Copyright © 2018 Authors. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7 (4.38) (2018) 1034-1038 International Journal of Engineering & Technology Website: www.sciencepubco.com/index.php/IJET Research paper Expert Views on Metacognitive Strategies for Arabic Language Learning: An Application of the Fuzzy Delphi Method Nik Hanan Mustapha 1 , Nurazan Mohmad Rouyan 2 , Nik Farhan Mustapha 3 , Nadwah Daud*, Kamarul Shukri Mat Teh 4 1 International Islamic University Malaysia, Malaysia 2 Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Malaysia 3,4 Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia Abstract The purpose of this paper is to seek expert opinion on the importance of each of the metacognitive strategies. It uses the Fuzzy Delphi Method which is a scientific analysis technique to obtain expert consensus on a particular issue. In this paper, ten experts in the field of Arabic language teaching from five public universities in Malaysia participated to rank the importance of nine metacognitive strategies from the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Oxford, 1989). Findings indicate that they agree on the importance of the know-how knowledge, superiority of planning over monitoring and evaluation as well as the need to be aware on how fluent speakers perform. This paper concludes with a discussion on the experts’ ranking in the light of Arabic language learning. Keywords: Language learning strategy, metacognitive strategies, Arabic language, Fuzzy Delphi Method 1. Introduction In the past five decades, the language learning strategy (LLS) has been one of major concerns in the learning and teaching of first, second or foreign languages. It refers to various approaches under- taken by language learners in order to overcome difficulties while mastering all language skills: listening, reading, writing and speaking. It is a powerful and effective aid for learners which consequently increases language competency and heightens confi- dence level. 1 Studies on the LLS have dealt with individual types of strategies employed by learners: strategies for certain language skills, rela- tionship between the LLS and other variables such as level of proficiency, gender, learning styles, creative thinking and motiva- tion, as well as assessment on the effectiveness of the LLS instruc- tions. Nonetheless, among all types of LLS, it is the metacognitive strategies that have received more attention than others. 2 This is attributed to the fact that metacognitive is “thinking about think- ing” 3 which plays a vital role in language learning and governs the operation of other strategies. Thus, learning awareness is largely an immediate attribution of metacognitive processes among learners. Though much has been discussed on how learners of Arabic use the metacognitive strategies in learning, 4-6 an aspect yet to be explored is the views of teachers and lecturers of Arabic on the importance of each component in the metacognitive strategies. Do they view each item with equal magnitude or are some items supe- rior than others in terms of their effect on language learning? Such views are extremely significant in selecting the most efficient LLS for learners according to the different learning contexts, as well as determining effective practices in module development. Though no single strategy fits all learners in all situations, 7 the role of Arabic instructors with their vast expertise in facilitating students to overcome their learning problems is worth being considered. Based on this premise, this paper explores the consensus on expert opinion on the level of importance of each metacognitive strategy based on the taxonomy by Oxford 1 . To achieve its objective, it applies the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM), a method of systematic analysis on expert decision which has been widely used in various fields of research. 2. Review of literature Metacognitive strategy is part of the bigger picture of LLS. As early as 1975, Rubin has clearly referred to metacognitive as com- prising two elements: monitoring of the speaking skill and evalua- tion of the speech of others. 8 Though she did not use the term metacognitive, her observation has concluded on the importance of the metacognitive aspect for good language learners. The term monitoring is also being used by Naiman, Frohlich, Stern and Todesco in a later study. 9 O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper and Russo are the first to explicitly use the term ‘metacognitive’ as part of the LLS. 10 Other components in their taxonomy are cognitive and socioaffective while the subcomponents of the metacognitive strategy are planning, monitoring and evaluation. Two years later, Wenden and Rubin grouped the metacognitive strategy together with the cognitive strategy under direct strategies. 11 However, Oxford viewed the classification differently and established the Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL). She separates the cognitive from the metacognitive strategies. The former is part of direct strategies whereas the latter is placed under indirect strat- egies, based on the consideration that this ‘thinking about think- ing’ controls the operation of direct strategies throughout the dif-