been
discovered that one’s awareness of their metacognition results in the effectiveness of
writing which often contributes to a better writing performance (Azizi, Nemati, &
Estahbanati, 2017; Kasper, 1997; Lee & Mak, 2018). Furthermore, several studies note
that a factor that distinguishes between effective and poor writers is metacognitive
awareness (Farahian, 2017; Victori, 1999). In relation to this, Lv and Chen (2010) as well
as Macaro and Erler (2008) maintain that writers who are metacognitively aware become
more self-determining and skilful in planning, controlling, and evaluating their writing
leading to the development of writing performance. From these explanation, it can be
seen that metacognition correlates significantly with one’s writing performance as the
more aware writers of their own metacognition, the better writing they will produce.

2.2 Key Concepts of Planning

2.2.1 Definition of Planning
Several scholars make an effort to define the term planning. Galbraith and
Torrance (2004) describe planning as writers’ explicit plan before and while writing.
According to Ellis and Yuan (2004), planning refers as writers’ activity to set goals, think,
and organize ideas to facilitate the writing itself. Similarly, Limpo and Alves (2018) state
that planning relates to formulating goals of the writing task as well as developing ideas.
As one of metacognition aspects, Bruning (2011) highlights planning as writers’ activity
to set goals, select worked strategies to generate ideas, and manage time. This means
that planning involves three aspects; setting goals, strategy selection, and time
management. Regarding this, Hayes and Flower (1986) assert that goal setting is a
crucial component of planning since writing is a goal-directed activity. Writers’ ability to
choose strategies that work for them when generating ideas is another important aspect
of planning because this will assist writers to direct their attention to achieve the
requirement of writing tasks (Torrance, Thomas, & Robinson, 1999). Moreover, in order

7
to accomplish the writing tasks on time, writers need to allocate their time well. Thus,
time management is imperative in the aspect of planning (Bruning, 2011). In this study,
the definition of planning proposed by Bruning (2011) will be taken into consideration
since the study attempts to investigate a comprehensive aspect of planning when raising
Indonesian EFL teachers’ awareness regarding the importance of developing students’
metacognition of planning in teaching argumentative writing.

2.2.2 Benefits of Developing Metacognition of Planning in Teaching Writing

Benjamin Franklin once says “If you fail to plan, you plan to fail”. This quote
implies the importance and that there must be absolute benefits gained from planning.
In the case of writing, particularly, many studies suggest that there are benefits obtained
from developing students’ metacognition of planning (Abrams & Byrd, 2016; Baaijen,
Galbraith, & de Glopper, 2014; De Smet, Broekkamp, Brand‐Gruwel, & Kirschner, 2011;
Limpo & Alves, 2018). Firstly, planning provides students with a clear visualization of
their overall writing task which help them to focus on the task requirement (De Smet et
al., 2011). Similarly, Erkens, Jaspers, Prangsma, and Kanselaar (2005) state that
planning assists writers with the linearization of ideas which is extremely crucial in
argumentative writing. However, Hayes and Flower (1986) argue that planning can
hinder students’ creativity in writing as they use their initial planning too rigidly. Regarding
this, Walvoord et al. (1995) contend that such statement should not blur the fact that
planning has been consistently proved as an important and effective aspect for writing
(Walvoord et al., 1995). Instead, planning can be served as an aid for writers to adapt
the writing structure (De Smet et al., 2011). As a result, planning facilitates writers to
organize thoughts and texts in a more systematic way enabling them to revise and
coordinate the process of writing. It can be said that planning can provide students with
the overall visualization and framework of the tasks directing them to achieve the goals
of the writing.
As planning allows writers to adapt the structure of writing, it then provides the
opportunity to monitor the logical flow of writing which consequently leads to a better
piece of work. Ojima (2006) states that planning allows the activation of writers’
background knowledge facilitating better understanding of the writing organisation. This
then enables writers to make sense of their ideas by structuring the main ideas and
supporting details into logical and orderly manners when planning their tasks. Likewise,
Martínez‐Gibson (1998) notes that planning improves learners’ ability to review their own
expression of ideas which later can help them to enhance the cohesiveness of their

