الفهرس 
Significance of studyOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 130 |  |  |
| | | from | 130 | | |
Abstract
Statement of the Problem: The problem of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness of a program based on cognitive and metacognitive strategies for improving EFL Composition and reducing writing apprehension of first year secondary school students. The study answered the following question: I) To what extent did a program based on cognitive and metacognitive strategies improve first year secondary school students’ composition and reduce their writing apprehension? Hypotheses: To answer the research questions, the following hypotheses were tested: 1) There were significant differences between the pre-post tests mean scores of the experimental group on writing content at 0.05 level in favor of the post test. 2) There were significant differences between the pre-post tests mean scores of the experimental group on paragraph organization at 0.05 level in favor of the post test. 3) There were significant differences between the pre-post tests mean scores of the experimental group on the use of vocabulary at 0.05 level in favor of the post test. 4) There were significant differences between the pre-post tests mean scores of the experimental group on grammatical structure at 0.05 level in favor of the post test. 5) There were significant differences between the pre-post tests mean scores of the experimental group on the use the correct mechanics at 0.05 level in favor of the post test. 6) There were significant differences between the pre-post tests mean scores of the experimental group on the total writing score at 0.05 level in favor of the post test. 7) There were significant differences between the post test mean scores of the control and experimental groups on writing content at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group. 8) There were significant differences between the post test mean scores of the control and experimental groups on paragraph organization at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group. 9) There were significant differences between the post test mean scores of the control and experimental groups on the use of vocabulary at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group. 10) There were significant differences between the post test mean scores of the control and experimental groups on grammatical structure at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group. 11) There were significant differences between the post test mean scores of the control and experimental groups on the use of correct mechanics at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group. 12) There were significant differences between the post test mean scores of the control and experimental groups on total writing ability at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group. 13) There were significant mean differences between the experimental group pre-post applications on the total strategies questionnaire at 0.05 level in favor of the post test. 14) There were significant differences between the post applications mean scores of the control and experimental groups on the total strategies questionnaire at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group. 15) There were significant mean differences between the experimental group pre-post applications on the total apprehension questionnaire at 0.05 level in favor of the post test. 16) There were significant differences between the post applications mean scores of the control and experimental groups on the total- apprehension questionnaire at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group. Tools: The following tools were used in the present study: 1. A pre-post free composition test (with a rating s 2. A writing apprehension questionnaire. 3. A metacognitive strategies questionnaire. Sample: The sample for this study consisted of two ale). lasses: The control group (N= 39) and the experimental group (N= 39) These groups were selected randomly from first year classes in Tanta Secondary School for Girls. Throughout administering the post- test, there were some DROP outs in the two groups. So the researcher excluded the students who were absent during the experiment, and the original sample for this turned to be: The control group (N= 30) and the experimental group (N= 34). Students’ ages ranged from 14-15 years old; they have been studying English for 6-7 years; as English has been taught starting from the fourth year primary school. The subjects that were chosen for the research had 6 students who were repeating the first year secondary school. The administration of the school distributed them as such: 2 students in the control group and 4 students in the experimental group. Procedures: The following steps were carried out during the study: Administering the composition pre-test, writing apprehension, and metacognitive strategies questionnaires to both the control and experimental groups. *Teaching the proposed program to the experimental group, while the control group continued to learn first year secondary students’ book, Hello 6, in which the writing tasks are ranged between controlled and guided activities and based on cognitive strategies. Administering the composition post-test, writing apprehension, and metacognitive strategies questionnaires to both the control and the experimental groups. Analyzing the results and interpreting them. - Data Analysis: The t-test for independent samples were used to compare the students’ performance as independent groups (control and experimental). The researcher also applied The ANCOVA analysis next to the t-test in comparing the scores of the two groups, as there were significant differences in their performance at the composition pretest. Results: 1) There were significant differences between the pre-post tests mean scores of the experimental group on writing content at 0.05 level in favor of the post test. 2) There were significant differences between the pre-post tests mean scores of the experimental group on paragraph organization at 0.05 level in favor of the post test. 3) There were significant differences between the pre-post tests mean scores of the experimental group on the use of vocabulary at 0.05 level in favor of the post test. 4) There were significant differences between the pre-post tests mean scores of the experimental group on grammatical structure at 0.05 level in favor of the post test. 5) There were significant differences between the pre-post tests mean scores of the experimental group on the use correct mechanics at 0.05 level in favor of the post test. 6) There were significant differences between the pre-post tests mean scores of the experimental group on the total writing score at 0.05 level in favor of the post test. 7) There were significant differences between the post test mean scores of the control and experimental groups on writing content at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group. 8) There were significant differences between the post test mean scores of the control and experimental groups on paragraph organization at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group. 9) There were significant differences between the post test mean scores of the control and experimental groups on the use of vocabulary at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group. 10) There were significant differences between the post test mean scores of the control and experimental groups on grammatical structure at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group. 11) There were significant differences between the post test mean scores of the control and experimental groups on the use of correct mechanics at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group. 12) There were significant differences between the post test mean scores of the control and experimental groups on total writing ability at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group. 13) There were significant differences between the pre-post tests mean scores of the experimental group on the total strategies questionnaire at 0.05 level in favor of the post test. 14) There were significant differences between the post applications mean scores of the control and experimental groups on the total strategies questionnaire at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group. 15) There were significant differences between the pre-post applications on the total apprehension questionnaire at 0.05 level in favor of the post application. 16) There were significant differences between the post applications mean scores of the control and experimental groups on the total apprehension questionnaire at 0.05 level in favor of the experimental group.