9. Marco conceptual y teórico

Qué pide esta sección

El formato de la universidad pide las perspectivas teóricas que orientan tu proceso, el estado del arte nacional y mundial, las brechas y vacíos, y cómo contribuye tu proyecto. El libro guía añade tus supuestos teóricos escritos como «Asumo que… (Autor, año)», cada uno conectado con un objetivo. Nunca cites algo que no hayas leído.

Cómo trabajar este borrador

Todo lo que está en recuadros 🤖 lo escribió una IA a partir de tus notas. No es tuyo todavía. Reescríbelo con tus palabras fuera del recuadro y, cuando lo hayas hecho, borra el recuadro 🤖 o cámbialo a [!revisado] si solo lo editaste. Lo que escribas fuera de los recuadros cuenta como tu voz. Tu versión (9.1 State of the Art and Research Gap, 9.2 Conceptual Framework, 9.3 Theoretical Framework) va justo abajo; el borrador IA no la repite, la complementa.

Tu versión de agosto

Tu texto · propuesta original (30 ago 2026)

9.1 State of the Art and Research Gap

Research on metacognitive strategies in EFL learning consistently shows that planning, monitoring, and evaluation help learners become more aware of their learning process. Ishak et al. (2025) explain that metacognitive strategies contribute to learning outcomes, educational efficiency, self-regulation, and critical thinking. Similarly, Talok et al. (2023) identify planning, monitoring, and self-evaluation as essential strategies for autonomous EFL learning. These studies suggest that metacognition helps learners move from passive task completion toward more conscious regulation of their academic work.

However, a contextual limitation remains in the literature. Several studies focus on higher education, distance education, technology-supported environments, or contexts with stronger institutional support. Although these contributions help explain the relationship among metacognitive strategies, self-regulation, and learner autonomy, they do not fully show how planning, monitoring, and self-evaluation can be implemented during regular lessons in a rural secondary EFL classroom. This gap is central to the present proposal because La Esperanza Rural School represents a context where autonomy must be examined through guided classroom practice rather than assumed as an existing condition.

9.2 Conceptual Framework

Metacognition refers to learners’ awareness and regulation of their own learning processes. In language learning, this means that students do not only complete tasks, but also think about how they approach them, what difficulties they face, and what decisions they can make to improve. For this study, metacognition is relevant because the central problem is not only limited English performance, but limited awareness of how to manage the learning process.

Metacognitive strategies are the practical expression of metacognition. They translate awareness into concrete actions that learners can apply before, during, and after classroom tasks. In this study, the selected strategies are planning, monitoring, and self-evaluation. Planning helps students prepare for a task, identify goals, and anticipate difficulties. Monitoring allows them to check their understanding and performance while working. Self-evaluation helps them reflect on what they achieved and what they need to improve.

Additionally, Learner autonomy is understood as the capacity to take responsibility for one’s own learning. Cotterall (2008) explains that autonomous learners can set goals, select strategies, and evaluate their progress. This definition is particularly useful because it connects autonomy with metacognitive action. Students become more autonomous not simply by working alone, but by learning how to make informed decisions about their learning process.

On the other hand, pedagogical mediation refers to the teacher’s intentional support in structuring learning experiences that help students move toward greater autonomy. In this study, mediation is necessary because students are not expected to develop metacognitive awareness without guidance. The teacher provides models, prompts, examples, and opportunities for reflection so that learners can progressively assume more responsibility for their learning.

9.3 Theoretical Framework

Schön (1998) contributes to this discussion through the idea of reflection in action. Although his work focuses broadly on reflective practice, it is useful for understanding learning as a process in which individuals evaluate and adjust their actions while they are engaged in practice. In the EFL classroom, this perspective helps explain why students need opportunities to stop, think, revise, and make decisions during learning tasks. Without this reflective dimension, learning may remain mechanical and dependent on external instruction.

Suharto et al. (2025), Wang et al. (2025), and Talok et al. (2023) show that metacognitive strategies can support learning outcomes, reflection, self-regulation, and autonomous behaviors in EFL contexts. These studies are important because they demonstrate that students can become more strategic when they receive explicit guidance. However, the present research proposal does not assume that strategy use will appear automatically. It proposes that students need structured and repeated classroom opportunities to practice these strategies.

In the context of La Esperanza Rural School, learner autonomy must be approached carefully. Many students have not had enough opportunities to develop independent study habits, and their learning environment often reinforces dependence on teacher direction. Therefore, autonomy cannot be demanded as if it were already present. It must be cultivated through guided experiences that help students understand what to do, how to do it, and how to evaluate their own progress.

