Alba Gutiérrez Martínez, Yolanda Ruiz de Zarobe


La instrucción estratégica es una parte fundamental del currículo de lenguas extranjeras. Varios estudios (Wenden & Rubin, 1987; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Chamot, 2008; Cohen, 2011, entre otros) han demostrado que el uso de las estrategias de aprendizaje produce un efecto positivo en el éxito de los hablantes aunque este campo no ha estado exento de controversia (Rees-Miller, 1993; Dörnyei y Skehan, 2003; Dörnyei, 2005; Manchón, 2008; Macaro, 2006, 2007, 2010). Este estudio investiga el efecto de un entrenamiento estratégico de lectura en inglés en dos contextos educativos: AICLE (Aprendizaje integrado de contenido y lengua) e ILE (Inglés lengua extranjera) y reflexiona sobre cómo los aprendices de lenguas pueden beneficiarse de esta aproximación didáctica. Los participantes (N = 145) provienen de seis clases de dos colegios de Santander, Cantabria, una comunidad del norte de España. Una de los colegios seguía una  metodología AICLE y, el otro, no. Los grupos experimentales en ambos colegios siguieron un entrenamiento metacognitivo de estrategias de lectura diseñado siguiendo el modelo de Macaro (2001) que se centra en la conciencia metacognitiva. Los grupos controles continuaron con las clases normales. Todos los grupos realizaron pre-tests y post-tests. Los resultados demuestran que aquellos alumnos (AICLE e ILE) que siguieron el entrenamiento estratégico obtuvieron mejores resultados en la prueba metacognitva. Sin embargo, aunque el grupo experimental AICLE superó al grupo experimental ILE, no se encontraron diferencias significativas entre ellos lo que nos lleva a concluir que este tipo de entrenamiento es efectivo en ambos contextos educativos y resalta la importancia de la aproximación metacognitiva para la mejora de la comprensión lectora en la clase de lenguas extranjeras.

Strategy instruction is a fundamental part of the language learning curriculum. Several studies (Wenden & Rubin, 1987; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Chamot, 2008; Cohen, 2011, among others) have shown that the use of learning strategies produces a positive effect on learners’ achievement, although the field has not been without controversy (Rees-Miller, 1993; Dörnyei y Skehan, 2003; Dörnyei, 2005; Manchón, 2008; Macaro, 2006, 2007, 2010). Thus, the  aim of this study is to investigate the effects of a metacognitive reading strategy training in two educational contexts, CLIL and EFL, and reflect on how learners can benefit from this learning approach. Participants (N = 145) came from six intact classes from two different schools in Santander, Cantabria, a community in the north of Spain. One of the schools followed a CLIL methodology and the other did not. The experimental groups in both schools underwent a seven-week metacognitive reading training programme developed by the research team, following the model proposed by Macaro (2001) that focuses on metacognitive awareness. Control groups continued with regular classes. Pre-tests and post-tests were carried out for both control and experimental groups. As hypothesized, results indicate that those students (CLIL and EFL) that followed the strategic training obtained better scores on the metacognitive reading task than their control groups, but with no significant differences between both educational approaches (CLIL and EFL) even though the experimental CLIL group outperform the experimental EFL group. This leads us to the conclusion that this type of training is effective in both educational contexts and highlights the importance of the metacognitive teaching approach to improve reading comprehension in second language classes.

Palabras clave

CLIL, metacognitive training, primary education, AICLE, entrenamiento metacognitivo, educación primaria

Texto completo:

PDF (English)


Admiral, W.; Westhoff, G.; de Bot, K. 2006. Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation. 12 (1), pp. 75-93.

Anderson, N.J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing, Modern Language Journal, vol. 75, pp. 460-472.

Carrell, P.L., Gajdusek, L. & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading. Instructional Science, 26, pp. 97-112.

Carrell, P.L., Pharis, B.G. and Liberto, J.C. (1989). Language and power, Longman: London.

Chamot, A. U. (2001). The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition. In M. Breen (ed.) Learner contribution to language learning, pp. 25-43. Harlow: Longman.

Chamot, A.U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: current issues and research, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol.25, pp. 112-130.

Chamot, A. U. (2008). Strategy instruction and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from good language learners, pp. 266-281. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chamot, A. U. (2011). Preparing language teachers to teach learning strategies. In W.M. Chan, K.N. Chin & T. Suthiwan (Eds.) Foreign language teaching in Asia and beyond. Current perspectives and future directions, pp. 29-44. Singapore: Centre for Language Studies, National University of Singapore.

Chamot, A.U. y O'Malley, J.M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Harlow: Longman.

Cohen, A.D. & Macaro, E. (2007). Language learner strategies: thirty years of research and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy, & L. Volkmann, Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching, pp. 139-157. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Dmitrenko, V. (2017). Language learning strategies of multilingual adults learning additional languages, International Journal of Multilingualism, 14 (1), pp. 5-22.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Z. & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C.J. Doughty & M. H. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition, pp. 589-630. Oxford: Blackwell.