8
writing. Inevitably, such feasibility to oversee and evaluate the flow of their own reasoning
will affect the quality of their writing product. Not only does planning encourage students
to think about which ideas that are necessary and appropriate to be included, but it also
promotes better understanding towards the writing structure which eventually empower
students to produce a better writing (Baaijen et al., 2014). In this case, planning can
serve as an activity that helps learners to improve the cohesion aspect of their writing.
Another benefit of planning is that it promotes learners to produce a richer content
in terms of linguistic features and proposition of the writing. In relation to linguistic
features, Abrams and Byrd (2016) assert that planning have a significant effect on
students’ writing fluency and lexical richness meaning that students produce more words
and use a more complex lexical and syntactic variety. This implies the possibility for
students to develop the lexical richness of their writing through the implementation of
planning. Besides, a study comparing students who write with and without planning
reveals that those writing with planning have more effective ideas and thesis statement
reflecting their proposition throughout the essay (Ghavamnia, Tavakoli, & Esteki, 2013)
From these explanations, it can be concluded that planning facilitates students to
visualize the overall framework of tasks, write cohesively, and enrich the content of their
writing tasks. Such benefits then will enable Indonesian university students to possess a
greater control upon the structure and language features of their argumentative essay
which consequently help them to address their problems in argumentative writing.

2.2.3 Studies Advocating for the Integration of Metacognition of Planning in

Teaching Writing

Several studies have been undertaken to explore the effectiveness of

metacognition of planning in developing students’ writing competency in EFL contexts.
Wang and Han (2017) conduct an experimental study to investigate the effect of
metacognition encompassing planning, controlling, and evaluating on 65 Chinese EFL
university students’ argumentative writing tasks. By comparing the writing results
between the experimental and control groups, this study reveals that the students
receiving the intervention outperform those who do not. They further elaborate that such
result emerges because the experimental group has adopted more planning and
evaluating strategies in their writing. Similarly, another experimental study carries out by
Limpo and Alves (2018) towards 63 undergraduate students in a university in Portugal
shows the effectiveness of planning in teaching argumentative writing. The study also
finds that planning enables students to write fluently, accomplish the tasks on time, and

9
develop persuasiveness of the essay resulting in a better quality of the argumentative
writing. Furthermore, Ojima (2006) undertake a qualitative study to explore the impact of
planning in developing three Japanese university students’ writing performance. By
observing the writing classroom activities and interviewing the participants, it is revealed
that not only does planning improve students’ writing fluency, but it also facilitates them
to write in a more complex way allowing them to produce better written texts. These three
studies have confirmed on how students could gain the benefits from planning their
writing.

2.3 Overview of Argumentative Writing

2.3.1 Key concepts of Argumentative Writing

Argumentative writing is a genre of a written essay that should be mastered by

the university students. According to De La Paz (2005), argumentative writing is a written
argumentation portraying one’s critical thinking, comprehension, and problem-solving
skill. Daly (1997 as cited in Rahmatunnisa, 2004) states that this writing genre is built
around a main thesis statement underpinning the writers’ point of view which then must
be supported by convincing arguments. Therefore, argumentative writing requires the
skills of recognizing opposing argument and countering the argument in order to
convince the readers (Hillocks, 2011). Stapleton (2001) further explains that there are
several elements covered in an argumentative writing; 1) argument referring to writer’s
main premise and proposition on a topic that supported by reasons, 2) evidence entailing
assertions that can confirm and reinforce the argument, 3) acknowledgement of
opposition constituting the recognition for the counter views or interpretations, 4) rebuttal
meaning the counter statements, 5) conclusion encompassing closing statements that
writers expect readers to believe, and 6) references prompting the citation used to
support the claims. To make an argumentative essay becomes more persuasive and
convincing, these elements need to be presented when writing.