This perspective is consistent with Rojas et al. (2025), Villamil & Arcila (2025), and Delgado (2024), who emphasize the connection between metacognitive strategies, self-regulation, and autonomous learning. In this study, learner autonomy is not seen as an isolated psychological trait. It is understood as a gradual, contextual, and pedagogically mediated process.

Monsalve (2020) highlights the relevance of teacher mediation and instructional design in promoting EFL autonomous learning. Additionally, Delgado (2024) also shows that structured support for self-regulated learning can contribute to language learning and autonomy. These perspectives are important because they challenge the idea that autonomy means learning without the teacher. In this proposal, the teacher is not absent; rather, the teacher’s role changes gradually.

During the four-week intervention, the teacher will initially act as a stronger mediator by modeling planning, monitoring, and self-evaluation and explaining how students will use the metacognitive learning record in English. As the cycle progresses, direct support will be reduced so that students can make more decisions about goals, time, strategies, difficulties, and evidence of achievement. In the final stage, the teacher will act as a reflective facilitator and will compare students’ decisions, learning behaviors, and reflections with the initial characterization. This gradual shift is central to the proposal because pedagogical mediation is expected to create opportunities for greater responsibility without assuming in advance that all students will respond in the same way.

The theoretical foundation of this research proposal rests on the connection among metacognition, metacognitive strategies, learner autonomy, and pedagogical mediation. Metacognition explains the reflective awareness students need to understand their own learning process. Metacognitive strategies turn that awareness into classroom actions. Learner autonomy represents the expected development of responsibility and self-regulation. Pedagogical mediation provides the support needed for students to move gradually toward that development.

This framework supports the qualitative action research design because the research proposal seeks to understand and improve a real classroom situation. It also provides a coherent basis for the intervention, since planning, monitoring, and self-evaluation are not treated as isolated activities but as structured opportunities for students to practice autonomy. In this way, the literature justifies both the research problem and the pedagogical response proposed for ninth-grade EFL students at La Esperanza Rural School.

Borrador IA para complementar tu marco

9.1 Metacognición: planear, monitorear y autoevaluar

Borrador IA · Claude Opus 5.5 · 17 oct 2026 · pendiente de reescribir

In this study, metacognition is understood as the regulation of one’s own learning. Wongdaeng and Higgins (2022) distinguish metacognitive knowledge from metacognitive regulation and place planning, monitoring, and evaluation within the latter (pp. 796-797). According to their review, knowing the terms is not enough; what matters most is regulating one’s skills through planning, monitoring, and reflection (p. 805). Learners therefore need ample opportunities to exercise these strategies, not only explanations about them (p. 806).

Teng et al. (2022) offer operational definitions of the three processes. Planning is the ability to apply appropriate strategies and resources to a task. Monitoring is keeping track of one’s performance and goal achievement. Evaluating is assessing one’s regulatory processes and learning outcomes (p. 2). In their factor analysis, the three processes emerged as distinct factors grouped under a general self-regulation factor (p. 7). This allows planning, monitoring, and self-evaluation to be treated as separate categories without losing sight of their relationship.

Each strategy can be linked to concrete classroom practices. In Agudelo-Correa’s (2021) study, planning was taught through goal setting and self-questions, monitoring through support sheets and graphic organizers, and evaluation through self-checklists and peer correction (pp. 98-106). The author recommends incorporating strategies in the normal course of a class rather than as an additional activity (p. 114). Self-assessment is the procedure by which learners evaluate their own skills and knowledge (Ebrahimi et al., 2021, p. 2). It allows them to check whether a product responds to the task and to the goals set at the beginning (Agudelo-Correa, 2021, p. 114).

Observing these strategies requires caution. Habók et al. (2022) review the criticism that the quantity of reported strategies does not equal the quality of their use (p. 4). In their sample, learners with higher English grades reported more strategy use in all domains (pp. 1, 7). For this study, this means attending to how each learner plans, monitors, and evaluates across the cycle, rather than to how many strategies each one reports.

Te falta

• Lo que ya cubre tu versión. Tu 9.2 (Conceptual Framework) define metacognición y estrategias metacognitivas en sus dos primeros párrafos, pero sin ningún autor. El borrador IA aporta esas definiciones con cita y página; úsalas para sostener tus párrafos, no para duplicarlos.
• Teoría de base de metacognición. Zhang y Xi (2022) y Wongdaeng y Higgins (2022) remiten a Flavell. Léelo antes de citarlo.
• La tríada como estrategias enseñables viene de O’Malley y Chamot (1990), según Agudelo-Correa (2021) y Talok et al. (2023). Álvarez Ayure et al. (2018) se apoyan en Anderson (2002). Lee al menos una fuente original.
• Páginas de Teng et al. (2022). Tu PDF es un preprint; verifica las páginas en la versión publicada: Teng et al. (2022).
• Decide si «establecer metas» va dentro de planeación. Zhang y Zou (2022) la tratan como estrategia aparte (p. 724). Tu Registro ya pide metas; dilo en el texto.