Griffiths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in successful language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Garipova, N. & Nicolás Román, S. (2016). Promoting reading skills in CLIL, Pulso, 39, pp. 113-124.

Hellekjær, G. O. (1996). Easy does it: Introducing Pupils to Bilingual Instruction, Språk og språkundervisning, 3, pp. 9-14.

Hellekjær, G. O. (2006). Screening criteria for English-medium programmes: a case study, In R. Wilkinson (ed.), Bridging the Assessment Gap in English-Medium Higher Education, pp. 43 – 60. AKS-Verlag.

Hu, G. (2016). Research on second language learner strategies: past, present, and future. In Y. Leung (ed.), Epoch making in English teaching and learning, pp. 306-335. Taipei: Crane Publishing.

Iwai, Y. (2011). The Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategies: Pedagogical Implications for EFL / ESL Teachers. The Reading Matrix. 11 (2), pp. 150 -159.

Koda, K. (2004). Insights into second language reading: A crosslinguistic approach. Cambridge University Press.

Kusiak, M. (2001). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on reading comprehension and metacognitive knowledge. EUROSLA Yearbook, pp. 255-274.

Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in second and foreign language classrooms, Continuum: London.

Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 90, pp. 320-337.

Macaro, E. (2007). Language learner strategies: Adhering to a theoretical framework, Language Learning Journal. 35(2) pp. 239-243.

Macaro, E. (2010). Continuum Companion to Second Language Acquisition. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Macaro, E. & Erler L. (2011). Raising the achievement of young-beginner readers of French through strategy instruction, Applied Linguistics, vol. 29, pp. 90-119.

Malcom, D. (2009). Reading strategy awareness of Arabic-speaking medical students studying English. System, 37, pp. 640-651.

Manchón, R.M. (2008). Taking strategies to the foreign language classroom: Where are we now in theory and research? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46 (3), pp. 221-244.

Marsh, D., Maljers, A. and A. K., Hartiala, (eds.). (2001). Profiling European CLIL Classrooms: Languages Open Doors. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.

Marsh, D., Coyle, D., Kitanova, St. Maljers, A., Wolff, D. & Zielonka, Br.(2005) CLIL Quality Matrix Report. European Centre for Modern Languages.

Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, pp. 102-116.

O’Malley, J.M. & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learner strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Phatiki, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance, Language testing, vol. 20., no 1, pp. 26-56.

Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: the case for balanced teaching, New York: The Guilford Press.

Rees-Miller, J. (1993), A Critical Appraisal of Learner Training: Theoretical Bases and Teaching Implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27: 679–689.

Roohani, A., Hashemian, M. & Asiabani, S. (2016). The effectiveness of strategic instruction on metacognition of learners, International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 11 (1), pp. 1-9.

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2011a). Which Language competencies Benefit from CLIL? An Insight into Applied Linguistic Research. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. Sierra & Gallardo del Puerto, F. (eds.). Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning. Berne: Peter Lang, pp. 129-153.

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. (2011b). La lectura en el aprendizaje integrado de contenidos en lengua extranjera. In La lectura en lengua extranjera, Y. Ruiz de Zarobe and L. Ruiz de Zarobe (eds), pp. 220-245. London: Portal Education.

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and Zenotz, V. (2014). Strategic instruction in primary education: A pathway to successful learning in content-based contexts. In R. Breeze, C. Llamas Saíz, C. Martínez Pasamar and C. Tabernero Sala (Eds.) Integration of theory and practice in CLIL, Rodopi.

Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. and Zenotz, V. (2015). Reading strategies and CLIL: The effect of training in formal instruction. Language Learning Journal, 43(3) pp. 1-15.

Salataci, R. and Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading, Reading in a foreign language, 14, pp. 1-17.

Sheory, R. and Mokhatari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, pp. 431-449.

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities and developing expertise: What makes an expert student? Instructional Science, 26, pp. 127-140.

Taylor, A. M., Stevens, J., & Asher, J. W. (2006). The effects of Explicit Reading Strategy Training on L2 reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. In J. Norris, & L. Ortega, (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, pp. 231–344, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Vandergrift, L. and Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: an empirical study, Language learning, 60 (2), pp. 470-497.

Wenden & Rubin (1987). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wharton-McDonald, R. & Swiger, S. (2009). Developing higher order comprehension in the middle grades, Handbook of research on reading comprehension, S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Routledge: New York, pp. 510-530.

Wolff, D. (2005). Approaching CLIL. In Project D3 – CLIL matrix. The CLIL Quality Matrix. Retrieved December 17, 2012, from the World Wide Web:

Zhang, L.J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an input-poor environment. Language awareness, 21 (1), pp. 85-100.

Zenotz, V. (2012). Awareness development for online reading. Language Awareness, vol. 21, no 1-2, pp. 85-100.

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.

Copyright (c) 2017 ELIA: Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada

Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional.

Sello de Calidad FECYT 2019