The chapter consists of four parts: summary of the findings, implications,
limitations of the present study, and suggestions for future research. In the first part,
major findings in the present study are summarized according to the three research
questions. In the second part, implications of the present study are presented for
researching and teaching listening. In the third part, limitations of the scope and
design will be discussed. Based on limitations of the present research, suggestions for
future studies will be provided in the last part.
Summary of Findings
The present study was conducted to investigate the effect of metacognitive
approach to listening instruction on EFL adolescent learners in comparison with the
effect of listen-and-answer-comprehension-question convention commonly applied in
the research context. To answer the three research questions, differences in learners’
metacognitive awareness and listening comprehension were measured by
Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) and the intermediate
level listening test of General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) before and after the
eight-week treatment. In addition, Person Correlation was performed to explore the
correlation between MALQ and GEPT. Most of the findings in the present study are
76
in agreement with previous studies, except for the effect of metacognitive approach to
listening on raising learners’ metacognitive awareness.
With respect to the first research question, the experimental group was
hypothesized to have significant gain in metacognitive awareness during listening.
However, results of MALQ did not support the hypothesis. Such finding is distinctly
different from most existing researches in which learners were reported to have
significant increase in metacognitive awareness during listening. The discrepancy
may be accounted for the following three reasons: insufficient time for treatment, the
way instruction was given, and lack of qualitative instrument.
The second hypothesis that metacognitive approach to listening instruction
results in better listening comprehension was confirmed in the present study. Although
learners the experimental group had no significant gain in their metacognitive
awareness, their progress in listening comprehension was more remarkable in
comparison with those in the control group. Besides, the experimental group’s
significant growth in listening comprehension was primary associated with gain in
Short Dialogue section, which implies that the metacognitive approach may affect
how learners approach a listening text, which made them more capable of making
inferences.
. Additionally, the finding that less proficient learners made significantly more
77
progress in the listening posttest agreed with results in previous studies, suggesting
the potential of using the metacognitive approach to enhance less proficient learners’
listening ability.
With regard to the last hypothesis, findings in the present study verified the
significant correlation between metacognitive awareness and listening comprehension.
In addition, findings in the present study indicated that metacognitive awareness can
probably be accounted for 12% of listening performance. Moreover, among the five
factors underlying metacognitive awareness, Directed Attention and Person
Knowledge are the most powerful predictors for listening performance. The result
suggested that learners’ metacognitive awareness is one of the most reliable predictors
for their listening performance.
Implications
Based on the findings in the present study, the major implications for researching
and teaching L2 listening will be discussed in detail.
First of all, metacognitive awareness contributes remarkably to language learning.
The positive and significant correlation between metacognitive awareness and
listening comprehension validated Schraw’s (1998) claim that not only cognitive but
metacognitive skills yielded beneficial results to learning. In addition, researchers
78
contended that metacognitive awareness is not domain-specific but domain-general
knowledge (Gourgey, 1998; Schraw, 2001; Sternberg, 1998). Therefore, learners can
apply metacognitive strategies such as planning, directed attention, and problem
solving in the metacognitive pedagogical sequence to learning any knowledge domain
in the future.
Second, metacognitive approach offers an alternative to the
listen-and-answer-comprehension-question convention to teaching L2 listening.
Based on findings in the present study, L2 learners profited considerably from the
metacognitive pedagogical sequence because of its process-based nature and its
listening task.
In the EFL context where the present study was conducted, most learners were
used to listening for answering comprehension questions. As what Sheerin (1987)
maintained, it is common for listening comprehension lessons to be made of a series
of listening tests. To complete the listening task─listen and answer comprehension
questions, learners may devote undivided attention to key words useful for getting the
answers correct, overlooking other information crucial for real life communication.
In contrast, learners receiving metacognitive approach tend to comprehend the
listening text in the way they approach real life listening. This process-based approach
offers learners guidance on strategies to reflect upon their listening process,
79
strengthening their ability to take control over their own learning (Back, 1995; Goh,
2002b; Mendelsohn, 1998; Vandergrift, 2002, 2003a). Furthermore, in order to
accomplish the task─text reconstruction, learners made every effort to understand as
much information as what they did in real life communication. Trying to obtain not
only main idea but details, these learners had a more comprehensive understanding of
the listening text, and thus outperformed those who regarded answering
comprehension question as the goal of listening.