9.2 Autorregulación y mediación del docente

Borrador IA · Claude Opus 5.5 · 17 oct 2026 · pendiente de reescribir

Self-regulation provides the cycle that orders the three strategies in time. Chen (2022) describes it as a process of goal setting, monitoring, strategy use, and goal revision, organized in three phases: forethought, performance, and self-reflection (pp. 1-2). Jawneh (2026) matches these phases with planning, monitoring, and evaluation (p. 2). In Zhang and Zou’s (2022) review, metacognitive strategies were the most researched in self-regulated second language learning, particularly self-monitoring and planning (p. 731).

Regulation does not emerge on its own. Suharto et al. (2025) state that the ability to reflect critically on learning does not emerge naturally for all learners, so teachers must prompt and support it (p. 334). Jawneh (2026) cautions against placing the entire responsibility for learning on students without the necessary support and guidelines (p. 1). Hernández Gaviria and Ramirez (2024) report that some students left goal setting to the teacher, while others graded themselves to please the teacher (pp. 85-86). The authors therefore advise teaching these strategies explicitly, and they recommend working with no more than three at a time because more tend to overwhelm students (p. 84).

The teacher’s mediation changes over the process. In Zhang and Xi (2022), the teacher moved from providing knowledge and strategies to acting as a collaborator and counselor, and withdrew support in time to make room for self-regulation (p. 94). The authors describe this as a shift from other-regulation, embodied in the teacher’s hints and questions, to self-mediation through self-questioning and self-reflection (p. 103). Suharto et al. (2025) show a concrete form of this mediation: instead of correcting, the teacher returned the question (“Are you sure?”) and opened space for self-monitoring and self-correction (pp. 343-344).

Teacher support has a limit. Zhang and Zou (2022) note that blending instruction into regular language courses was widely recommended (p. 741), but warn that if teachers stay at the center of learning, students may remain unaware of the value of self-regulation (p. 743). The review reports students who expected the teacher to provide materials, goals, and corrections (p. 739). This tension between support and dependence gives meaning to the category of teacher dependence.

Te falta

• Lo que ya cubre tu versión. Tu 9.2 define mediación pedagógica y tu 9.3 describe bien cómo retirarás el apoyo durante las cuatro semanas. Eso es tuyo y está bien pensado. Lo que no tiene es respaldo: el borrador IA te da Zhang y Xi (2022) y Suharto et al. (2025) para sostener ese retiro gradual.
• Autores de tu versión sin nota. Citas a Schön (1998), Monsalve (2020) y Delgado (2024). Verifica que los leíste; si no, sácalos o léelos y haz su nota.
• Teoría de base de autorregulación. Jawneh (2026) y Habók et al. (2022) citan a Zimmerman; Zhang y Zou (2022) resumen a Pintrich, Zimmerman y Winne y Hadwin (p. 722-723). Lee al menos a Zimmerman antes de citarlo.
• De dónde viene «regulación por otro» y «automediación». Es el marco de evaluación dinámica de Zhang y Xi. Rastrea en sus referencias la fuente teórica antes de usar esa idea como tuya.
• Año de Zhang y Zou. Su portada dice 2024 y la edición en línea 2022; elige uno y sé consistente.

9.3 Autonomía del aprendiz

Borrador IA · Claude Opus 5.5 · 17 oct 2026 · pendiente de reescribir

Learner autonomy has no single definition. Chong and Reinders (2025) reviewed 61 empirical studies and found widely different frameworks, most of them without an explicit theoretical basis (pp. 624-625). Early definitions view autonomy as a capacity; later ones translate it into behaviors that can be demonstrated inside and outside the classroom (p. 617). The same authors note that the boundaries between autonomy, self-regulation, and metacognition remain blurred (p. 608). Zhang and Zou’s (2022) review draws a distinction: autonomy covers four dimensions (location, formality, pedagogy, and locus of control), whereas self-regulation focuses on the last one, the control of learning decisions (p. 721).

