This chapter consists of three parts, each involving detailed discussion on
findings of the present study. The first part is devoted to discussion on the positive
and significant correlation between metacognitive awareness and listening
comprehension. Next, possible explanation is offered for the insignificant difference
in metacognition growth between the two groups. Lastly, close analysis is carried out
to uncover the reason why learners receiving metacognitive approach made
significant improvement in listening comprehension.
Metacognitive Awareness as a Predictor for Listening Performance
The findings of the present study suggest that there is a positive, significant
correlation between learners’ metacognitive awareness and their listening
performance. In other words, the higher a learner’ metacognitive awareness is, the
better listening comprehension score s/he achieves. This positive, significant
correlation validated Schraw’s (1998) view: metacognitive skills is facilitative to
cognitive skills. Those who can use metacognitive strategies to regulate their own
learning and to compensate for comprehension gap will have better learning
performance.
In addition, the result indicates that about 12% of learners’ listening
63
comprehension performance can be explained by their metacognitive awareness. The
present study yielded similar result to Vandergrift et al.’s (2006) and Goh and Zeng’s
(2012) studies, where learners’ metacognitive awareness was accounted for 13% and
16% of learners’ listening performance respectively.
After confirming the significant correlation between metacognitive awareness
and listening comprehension, the researcher conducted further analysis of the five
factors underlying MALQ. Results show that two out of the five factors, Directed
attention and Person Knowledge, are significantly associated with listening
performance. It is conceivable to assume that the two have the most to do with
learners’ listening comprehension because of the nature of listening tests and learners’
perception of their current listening ability.
Among the five factors, Directed Attention correlates significantly with listening
performance because of its indispensible role in helping learners focus on essential
information during their listening process. In general, listening comprehension test is
constructed to examine learners’ ability to decipher information from aural input.
However, each listening encounter is transient and irreversible. Therefore, it is crucial
for learners to concentrate on the listening task in order to select and process key
information. Directed Attention, which is operationalized in terms of learners’ ability
to divert attention to key information in the listening text (Vandergrift, 1997), may
64
exert a powerful influence on their listening performance.
As for Person Knowledge, which reflects learners’ understanding of their
strengths and weaknesses, can possibly be an indicator of their actual performance. In
other words, the three items related to Person Knowledge had successfully elicit
learners’ perception of difficulty and anxiety of L2 listening. For example, “I feel that
listening comprehension in English is a challenge for me. (item 8)” “I don’t feel
nervous when I listen to English. (item 15)” The result provides empirical support to
Zhang and Goh (2006), whose findings suggested that learners’ perception of their
listening process positively correlates with their strategy knowledge.
In conclusion, findings in the present study indicated that metacognitive
awareness correlates positively to listening performance, with Directed Attention and
Person Knowledge being the major factors. What is more, although there may be
other powerful variables affecting listening comprehension, metacognitive awareness
was accounted for 12% of the variance in listening performance. As a result, it can be
regarded as one of the most important predictors for listening performance.
The Effect of Metacognitive Approach to Listening Instruction on Metacognitive
Awareness
Despite the fact that most existing studies on metacognitive pedagogical cycle
65
have demonstrated its positive effect on enhancing learners’ metacognitive awareness
(Cross, 2010; Goh, & Taib, 2006; Mareschal, 2007; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010),
findings of the present study appear to be distinctly different. While learners in the
control group followed the traditional approach (i.e. listen and answer questions),
learners in the experimental group received eight metacognitive trainings on listening.
However, statistical analysis shows that there is no significant gain in metacognitive
awareness between the two groups. Moreover, the analysis of the five factor
underlying MALQ revealed no significant differences between the two groups, either.
The remarkable difference may result from the following three reasons: 1) the
duration of treatment, 2) the way instruction was given, and 3) the instrument used for
assessment.
First of all, there is a need for longer duration of treatment. It requires sufficient
time for learners to familiarize themselves with target strategies and to adopt theses
strategies for facilitating their learning process. As what Oxford (1994) contended,
strategy training should be carried out over a long period of time rather than being
completed with short invention.
Existing studies showing a rise in learners’ metacognitive awareness during the
listening process have dedicated considerable amount of time for treatment. Take the
following studies using the same instrument, MALQ, for example. Vandergrift and
66
Tafaghoti (2010) spent 13 weeks on the treatment, reporting that less proficient
learners had significant growth in their metacognitive awareness. Similarly, Teng and
Lin (2015) used 12 weeks on the treatment, concluding that learners in the
experimental group significantly outperformed those in the control group on the
MALQ posttest. As for researches whose treatment lasted for less than ten weeks, in
each treatment session, learners were given abundant time to go through the
metacognitive listening process. For example, Cross (2010), Movahed (2014), and
Zeng (2014) devoted 5 to 8 lessons for treatment respectively, but each of their
training session was 45 to 60 minutes long.