Third, learners’ listening ability can be a crucial factor affecting the effect of
metacognitive approach to listening instruction on their listening performance.
According to Vandergrift (2003a), using metacognitive strategies is one of the
predominant features of successful listeners. As for the less successful listeners, they
have to struggle with lack of metacognitive knowledge as well as inferior language
ability. It is conceivable that the effect of metacognitive approach to listening
instruction on more successful learners differed significantly from that on less
successful ones. More successful learners, for example, the high-intermediate
participants in Bozorgian’s (2014) research, did not rely so much on strategies due to
their superior linguistic proficiency. Nevertheless, the less successful learners need to
be instructed to adopt strategies used by the more successful learners, and thus
become more capable of using these strategies to tackle tasks at hand (Oxford, 2002).
80
Therefore, in terms of learners’ listening ability, less successful language learners
benefited more significantly from the metacognitive approach to listening instruction
than their more successful counterparts.
Limitations
There are four major limitations of the present study: the scope of the study,
duration of treatment, instrument used to measure metacognitive awareness, and the
way metacognitive pedagogical sequence was carried out.
To begin with, only 74 high school freshmen were involved in the present study.
The importance of learner variables, for example, language proficiency, age, gender,
background knowledge, and motivation, has been highlighted by researchers (Buck,
2001; Rubin, 1994). The result based on the small sample size and participants from a
single high school is not representative enough to verify the effect of metacognitive
approach to listening on EFL adolescent learners.
Second, due to the tight schedule of high school language classes, participants
were not given sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the metacognitive
pedagogical sequence. To make the most of metacognitive strategies, it is essential for
learners to have “repeated and systematic practice” (Vandergrift & Goh, 2011, p.403)
so that they can form a habit of planning, monitoring, and evaluating during listening.
81
As what Vandergrift and Tafaghodtari (2010) suggested, the planning stage should
first be completed together with a class, then with a peer, and finally, learners on their
own. Not until learners are capable of orchestrating the metacognitive strategies on
their own can they make the most of these strategies to facilitate their cognitive
process. Therefore, more time should be devoted to each training section for learners
to get used to applying metacognitive strategies during listening.
Third, the present study used only quantitative method to measure learners’
metacognitive awareness. Even though the Metacognitive Awareness Listening
Questionnaire (MALQ) is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing learners’
metacognitive awareness during listening (Vandergrift et al. ,2006), it may not
comprehensively report learners’ metacognitive knowledge. According to Schraw and
Dennison (1994), learners’ experience of regulating the learning process will
continuously influence the construct of their metacognition. Thus, it is essential to
include other instruments which can reflect upon learners’ dynamic change in
metacognition more clearly and accurately.
Lastly, modification of the metacognitive pedagogical cycle should be made to
maximize its effect in different learning contexts. In the beginning, the metacognitive
pedagogical sequence was developed in Canada, where French is a second language
(FSL). Although it was later applied in ESL or EFL context, the pedagogical sequence
82
was carried out in the same way. However, the process of second language (SL)
listening is considerably different from that of foreign language (FL) listening
(Vandergrift, 2004). Since the comprehension process EFL learners go through differs
significantly from that of ESL learners, certain modifications of metacognitive
approach can be made to facilitate its effect on learners in different contexts.
Suggestions for Future Research
With respect to findings and limitations of the present study, suggestions for
future studies on metacognitive approach to listening instruction are presented as
follows.
First, to deepen our understanding of the effects metacognitive approach has on
EFL learners, larger numbers of participants with varied age, proficiency, and
language learning background should be recruited. As what Vandergrift and
Tafaghodtari (2010) suggested, “replication of this study with learners of other
languages and different ages in different learning contexts is desirable” (p.490).
Second, to maximize the effectiveness of metacognitive strategy instruction
during listening, longitudinal study and intensive intervention are recommended.