Several recent definitions connect autonomy with the metacognitive triad. For Soliman and Gorospe (2024), autonomy exists when students take control and responsibility for what and how they learn (p. 331), and its metacognitive dimension is defined as planning, monitoring, and evaluating (p. 341). Suharto et al. (2025) define it as the capacity to make decisions about goals, materials, and strategies, and to monitor and reflect on outcomes (p. 334). Alrabai (2021) summarizes that models of autonomy agree on choice, control over learning, metacognition, and goals (p. 3). In his study, perceived choice was the strongest predictor of autonomy, and metacognition made no unique contribution (pp. 10-12).

Three features of autonomy guide this study. It is gradual: learners exposed to similar training may reach different levels of autonomy (Nunan, 1997, as cited in Álvarez Ayure et al., 2018, PDF p. 5). It is built through instruction rather than inherited (Jawneh, 2026, p. 1), and its deep changes do not happen overnight (Chong & Reinders, 2025, p. 625). It can also be confused with responsibility: Ramírez (2018) found university students who considered themselves autonomous because they attended class, submitted work on time, and did what was asked (p. 19).

This study takes the route of observable behavior. Chong and Reinders (2025) argue that the capacity for autonomy cannot be evaluated in itself, but observable behaviors can be researched as an indication of it (p. 608). Autonomy is therefore described through three categories. Decision making draws on the weight of choice (Alrabai, 2021, pp. 10-11). Teacher dependence draws on the idea that teachers must grant some of their power to students (Alrabai, 2021, p. 3) and on low-strategy-use learners who said they would engage with strategies only upon the teacher’s specific directions (Marenco Domínguez et al., 2024, p. 2745). Initiative draws on behaviors such as practicing before receiving instructions (, p. 30). A self-assessment checklist captures perceived autonomy, as in most studies reviewed by Chong and Reinders (2025, pp. 622-623).

Te falta

• Lo que ya cubre tu versión. Tu 9.2 define autonomía solo con Cotterall (2008) y tu 9.3 la describe como «gradual, contextual y mediada» citando a Rojas et al. (2025), Villamil y Arcila (2025) y Delgado (2024). Ninguno de ellos tiene nota en tu vault: verifica que los leíste. El borrador IA aporta lo que falta: el debate capacidad frente a conducta y cómo se traducen tus tres categorías de autonomía en conductas observables.
• Tu definición de autonomía. Álvarez Ayure et al. (2018) citan a Little (1991); Agudelo y Morales Vasco (2019) revisan a Little, Holec y Benson; Chong y Reinders (2025) ordenan a Holec, Benson, Little, Nunan y Littlewood. Elige una vía (capacidad o conducta) y lee la fuente original antes de citarla.
• Los cinco niveles de autonomía. Si los usas para ubicar a tus estudiantes, vienen de Nunan (1997), adaptado por Álvarez Ayure et al. Lee a Nunan y cítalo como adaptación.
• Teoría de la autodeterminación. Alrabai (2021) remite a Deci y Ryan. Úsala solo si la lees.
• Iniciativa. Es la categoría con menos respaldo en tus notas. Escribe con tus palabras qué conducta contarías como iniciativa.

🎙️ Reflexión de voz · reflexión #18 · sobre nota-chong2022 · 09:30

(Reflexión de muestra) En el sitio real aquí aparece la transcripción de lo que el estudiante grabó sobre esta lectura o sección.

🎙️ Reflexión de voz · reflexión #20 · sobre nota-nguyen2013 · 11:01

(Reflexión de muestra) En el sitio real aquí aparece la transcripción de lo que el estudiante grabó sobre esta lectura o sección.

🎙️ Reflexión de voz · reflexión #21 · sobre nota-nguyen2013 · 11:04

(Reflexión de muestra) En el sitio real aquí aparece la transcripción de lo que el estudiante grabó sobre esta lectura o sección.

🎙️ Reflexión de voz · reflexión #22 · sobre nota-alrabai2021 · 11:45

(Reflexión de muestra) En el sitio real aquí aparece la transcripción de lo que el estudiante grabó sobre esta lectura o sección.

9.4 Estado del arte mundial

Borrador IA · Claude Opus 5.5 · 17 oct 2026 · pendiente de reescribir

Three studies integrate the metacognitive triad into regular English lessons with school learners. Jawneh (2026) explicitly taught planning, monitoring, and evaluation for 12 weeks to grade 12 students in The Gambia, using weekly goals, checklists, reflection journals, and self-assessment rubrics (pp. 2-3). The qualitative analysis yielded three themes: strategic awareness, self-correction, and proactive planning (p. 3). Suharto et al. (2025) used a Plan-Do-Review cycle with 18 fourth graders in Indonesia over seven weeks and 18 sessions (pp. 336-338). At first, reflection answers were very general, and the review phase added about ten minutes per lesson (pp. 345-346). Zhang and Xi (2022) integrated metacognitive instruction into the English writing of one class of 32 seventh graders, compared with a control class of 32, at a rural middle school in China, one hour per week for 12 weeks (pp. 91-97).