2.3.2 Ways to Develop Metacognition of Planning in Teaching Argumentative

Writing
A number of studies from EFL contexts have suggested ways to teach writing
metacognitively. A study from China, for example, recommends teachers to provide
explicit instruction regarding on how to plan an argumentative essay for the students and
integrate such practice as a year training in their teaching writing classrooms (Xiao,
2007). Another study conducted by Panahandeh and Asl (2014) in Iranian context
proposes teachers’ modelling and corrective feedback as well as continuous practice as

10
the means to develop learners’ metacognition of planning. Likewise, several other
studies from non-EFL contexts also suggest similar recommendations; verbalising the
instruction and consistent practice (Bruning, 2011; Ellis & Yuan, 2004). From all these
suggestions, it can be said that there are three major ways that can be implemented by
teachers to develop students’ metacognition of planning; providing explicit instruction,
integrating the teaching of planning into the teaching writing curriculum and assessment.
It is believed that providing students with the explicit instruction will foster their
strategy and knowledge on how to plan writing. For doing so, teachers can implicitly
model the students on the strategy used and the processes undertaken when planning
to write an argumentative essay (Panahandeh & Asl, 2014). For instance, teachers can
firstly instruct students to read and understand carefully the task requirements before
demonstrating them on how to brainstorm ideas through outlining. Simultaneously,
teachers need to verbalize the thinking process by questioning themselves what the
thesis statement of the essay is, how many main ideas should I provided, is the
supporting argument convincing enough, and so on (Ellis & Yuan, 2004). To develop
students’ automaticity on such writing strategy and process, teachers should also provide
students with the opportunity to practice planning their writing. Regarding this, Ojima
(2006)urges that students’ practice of planning should be maintained continuously, thus,
it needs to be integrated in the teaching curriculum. Furthermore, it is of utmost
importance to provide students with constructive feedbacks of their planning drafts. This
aims to enable students to monitor their own writing progress as well as to develop their
motivation and consistency for planning the writing (Panahandeh & Asl, 2014).

3. Research Design and Method

To answer the two research questions of the study (to what extend does
metacognition of planning help Indonesian university students when writing
argumentative essay? and how should EFL writing teachers in Indonesia develop
students’ metacognition of planning when teaching argumentative writing?), the semi-
structured interviews are used. Based on the results of these questions, the study then
will provide pedagogical implications for Indonesian EFL universities’ argumentative
writing teachers particularly those teaching in the non-provincial capital cities on how to
teach argumentative writing effectively so that students can have a greater control upon
the structure and linguistic features of their argumentative essay.

11
3.1 Research Method
Creswell (2002) states that research method of a study is generally determined by
the nature of the problem and the research questions. He further explains that
quantitative method often investigates the general trend obtained from the participants’
responses while qualitative method aims to explore social phenomena, experiences,
beliefs, or practices to understand a particular context better. As the two research
questions of this study tries to explore Indonesian university EFL teachers’ current
argumentative writing teaching practices, for providing answers to such questions, the
qualitative method appears to be more suitable to be employed rather than the
quantitative one. By using qualitative method, the study will provide further elaboration
regarding Indonesian EFL university argumentative writing teachers’ understanding on
importance of metacognition of planning due to the limited information provided in the
previous literature review.
The method of qualitative method used in this research is case study. Thomas
(2015) defines case study as an in-depth exploration of a particular practice,
phenomenon, or program within the real-life contexts by considering multiple
perspectives. A more specific method of case study, the multi-case design, is chosen as
the study attempts to explore sixteen Indonesian EFL argumentative writing teachers’
understanding and practices in developing learners’ metacognition of planning coming
from eight different universities within the same context (non-provincial capital cities). To
collect the data, the semi-structured interviews will be conducted. Punch and Oancea
(2014) note that interview can provide the researchers with rich information and directly
confirm one’s perspective regarding a particular issue. The data collected through the
interview from each university will then be analysed to portray cross-case analysis and
discussion.