However, in the present study, given the tight schedule of high school learners’
regular courses, the 8 treatments were completed in haste, each lasting for roughly 20
minutes. The lack of time for treatment may be one of the major reasons why learners
receiving metacognitive approach showed no significant improvement in their
metacognitive awareness.
Second, in addition to lack of time, how metacognitive instruction was carried
out may influence its effect on learners’ metacognitive awareness. According to
Veenman et al. (2006) and Wenden (1991), metacognitive knowledge usually reflects
learners’ deep-rooted beliefs that are usually resistant to change. As what Brown et al.
(1983) suggested, metacognition belongs to statable knowledge, which is already
67
stored in learners’ long-term memory, different considerably from transient
knowledge, which emerges temporarily in their learning process.
Although researches have tried to “make mental processes explicit” (Goh, 2008,
p.200), it remains unclear that under what circumstances can explicit instruction have
significant effect on learners’ deep-rooted knowledge. Until now, researchers are still
exploring principles which make metacognitive instruction successful. For example,
Vandergrift (1999) promoted the use of listening comprehension checklists to raise
students’ awareness of their listening process. He also advocated the importance of
guided reflection after the completion of every listening task. By providing listeners
questions prompts like “Did it help you to listen for key words?” or “Could you
understand the message without understanding every word?”, learners will be aware
and reflect on their use of the key metacognitive strategies. Besides, Goh and Taib
(2006) recommended a variety of methods such as including reflection and discussion,
teacher modeling, integrated sequence with alternative focus on either text or process
to ensure the effectiveness of instruction. Also, Veenman et al. (2006) argued there are
three key principles that make metacognitive instruction effective: integration into the
subject matter, clearly informing learners about its usefulness, and prolonged training.
Result in the present study suggests that more studies are needed to find out how
to maximize the effect of explicit instruction on learners’ metacognitive knowledge.
68
Since research on metacognitive awareness about listening is relatively new, further
studies on metacognitive approach to listening should be conducted on how to help
learners develop “a habit of mind that is metacognitively alert and responsive to
learning” (Goh, 2008, p.200) with effective instruction.
Last but not least, using different instruments to assess metacognitive awareness
may yield different results. Although MALQ has been proven to be a valid, reliable
questionnaire (Vandergrift et. al., 2006) widely used for assessing metacognitive
awareness, changes in learners’ metacogntivie knowledge and regulation remains a
dynamic process (Flavell, 1979), which is too diverse and individualized to reflect on
the 21 items of MALQ.
To compensate for the insufficiency of quantitative method, several researchers
have included qualitative methods to explore different facets of learners’
metacognitive awareness. These qualitative methods may not be generalizable;
however, they can provide evidence for observable differences in learners’
metacognitive awareness. Researchers that had incorporated qualitative methods such
as reflective journal (Vandergrift, 2002, 2003), audio and video recording (Cross,
2009b), self report (Goh & Taib, 2006), and stimulated recall (Mareschal, 2007) have
uncovered supportive evidence of improved metacognitive awareness.
After the eight trainings of metacognitive pedagogical sequence, learners in the
69
experimental group made significant progress in their listening comprehension,
scoring five more points on average in the GEPT posttest. Since findings in the
present study show that metacognitive awareness positively and significantly
correlates with listening performance, learners’ gain in listening comprehension may
partially result from growth in metacognition. Moreover, analysis of the experimental
group’s notes provided evidence for learners’ continuous reflections upon the listening
process, suggesting that the metacognition of learners in the experimental group may
have changed to a certain extent. However, the changes might be too subtle to reach
the significant level based on responses from MALQ.
The Effect of Metacognitive Approach to Listening Instruction on Listening
Comprehension
Findings in the present research are consistent with the results of most of
previous research, showing that there is positive effect of metacognitive approach on
listening performance (Bozorigian, 2014; Goh & Taib, 2006; Vandergrift &
Tafaghodtari, 2010; Zeng, 2007, 2014) and that the gain of less proficient learners is
significantly higher than that of more proficient learners (Goh, 2008; Goh & Taib,
2006; Vandergrift, 1997; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010).
The result of the present study has validated the positive effect of metacognitive
70
approach to listening in comparison with the listen-and
answer-comprehension-question convention in traditional listening classes. While
learners in the experimental group scored 5 more points on the GEPT posttest, the
performance of the control group remained nearly the same.