These studies offer ways to organize practice and behaviors to code, but they have design limits. Jawneh (2026) reports only mean gains, standard deviations, and p < .05, without test statistics, effect sizes, or reliability (p. 3). Suharto et al. (2025) worked with a single teacher in a single school, without long-term follow-up (p. 347). Zhang and Xi (2022) acknowledge that the teacher was also the researcher, which may have biased the findings (p. 103). None of them is Latin American, and all lasted longer than four weeks.

Another line relates self-assessment or autonomy-supportive teaching to adults’ autonomy, measured through questionnaires and, in Alrabai’s case, also through classroom observation. Ebrahimi et al. (2021) compared self-assessment, peer-assessment, and control groups with 120 Iranian adults and collected data only through questionnaires (pp. 4-6, 10). Alrabai (2021) worked with 62 Saudi university students for 12 weeks and acknowledges that all participants were adults (pp. 5, 13). Their populations are far from a rural secondary school.

Surveys in secondary education describe a medium level of strategy use. Jie and Xiaolan (2022) found a mean of 3.01 out of 5 among 496 rural Chinese students, with planning as the lowest dimension (p. 22). Among 150 Filipino grade 12 students, the metacognitive dimension was the lowest of the autonomy dimensions (Soliman & Gorospe, 2024, p. 345). These are cross-sectional self-report studies; they describe associations, not classroom processes.

Syntheses confirm that secondary education is underrepresented. Chong and Reinders (2025) found only five secondary-level and four qualitative studies among 61 (pp. 613-615), and observation was rare (pp. 622-623). In Chen’s (2022) meta-analysis, only one of 16 studies was conducted in secondary school (p. 9). Wongdaeng and Higgins (2022) included only higher education (p. 799) and state that a firm conclusion cannot be drawn from their results (p. 802). Chen (2022) also offers a point on duration: weeks of intervention did not moderate any outcome, whereas weekly frequency moderated all three and total hours moderated strategy use and self-efficacy (pp. 10-11).

Te falta

• Lo que ya cubre tu versión. Tu 9.1 apoya el estado del arte en Ishak et al. (2025) y Talok et al. (2023). Ishak et al. no tiene nota: verifica que lo leíste. Talok et al. (2023) es un autorreporte de 40 universitarios sin intervención; no sostiene que esas estrategias sean «essential» para la autonomía. El borrador IA lo deja fuera y aporta los estudios de secundaria que tu versión no tiene.
• Suharto et al. (2025), bien citado. En tu 9.3 dices que muestra «learning outcomes». No es así: es una investigación-acción cualitativa en primaria, sin medición de resultados. Además, tu referencia tiene coautores y revista errados; corrígela con la de Suharto et al. (2025).
• La fuente de Jawneh (2026). Cuatro páginas, sin limitaciones ni ética. Verifica la indexación de la revista: Jawneh (2026).
• Tus horas reales. Con Chen (2022) calcula cuántas sesiones y horas suman tus cuatro semanas.
• Tu búsqueda declarada. Estos antecedentes salen de tu ruta de lectura. Declara bases, ecuaciones y criterios. Wang et al. (2025), que citas, no tiene nota: verifica que lo leíste.

9.5 Estado del arte nacional: Colombia y la escuela rural

Borrador IA · Claude Opus 5.5 · 17 oct 2026 · pendiente de reescribir

English teaching in Colombian rural schools faces structural conditions. Fandiño-Parra et al. (2025) recall that the 1994 General Education Law made English compulsory, but its application in rural areas has been limited (p. 157). They identify a shortage of qualified teachers, scarce resources, little exposure to English, and a mismatch between standardized curricula and rural realities (p. 160). According to Cruz Arcila (2018, p. 66), citing MEN data from 2016, English policy concentrated its efforts on 350 schools located almost exclusively in urban centers. Case studies in Quindío, Boyacá, and Cundinamarca describe multigrade classrooms, limited connectivity, and scarce materials (Garcia Botero & Reyes Galeano, 2022, pp. 49-52; Ortiz García & Contreras Pinilla, 2023, pp. 16-18). These works study policies and teachers and do not report student data.