3.2 Participant Sampling

As the study aims to raise the awareness of Indonesian non-provincial capital cities
EFL University writing teachers regarding the importance of developing learners’
metacognition of planning, it means that there is certain typicality applied when choosing
the participant. Thus, the sampling used in this study is purposeful sampling which is
usually used to choose the participants based on the specific criteria (Cohen, Manion, &
Morrison, 2002). Since the scope of the research will only cover the province of Aceh in
Indonesia, only the argumentative writing teachers teaching in non-provincial capital
cities in Aceh province whom will be invited to participate in this study. There are 8

12
universities offering the English language teaching program in the context namely IAIN
Malikussaleh, Malikussaleh University, Al-Muslim University, IAIN Cot Kala, Samudera
University, STAIN Gajah Putih, STKIP Muhammadiyah, and STAIN Teungku Dirundeng.
As it is common for Indonesian university to hire at least two argumentative writing
teachers in a university, it means that there will be 16 argumentative writing teachers
involved in the study. It is expected that having such number of participants will provide
sufficient data and information for the researcher.

3.3 Procedures
Creswell (2002) highlights that obtaining the official permission from the
gatekeepers is the very first stage that need to be done when conducting a research.
Thus, it is vital for the researcher to gain the ethic approval from the ethics committee of
Flinders University. During this process, the researcher should carefully prepare the
information sheet, consent form, and interview questions before visiting the sites.
Further, contacting the sites and participants of the study is also required to negotiate
and obtain their permission to participate in the study. Once the approval is gained, the
researcher will visit the site and meet the participants to conduct the interview.
In this study, the semi-structured interview will be carried out as this type of method
will allow the researcher and the participants to have an informal style of dialogue yet
thematic and contextual creating a more relaxed atmosphere for both parties during the
interview process (Mason, 2017). The interview will be a one-on-one interview which will
take 25-30 minutes for each participant. During the interview, the researcher will take
note and use the recording if the participant do not object to be recorded. The questions
are developed to explore the teachers’ current practices in developing students’
metacognition of planning when teaching argumentative essay. While some questions
are formulated by the researcher herself in order to address the research problem and
achieve the aim of the research, some other questions are taken from the previous
studies and the research questions. The interview questions are provided in the
appendix.

3.4 Data Analysis

Analysis of an interview is often narrative focusing on the stories revealed from the
interview and develop the structures of those stories (Vaivio, 2012). In this study, the
steps for analysing and interpreting interview as suggested by Creswell (2002) will be
used. First, the recordings will be organized and transcribed carefully into the text data.

13
If there is an ambiguity or unclear information found when transcribing, the researcher
might need to clarify it to the participant. Then, NVivo program will be used to help with
the coding and categorization found in the data. This process will enable the researcher
to develop categories and narrow down the data into a few themes. During this process,
the researcher should be critical and analytical in reviewing the data to obtain an in-depth
information. Finally, the themes identified will be re-analysed and constructed to answer
the two research questions.

3.5 Ethical Considerations

The participant’s consent, privacy, confidentiality, and safety will be taken into
account when carrying out the study. Hence, the researcher will first provide the sites
and participants with the information about what is the study about, the aim of the study,
how the interview process will be, and how the data will be used. By providing such
information, the participants then can decide whether they are willing to participate or not
in the study. Those who agree to participate will be sent a letter of consent and need to
fill and resend it to the researcher. Since this study will only focus on the research
problem and the research questions, the researcher will try to not intervene the sites’
and the participants’ privacy. Furthermore, to build trust between the researcher and
participants, the study will ensure that the participants’ identity will not be disclosed by
using anonymous rather than revealing their real identity. Also, the research should
consider the safety aspect by monitoring the sites and participants when conducting the
study so that the risks of harm can be decreased.

3.6 Ensuring Rigour of the Study

It is of importance to choose appropriate participants and data collection method
as well as avoid poor coding to ensure the rigour of a study (Cohen et al., 2002). This
study uses only interview as data collection method, which can be one of the limitations
of the study. However, using this method will allow the researcher to explore the
phenomenon in a more constructive and in-depth manners. As the study attempts to
involve many different universities from different region in non-capital provincial cities of
Aceh, it is expected that the data will reveal different perspectives to provide rich and
valid answers to the research questions of the study. Moreover, the researcher will send
the interview transcript to the participants and ask for clarification before categorizing the
findings into themes to avoid the misinterpretation of the data and confirm the validity of
the interpretation.