The difference may result from how metacognitive approach to listening change
the way learners approach a listening text (Goh, 2008). With explicit instruction and
repetitive practice in the metacognitive pedagogical sequence, learners became aware
of their listening process, developing ability to use strategies to regulate their listening
process. Taking control over their own listening process, learners started paving the
way for self-regulated learning (Wenden, 1998). These reflective, self-redirected
learners performed better on the listening test since metacognition was confirmed to
be one of the significant factors for listening performance (Al-Alwan et al., 2013; Goh
& Zeng, 2012; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010).
Although metacognitive approach has a significant effect on learners’ listening
comprehension, analysis of MALQ shows no significant differences between the two
groups. In other words, in addition to changes in metacognitive awareness, there may
be other critical factors involved in enhancing learners’ listening performance.
To identify the underlying factors, further analysis on GEPT tests was performed,
reporting a significant difference in Short Dialogue section between the two groups.
71
On the GEPT posttest, the experimental group scored eight more points, which was
two times more than the gain of the control group.
The experimental group’s significant growth in Short Dialogue may shed light
on the positive effect of metacognitive approach to listening. According to LTTC’s
(1999) research on preliminary examination of intermediate level of GEPT, Short
Dialogue is the most difficult part in the listening test, with the lowest correct
response rate. It requires learners to demonstrate a variety of ability to reach
comprehension (see Table 26).
Table 26
Goals of Assessment for Different Sections in the Intermediate Level GEPT Listening Test
Section Text type Goals of assessment
I Picture
description
To assess learners’ listening ability to comprehend daily life vocabulary and high frequency patterns
II Question or statement response
To assess learners’ listening ability to comprehend daily life-related questions or direct speech and to respond properly
III
Short dialogue
To assess learners’ listening ability to comprehend daily life conversations. Learners have to demonstrate their ability to a. grasp the topic and main idea of the dialogue
b. figure out the context of the dialogue, for example, the purpose, the location, and the relationship between the interlocutors
c. comprehend the important details in the dialogue
d. be able to make inferences, read between the lines, and make predictions based on the information obtained
Note. Adapted from LTTC (1999)
72
Aside from enhancing learners’ ability to regulate their listening, metacognitive
approach’s primary focus on “process” rather than “product” can possibly account for
the difference. Compared with product-oriented conventional approach in listening
classrooms, the process-based metacognitive approach engaged learners in situations
similar to real-life listening─“where there is no specific purpose for listening other
than to understand the main idea and as much supporting detail as possible
(Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010, p.488).”
It’s common for learners who have to answer comprehension questions to put
heavy emphasis on the outcome, focusing exclusively on key information for getting
the questions correct. In contrast, learners in the experimental group have been used
to reflecting upon the whole listening process for text reconstruction, making
endeavor to comprehend as much information as possible (Goh & Taib, 2006). Thus,
the obtained information with rich details as well as main idea can successfully help
them figure out the context and make inferences in the relatively challenging Short
Dialogue section.
In addition to providing empirical support for metacognitive approach’s positive
effect on listening comprehension, the present study validated findings in previous
studies that less proficient learners benefited more than the more proficient ones from
this approach (Goh & Taib, 2006; Vandergrift, 1997; Vandergrift and Tafaghodtari,
73
2010). In the present study, there were 37 students in the experimental group, with 17
more proficient learners and 20 less proficient learners based on GEPT pretest result.
Results show that while the more proficient ones gained 2 more points, the less
proficient learners scored 8 more points on the GEPT posttest.
According to Oxford (2002), researchers have to explore the strategies used by
language learners, and then teach these strategies to novice learners to facilitate their
language learning. Since more proficient learners are generally the ones who can use
metacognitive strategies for comprehension (Bacon, 1992; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990;
Vandergrift, 1997), they may not benefit as much as the less proficient ones from the
metacognitive approach. As for the less proficient learners, they profited considerably
from the strategy instruction because they were guided to experience the
comprehension process of their more proficient peers. Adopting these metacognitive
strategies employed by their more proficient peers, the less proficient learners not
only became “better listeners” but “effective language learners” (Nunan, 2004, p.240).
As what Anderson (2002) contended, “Strong metacognition empowers second
language learners” (p.5). To sum up, findings in the present study suggest that
metacognitive approach to listening has a positive and significant effect on learners’
listening performance. Moreover, the particular focus on process rather than product
may potentially influence the way learners approach the listening text, enabling them
74
to make better inferences based on the obtained information. Last but not least,
metacognitive approach appears to be more beneficial to less skill learners, helping
them to move closer to “ the profile of “a good language learner.’” (Oxford, 2002,
p.129).
75