Colombian classroom research already connects strategies and autonomy. The closest study is Álvarez Ayure et al. (2018), who trained 30 eighth graders at A1 level from public schools in Bogotá and Ibagué to plan, monitor, and evaluate. On a five-level scale, nine students remained dependent and only two reached the fourth level (PDF p. 12). The authors acknowledge a small sample, no control group, and a short duration (PDF pp. 15-16). Agudelo and Morales Vasco (2019) conducted action research with tenth graders at a state school in Nilo, where almost half of the students lived in rural areas. Their intervention was project-based learning, not the triad, and their emerging categories were responsibility, motivation, working with others, confidence, and awareness (pp. 38-41).

Studies with university students provide indicators. Agudelo-Correa (2021) worked with the triad in writing and linked peer correction with relying more on classmates than on the teacher (p. 112). In Ramírez (2018), after one semester, goal setting rose from 3% to 89%, whereas the absence of self-monitoring and self-evaluation went from 79% to 84% (pp. 18-19). The author attributes this to monitoring and evaluation being traditionally seen as the teacher’s responsibility (p. 19). In urban secondary schools, Marenco Domínguez et al. (2024) report, for two public secondary schools in Bogotá, a medium use of metacognitive strategies, with organizing a study schedule among the least used items (M = 2.65; p. 2742).

Te falta

• Dato de magnitud. Ninguna de tus notas trae cifras del inglés rural; Fandiño-Parra et al. (2025) no las tiene. Búscalas en Saber 11 o en informes oficiales.
• Fandiño-Parra et al. (2025) es una revisión narrativa sin método y con búsqueda asistida por IA (p. 164). Verifica cada afirmación en el original.
• El dato de la política urbana es de 2016, según Cruz Arcila (2018). Verifica la política vigente.
• Hernández Gaviria y Ramirez (2024) dicen que hay abundante investigación sobre estrategias en revistas colombianas: Hernández Gaviria y Ramirez (2024). Revisa ese pasaje; también reduce tu novedad.

9.6 Brecha y aporte de tu proyecto

Borrador IA · Claude Opus 5.5 · 17 oct 2026 · pendiente de reescribir

The gap is narrower than it may appear. Colombian studies already connect the metacognitive triad with autonomy in public secondary schools (Álvarez Ayure et al., 2018), examine autonomy through action research in tenth grade (Agudelo & Morales Vasco, 2019), and describe strategy use in secondary education (Marenco Domínguez et al., 2024). Elsewhere, the triad has been integrated into regular secondary lessons (Jawneh, 2026) and into a rural school with a teacher-researcher (Zhang & Xi, 2022). This study is therefore not the first to examine metacognition and autonomy in English learning in Colombia.

What remains open is more specific. In the literature reviewed, Colombian research on rural schools addresses policies, conditions, and teachers (Fandiño-Parra et al., 2025; Garcia Botero & Reyes Galeano, 2022; Ortiz García & Contreras Pinilla, 2023). The closest national study involved urban eighth graders and focused on vocabulary (Álvarez Ayure et al., 2018). Internationally, secondary-level and qualitative studies are few (Chong & Reinders, 2025, pp. 613-615). The open question is how autonomy manifests itself, through initiative, decision making, and teacher dependence, when ninth graders at a rural school in the region practice planning, monitoring, and self-evaluation in regular lessons, with their own teacher as researcher.

The contribution is descriptive and situated. In four weeks, the study can describe initial manifestations rather than consolidation, since autonomy does not change overnight (Chong & Reinders, 2025, p. 625). Its value lies in documenting, from a rural classroom, the forms these behaviors take, including the persistent dependence already reported by Álvarez Ayure et al. (2018, PDF p. 12). The dual role of teacher and researcher requires declaring possible bias, as Zhang and Xi (2022, p. 103) do, and it is consistent with the view of rural teachers as intellectuals able to construct their own tools (Cruz Arcila, 2018, p. 75).

Te falta

• Lo que ya cubre tu versión. Tu 9.1 dice que la investigación se concentra en educación superior, educación a distancia y entornos tecnológicos, y que falta la secundaria rural. Es cierto solo en parte: Álvarez Ayure et al. (2018) ya trabajaron la tríada en secundaria pública colombiana, y Zhang y Xi (2022) y Jawneh (2026) en clase regular de secundaria, uno de ellos rural. El borrador IA estrecha tu brecha para que el jurado no la desmonte.
• Tu lenguaje causal. Tu pregunta y tu objetivo general dicen «influences»; tu 9.1 dice que las estrategias «help», «contribute» y «foster». Tu diseño solo permite describir cómo se manifiesta la autonomía. Cambia el verbo en la pregunta, el objetivo y el marco.
• Tu búsqueda propia. La brecha descansa hoy en 26 lecturas, no en una revisión sistemática. Declárala en la metodología.
• Tu frase de brecha. Escribe en una o dos líneas, con tu voz, qué no se ha hecho y por qué importa en La Esperanza.