14
3.7 The Significance of the Study
Since there is no previous literature review considering teachers’ practices in
discussing the importance of developing learners’ metacognition of planning in
Indonesian contexts, this study can serve as a basic foundation for the next researchers
who are interested in the similar issue. Besides, the result of this study will provide
pedagogical implications for Indonesian universities’ EFL argumentative writing teachers
in non-provincial capital cities. These implications then will enable the teachers in such
context to teach argumentative writing more effectively. Although the context of the study
only focuses on the universities located in the non-provincial capital cities in Aceh
province, the practical implications of this study might also be relevant for other
Indonesian universities and even for non-Indonesian universities. As Indonesian
universities emphasises the importance of argumentative writing, this study will offer
insights for the universities’ curriculum developer for creating a better teaching writing
curriculum in the universities. Also, this study will provide recommendations for the
educational authorities in Indonesia for the reformation of national curriculum and
educational policy decision on the teaching of argumentative writing in Indonesia.

3.8 The Limitations of the Study

The first limitation of this study is its concern only on raising the teachers’
awareness on the importance of metacognition of planning. This provides an implication
for further research to consider a research concerning on raising both teachers’ and
students’ awareness related to the issue. It is also important to note that the study
focuses only on developing one aspect of metacognition, thus, a more meaningful
comprehensive practical implications in teaching argumentative writing will be achieved
if the future study attempts to address the overall aspect of metacognition. As the
methodology of this study is limited due to the limitation of time and location of the sites
which is far from one another, a more comprehensive methodology might need to be
taken into consideration when approaching this issue. Finally, the study has small
sample which only covers the province of Aceh in Indonesia. A larger sample from
Indonesian university context might be needed to obtain a more in-depth information.

15
3.9 Timeline and Budget
For the timeline and the approximate budget of the study, please refer to the
appendix II and III.

4. Discussion
4.1. Anticipated Findings and Possible Solution
It is predicted that the results of this study will show Indonesian university EFL
teachers’ lack of awareness on the importance of developing learners’ metacognition of
planning in teaching argumentative writing. This assumption appears due to the previous
findings in many EFL contexts revealing that many EFL argumentative writing teachers
are still not familiar with the concept of metacognition including the aspect of planning
(Israel et al., 2006; Teng, 2016). Besides, many previous literature investigating
Indonesian students’ argumentative writing problems find that the majority of students
encounter difficulty to control the essay structure and language features of their writing
as they are not taught on how to develop and organize ideas in writing (Aunurrahman et
al., 2017; Husin & Nurbayani, 2017; Indah, 2017; Setyowati et al., 2017).

Indonesian teaching writing focuses more on the product rather that process
leading to the absence on developing students’ metacognition.

However, there is no literature review reveals that whether teachers do not do so

due to their unawareness, lack of willingness to do so or the presence of contextual
hindrance. Therefore, this research is conducted in order to find
If this anticipated findings are true, it will provide several possible soultions for
teachers
In which they need to foster students’ skills in the aspects of establishing goals for
writing, choosing the strategy that work for them when planning the writing, and time
management.

because the previous literature findings on different EFL contexts show more
inconsistencies between teachers’ beliefs and technology integration than consistencies.
Moreover, traditional language teaching methods with a long history in this context might
have influenced the language teachers’ beliefs as Ertmer (2005) argues. However, it is
interesting to note here that whether the result shows consistency or inconsistency, a

16
possible solution to these results can be the same, and this involves changing the
teachers’ beliefs in relation to technology integration. If it is true that belief systems are
formed through experience, we can change teachers’ beliefs through experiences too
(Ertmer, 2005). To do so, Posner et al (1982, as cited in Ertmer, 2005) highlight the
importance of introducing new beliefs which can challenge teachers’ existing beliefs and
make them dissatisfied with their old beliefs. It means that teachers need to see the
benefits of the new beliefs and make judgements on their existing beliefs. Therefore, in
order to change the language teachers’ beliefs regarding effective technology
integration, which aims at creating constructive practices, carrying out a professional
development program with some specific strategies can potentially be helpful. These
strategies need to be more appropriate and practical within a specific context. In this
context, strategies need to focus especially on showing some improvements on students’
performances on tests and exams since, from the researcher’s teaching experience, it is
the main goal of language teaching and learning in this context. A professional
development program model developed by Guskey (1989) and Guskey (2002) might be
appropriate in this context. According to Guskey (2002), the ultimate aim of this
professional development program is to make changes in teachers’ classroom practices,
teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, and students’ learning outcomes. The model by Guskey
(1989) and Guskey (2002) offers the following framework: initial development training –
change in teachers’ classroom practices – change in student learning outcomes –
change in teachers’ attitudes and beliefs. In this model, Guskey emphasizes a change
in students’ learning outcomes. According to him, when teachers see some changes or
improvements in their students’ learning outcomes after introducing and implementing a
new approach or practice in their classrooms, they become committed to that new
approach or practice.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, along with the increased use of technologies in various fields, including
business, communication and trading, technological use has also dramatically increased
across educational sectors as well as within classroom practices. Although teachers use
technologies in their classrooms, previous studies show that there is a tendency that
teachers use them ineffectively in their classrooms. This study also supports the idea

17
that technology has been ineffectively used in classroom practices based on previous
literature findings and the anticipated finding of this study. The anticipated finding of this
study can particularly be explained in relation to the traditional way of language teaching
in this context which has been dominant for a long time. According to Nespor (1987) and
Rokeach (1968) as cited in Ertmer (2005) and as discussed before, belief systems are
formed through experience. Therefore, this traditional way of language teaching might
have contributed in forming language teachers’ belief systems and it might still be an
influence in their teaching practices and behaviours today. Thus, the language teachers
at NUM tend to implement more teacher-directed classroom practices because of their
belief systems even though they are familiar with constructivist and learner-centred
approaches. If the traditional way of language teaching truly forms the language
teachers’ beliefs and influences their classroom practices, it then becomes vital that
changes be made to teachers’ beliefs in relation to technology integration, where
possible.

In order to change teachers’ beliefs, introducing them to a new approach and enabling
them to practice that new approach in their classrooms are important steps to take
(Posner et al., 1982, as cited in Ertmer, 2005). In other words, as discussed above, if
beliefs are formed through experience, it can also be changed through experience too
(Ertmer, 2005). Carrying out a long-term and reflective professional development
program can potentially help change teachers’ beliefs as previous literature has
suggested (Aydin, 2013; ChanLin et al., 2006; Chen, 2008; Ertmer, 2005; Ertmer et al,
2012; Ismail et al, 2010; Judson, 2006; Kim et al, 2013; Park et al, 2009; Reza, 2014).
However, finding an appropriate professional development program for the English
language teachers at NUM becomes the next important step. Since the English language
teachers at NUM, and across educational institutions in Mongolia, aim at improving
students’ performances on tests and exams, the professional development program in
this context needs to consider this focus carefully. In other words, when the professional
development program offers the language teachers at NUM the opportunity to see the
benefits of the newly introduced approach in their students’ test performances, that
program can be more appropriate and effective in this context. The model developed by
Guskey (1989) and Guskey (2002) seems more suitable and effective in this context
because the fundamental premise of this model is to provide teachers with their students’
regular feedback which will enable them to see their students’ improvements during the

18
implementation of the new approach. When the teachers see how their students are
improving under the new approach, they might be more committed to that approach
which then might lead to changes in their beliefs toward the benefits of technology
integration.