🎙️ Reflexión de voz · reflexión #9 · sobre nota-alvarezayure2018 · 16:48

(Reflexión de muestra) En el sitio real aquí aparece la transcripción de lo que el estudiante grabó sobre esta lectura o sección.

🎙️ Reflexión de voz · reflexión #10 · sobre nota-alvarezayure2018 · 16:48

(Reflexión de muestra) En el sitio real aquí aparece la transcripción de lo que el estudiante grabó sobre esta lectura o sección.

🎙️ Reflexión de voz · reflexión #11 · sobre nota-alvarezayure2018 · 16:48

(Reflexión de muestra) En el sitio real aquí aparece la transcripción de lo que el estudiante grabó sobre esta lectura o sección.

🎙️ Reflexión de voz · reflexión #12 · sobre nota-alvarezayure2018 · 16:48

(Reflexión de muestra) En el sitio real aquí aparece la transcripción de lo que el estudiante grabó sobre esta lectura o sección.

🎙️ Reflexión de voz · reflexión #14 · sobre nota-zhang2022 · 16:48

(Reflexión de muestra) En el sitio real aquí aparece la transcripción de lo que el estudiante grabó sobre esta lectura o sección.

🎙️ Reflexión de voz · reflexión #15 · sobre nota-suharto2025 · 16:48

(Reflexión de muestra) En el sitio real aquí aparece la transcripción de lo que el estudiante grabó sobre esta lectura o sección.

🎙️ Reflexión de voz · reflexión #16 · sobre nota-agudelo2019 · 16:48

(Reflexión de muestra) En el sitio real aquí aparece la transcripción de lo que el estudiante grabó sobre esta lectura o sección.

🎙️ Reflexión de voz · reflexión #23 · sobre nota-ebrahimi2021 · 12:27

(Reflexión de muestra) En el sitio real aquí aparece la transcripción de lo que el estudiante grabó sobre esta lectura o sección.

🎙️ Reflexión de voz · reflexión #24 · sobre nota-jawneh2026 · 13:10

(Reflexión de muestra) En el sitio real aquí aparece la transcripción de lo que el estudiante grabó sobre esta lectura o sección.

9.7 Tus supuestos teóricos

Esta tabla la llenas tú. Escribe cada supuesto como «Asumo que… (Autor, año)». La última columna la completas al final, con tus resultados.

Asumo que…	Autor	Objetivo al que sirve	Veredicto al final
❓ pista: qué dicen sobre capacidad y conducta observable en Chong y Reinders (2025), p. 608	❓ ¿Chong y Reinders, o la fuente original de la definición que elijas?	OE1 (caracterizar antes) y OE3 (comparar)
❓ pista: regular frente a solo conocer la metacognición, en Wongdaeng y Higgins (2022), p. 805	❓ ¿Wongdaeng y Higgins, o Flavell cuando lo leas?	OE2 (implementar)
❓ pista: por qué la reflexión necesita al docente, en Suharto et al. (2025), p. 334, y Zhang y Xi (2022), p. 103	❓ ¿Suharto et al., Zhang y Xi, o ambos?	OE2 (implementar)
❓ pista: mismo entrenamiento, distintos niveles, en Álvarez Ayure et al. (2018), p. 5 y 12	❓ ¿Álvarez Ayure et al., o Nunan cuando lo leas?	OE3 (comparar)
❓ pista: el lugar de la elección en Alrabai (2021), p. 3 y 10-11	❓ ¿Alrabai, o Deci y Ryan cuando los leas?	OE1 y OE3 (toma de decisiones)

Páginas por verificar antes de entregar

• Teng et al. (2022): las páginas (p. 2, p. 7) son del preprint de OSF; búscalas en la versión publicada de Assessing Writing (artículo 100573).
• Álvarez Ayure et al. (2018): las páginas marcadas «PDF p.» son del archivo descargado (1 a 24), no de la revista (407-427). Reemplázalas por las de Íkala.
• La idea de que la autonomía es gradual es de Nunan (1997), citado por Álvarez Ayure et al.: si la usas, lee a Nunan o déjala como cita indirecta.

Tu versión en construcción

Escribe aquí debajo, con tus palabras, en inglés. Lo que escribas fuera de los recuadros cuenta como tu voz en el panel de tu tesis. Abajo, en el sitio, aparecen tus reflexiones de las lecturas que alimentan esta sección.