References

Abas, H. (2016). Indonesian EFL Students' Perspective on Writing Process: A Pilot

Study. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(3), 21-27.
Abrams, Z. I., & Byrd, D. R. (2016). The effects of pre-task planning on L2 writing: Mind-
mapping and chronological sequencing in a 1st-year German class. System, 63,
1-12.
Ariyanti, A. (2016). The teaching of EFL writing in Indonesia. Dinamika Ilmu, 16(2), 263-
277.
Auerbach, E. R., & Paxton, D. (1997). “It's not the English thing”: Bringing reading
research into the ESL classroom. Tesol Quarterly, 31(2), 237-261.
Aunurrahman, A., Hamied, F. A. H., & Emilia, E. (2017). Exploring the Tertiary EFL
Students' Academic Writing Competencies Indonesian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 7(1), 72-79.
Azizi, M., Nemati, A., & Estahbanati, N. (2017). Meta-Cognitive Awareness of Writing
Strategy Use among Iranian EFL Learners and Its Impact on Their Writing
Performance. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies,
5(1), 42-51.

19
Baaijen, V. M., Galbraith, D., & de Glopper, K. (2014). Effects of writing beliefs and
planning on writing performance. Learning and Instruction, 33, 81-91.
Björk, L. A., & Räisänen, C. (1997). Academic writing: A university writing course:
Studentlitteratur Lund.
Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. Theoretical issues in
reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics,
artificial intelligence, and education, 453-481.
Bruning, R. H. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th ed. ed.). Boston: Boston
: Pearson.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education:
Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative: Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.
De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of Historical Reasoning Instruction and Writing Strategy
Mastery in Culturally and Academically Diverse Middle School Classrooms.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 139.
De Smet, M. J., Broekkamp, H., Brand‐Gruwel, S., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Effects of
electronic outlining on students' argumentative writing performance. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 27(6), 557-574.
Ellis, R., & Yuan, F. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy
in second language narrative writing. Studies in second Language acquisition,
26(1), 59-84.
Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Coordination processes
in computer supported collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior,
21(3), 463-486.
Farahian, M. (2017). Developing and validating a metacognitive writing questionnaire for
EFL learners. Issues in Educational Research, 27(4), 736.
Flavell, J. H. (1971). First discussant’s comments: What is memory development the
development of? Human development, 14(4), 272-278.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–
developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1997). A cognitive process theory of writing. Cross-talk in
comp theory, 251-275.
Ghavamnia, M., Tavakoli, M., & Esteki, M. (2013). The Effect of Pre-Task and Online
Planning Conditions on Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency on EFL Learners
Written Production. Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las
lenguas extranjeras(20), 31-43.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American
psychologist, 41(10), 1106.
Hillocks, G. (2011). Teaching argument writing, grades 6-12: Supporting claims with
relevant evidence and clear reasoning: Heinemann Portsmouth, NH.
Husin, M. S., & Nurbayani, E. (2017). The Ability of Indonesian EFL Learners in Writing
Academic Papers. Dinamika Ilmu, 17(2), 237-250.
Indah, R. N. (2017). Logical Flaws In Indonesian Students’ Argumentative Essays. KnE
Social Sciences, 1(3), 358-364.
Israel, S. E., Block, C. C., Bauserman, K. L., & Kinnucan-Welsch, K. (2006).
Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and
professional development: Routledge.
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in
definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational psychologist, 22(3-4), 255-
278.
Javid, C. Z., & Umer, M. (2014). Saudi EFL learners’ writing problems: a move towards
solution. Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE, 4-5.