Referencias usadas en este borrador

Agudelo, J. F., & Morales Vasco, A. M. (2019). Project-based learning as a catalyst for students and teacher autonomy development: The experience in a state school in Nilo, Cundinamarca. GIST – Education and Learning Research Journal, (19), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.26817/16925777.699

Agudelo-Correa, Y. (2021). El efecto de las estrategias metacognitivas en el proceso de escritura en inglés como lengua extranjera. Matices en Lenguas Extranjeras, 14(1), 86–117. https://doi.org/10.15446/male.v14n1.92465

Alrabai, F. (2021). The Influence of Autonomy-Supportive Teaching on EFL Students’ Classroom Autonomy: An Experimental Intervention. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.728657

Álvarez Ayure, C. P., Barón Peña, C., & Martínez Orjuela, M. L. (2018). Promoting the use of metacognitive and vocabulary learning strategies in 8th graders. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 23(3), 407-427. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v23n03a06

Chen, J. (2022). The effectiveness of self-regulated learning (SRL) interventions on L2 learning achievement, strategy employment and self-efficacy: A meta-analytic study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1021101

Chong, S. W., & Reinders, H. (2025). Autonomy of English language learners: A scoping review of research and practice. Language Teaching Research, 29(2), 607-632. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221075812

Cruz Arcila, F. (2018). The Wisdom of Teachers’ Personal Theories: Creative ELT Practices From Colombian Rural Schools. Profile: Issues in Teachers´ Professional Development, 20(2), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v20n2.67142

Ebrahimi, M., Izadpanah, S., & Namaziandost, E. (2021). The Impact of Writing Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment on Iranian EFL Learners’ Autonomy and Metacognitive Awareness. Education Research International, 2021, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9307474

Fandiño-Parra, Y. J., Muñoz-Barriga, A., & Barbosa-Hernández, S. P. (2025). Review of English teaching in rural areas in Colombia: Challenges, setbacks, and lessons learned. HOW, 32(2), 149-168. https://doi.org/10.19183/how.32.2.854

Garcia Botero, J., & Reyes Galeano, C.C. (2022). English teaching in Colombian rural schools: Challenges and opportunities. Revista Boletín Redipe, 11(07), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.36260/rbr.v11i07.1853

Habók, A., Magyar, A., & Molnár, G. (2022). English as a foreign language learners’ strategy awareness across proficiency levels from the perspective of self-regulated learning metafactors. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1019561

Hernández Gaviria, F., & Ramirez, A. (2024). Learning Strategies Instruction: A Proposal for Encouraging Autonomous Learners. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 26(1), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.14483/22487085.19346

Jawneh, M. (2026). Enhancing Metacognitive Strategies in English Language Learners in High School: Explicit Instruction and Its Impact on Learner Autonomy. A Case Study of Grade 12 Students in New Yundum Academy. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 10(2), 1742–1745. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2026.10200133

Jie, Z., & Xiaolan, G. (2022). A Survey on the use of Metacognitive Strategies among Rural Junior High School Students’ English Reading. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 9(5), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.14445/23942703/ijhss-v9i5p103

Marenco Domínguez, J.M., Marín Juanías, J., & Molina, C. (2024). Language learning strategies of Colombian learners of English as a foreign language. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 13(4), 2739–2748. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i4.28739

Ortiz García, W.R., & Contreras Pinilla, A.M. (2023). Teaching English in the Colombian Rural: Normalistas Superiores Challenges and Experiences. Enletawa Journal, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.19053/2011835x.16352

Ramírez, A. (2018). Promotion of Learner Autonomy in a Freshmen’s English Course at a Colombian University. GiST Education and Learning Research Journal, (15), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.26817/16925777.387

Soliman, C., & Gorospe, J.D. (2024). Learner Autonomy, Language Learning Strategies and English Language Proficiency of Filipino Senior High School Students. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 6(2), 330–359. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v6i2.1645

Suharto, P. P., Damayanti, I. L., & Lengkanawati, N. S. (2025). Exploring metacognitive strategies to support young learners in developing their learner autonomy. International Journal of Language Education, 9(2), 331-355. https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v1i2.74998

Teng, M.F., Wang, C., & Zhang, L.J. (2022). Assessing self-regulatory writing strategies and their predictive effects on young EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessing Writing, 51, 100573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100573

Wongdaeng, M., & Higgins, S. (2022). Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions in tertiary EFL contexts: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 17(4), 795–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2022.2146122

Zhang, R., & Zou, D. (2022). Self-regulated second language learning: a review of types and benefits of strategies, modes of teacher support, and pedagogical implications. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(4), 720–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2055081

Zhang, Y., & Xi, J. (2022). Fostering self-regulated young writers: Dynamic assessment of metacognitive competence in secondary school EFL class. Language Assessment Quarterly, 20(1), 88-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2022.2103702