20
Kasper, L. F. (1997). Assessing the metacognitive growth of ESL student writers. TESL-
EJ, 3(1), 1-20.
Lee, I., & Mak, P. (2018). Metacognition and Metacognitive Instruction in Second
Language Writing Classrooms. Tesol Quarterly.
Limpo, T., & Alves, R. A. (2018). Effects of planning strategies on writing dynamics and
final texts. Acta psychologica, 188, 97-109.
Lv, F., & Chen, H. (2010). A study of metacognitive-strategies-based writing instruction
for vocational college students. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 136.
Macaro, E., & Erler, L. (2008). Raising the achievement of young-beginner readers of
French through strategy instruction. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 90-119.
Martínez‐Gibson, E. A. (1998). A study on cultural awareness through commercials and
writing. Foreign Language Annals, 31(1), 115-139.
Mason, J. (2017). Qualitative researching: Sage.
Mattarima, K., & Hamdan, A. R. (2011). The teaching constraints of English as a foreign
language in Indonesia: the context of school based curriculum. Sosiohumanika,
4(2).
Mistar, J., Zuhairi, A., & Parlindungan, F. (2014). Strategies of Learning English Writing
Skill by Indonesian Senior High School Students. Arab World English Journal,
5(1).
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning: ERIC.
Ojima, M. (2006). Concept mapping as pre-task planning: A case study of three
Japanese ESL writers. System, 34(4), 566-585.
Panahandeh, E., & Asl, S. E. (2014). The effect of planning and monitoring as
metacognitive strategies on Iranian EFL learners’ argumentative writing
accuracy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1409-1416.
Punch, K. F., & Oancea, A. (2014). Introduction to research methods in education: Sage.
Rahmatunisa, W. (2015). Problems faced by Indonesian EFL learners in writing
argumentative essay. English Review: Journal of English Education, 3(1), 41-49.
Ruan, Z. (2014). Metacognitive awareness of EFL student writers in a Chinese ELT
context. Language Awareness, 23(1-2), 76-91.
Sadik, A. (2009). Cognitive and metacognitive writing strategies and their relations to
writing performance of EFL learners. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation).
Universitas Hasanuddin Makassar, Indonesia.
Sanu, L. O. (2016). The EFL Students' Narrative Paragraph Writing of the Second
Semester Students of State Institute of Islamic Studies (IAIN) Samarinda: a
Syntactic Analysis. Script Journal of Linguistics and English Teaching, 1(1), 36-
45.
Sari, F. (2018). Factors of Affecting the Undergraduate Students' Writing Performance
and Strategies for Improvement English Empower: Journal of Linguistics and
Literature, 3(1), 1-9.
Setyono, B. (2014). Approaches in teaching writing designed by high school English
teachers in Indonesia. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied
Research, 14(1), 477-494.
Setyowati, L., Sukmawa, S., & Latief, M. A. (2017). Solving the Students’ Problems in
Writing Argumentative Essay Through the Provision of Planning. Celt: A Journal
of Culture, English Language Teaching & Literature, 17(1), 86-102.
Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university
students: Insights about assumptions and content familiarity. Written
communication, 18(4), 506-548.
Teng, F. (2016). Immediate and delayed effects of embedded metacognitive instruction
on Chinese EFL students’ English writing and regulation of cognition. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 22, 289-302.
Thomas, G. (2015). How to do your case study: Sage.

21
Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J. (1999). Individual differences in the
writing behaviour of undergraduate students. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 69(2), 189-199.
USAID. (n. d. ). Reflections on Education in Indonesia. Retrieved from
http://www.prestasi-iief.org/index.php/english/feature/68-reflections-on-
education-in-indonesia
Vaivio, J. (2012). Interviews–Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing:
Taylor & Francis.
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening:
Metacognition in action: Routledge.
Victori, M. (1999). An analysis of writing knowledge in EFL composing: A case study of
two effective and two less effective writers. System, 27(4), 537-555.
Walvoord, B. E., Anderson, V. J., Breihan, J. R., McCarthy, L. P., Robison, S. M., &
Sherman, A. K. (1995). Functions of outlining among college students in four
disciplines. Research in the Teaching of English, 390-421.
Wang, Z., & Han, F. (2017). Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive control of
writing strategy between high-and low-performing Chinese EFL writers. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, 7(7), 523-532.
Wiryawan, K. G. (2014). The current status of science journals in Indonesia. Science
Editing, 1(2), 71-75.
Xiao, Y. (2007). Applying metacognition in EFL writing instruction in China. Reflections
on English Teaching, 6(1), 19-33.

Appendix I
Interview Questions

1. Jhkjk
2. 2,nnk

Appendix II
Timeline of the Study

22
Appendix III
The Budget of the Study

23