Based on previous studies yielding positive effect on learners’ metacognitive
awareness, the duration of treatment is expected to be more than ten weeks, and the
83
time for each training section should be no less than forty minutes (Cross, 2010; Goh,
C., & Taib, Y., 2006; Mareschal, 2007; Movahed, 2014; Teng & Lin, 2015;
Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010).
Third, future research is suggested to include not only quantitative but qualitative
method to measure learners’ metacognitive awareness. In addition to the
implementation of MALQ, qualitative instruments like reflective journals (Vandergrift,
2002, 2003), audio and video recording (Cross, 2010), self report (Goh & Taib, 2006),
and stimulated recall (Mareschal, 2007) may help future researchers to uncover
supportive evidence of improved metacognitive awareness.
Last but not least, there is a need to enrich the metacognitive pedagogical
sequence to maximize its positive effect on learners in different learning contexts. For
example, in the context of the present study, more bottom-up components like using
transcript to help learners verify comprehension can be included. Although
Vandergrift and Goh (2012) contended that the metacognitive pedagogical sequence is
a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches, this approach focuses
exclusively on teaching top-down strategies such as planning, monitoring, and
evaluating. As a result, future studies are recommended to include bottom-up strategy
instruction such as teaching word segmentation skill (Hulstijn, 2003) or using
dictogloss (Wajnryb, 1990) to facilitate learners’ comprehension.
84
Ackerman, P. L. (1987). Individual differences in skill learning: An integration of psychometric and information processing perspectives. Psychological bulletin,102(1), 3-27.
Adey, P. & Shayer, M. (1994). Really raising standards: Cognitive intervention and academic achievement. London, England: Routledge.
Al-Alwan, A., Asassfeh, S., & Al-Shboul, Y. (2013). EFL Learners’ Listening Comprehension and Awareness of Metacognitive Strategies: How Are They Related?. International Education Studies, 6(9), 31-39.
Alexander, J. M., Carr, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development of
metacognition in gifted children: Directions for future research. Developmental review, 15(1), 1-37.
Anderson, A., & Lynch, T. (1988). Listening. China: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, N. J. (2005). L2 strategy research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 757-772). New York, NY: Routledge
Asher, J. J. (1972). Children’s First Language as a Model for Second Language Learning. The Modern Language Journal, 56(3), 133-139.
Bacon, S. M. (1992). Phases of listening to authentic input in Spanish: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 25(4), 317-333.
Berne, J. E. (2004). Listening comprehension strategies: A review of the literature. Foreign Language Annals, 37(4), 521-531.
Bjorklund, D. F., & Douglas, R. N. (1998). The development of memory strategies. In Cowan, N., The development of memory in childhood (pp. 201-246). New York, NY: Psychology Press Ltd
Boyle, J. P. (1984). Factors affecting listening comprehension. ELT journal,38(1), 34-38.
Bozorgian, H. (2014). The role of metacognition in the development of EFL learners’
listening skill. International Journal of Listening, 28(3), 149-161.
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & H. M. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol.3: Cognitive development (pp. 77-166). New York, NY: Wiley.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language (Vol. 2). Cambridge,
85
U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, S. (2011). Listening myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Michigan, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Buck, G., & Tatsuoka, K. (1998). Application of the rule-space procedure to language testing: Examining attributes of a free response listening test. Language
Testing, 15(2), 119-157.
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). Language learner and learning strategies.
In Ellis, N. C. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 371-392).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press
Chamot, A.U. & Rubin, J. (1994). Comments on Janie Rees-Miller’s “A critical appraisal of learner training: theoretical bases and teaching implications”: Two readers react. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 771-76.
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Developing the ability to perform speech acts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 253-267.
Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (Eds.). (2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cross, J. (2009b). Effects of listening strategy instruction on news videotext comprehension. Language Teaching Research, 13(2), 151-176.
Cross, J. (2010). Raising L2 listeners’ metacognitive awareness: A sociocultural theory perspective. Language Awareness, 19(4), 281-297.
Dansereau, D. F. (1985). Learning strategy research. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, &
R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills:Vol.1 Relating instruction to research (pp.209-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Elshout-Mohr, M., Meijer, J., van Daalen-Kapteijns, M., & Meeus, W. (2003). A self-report inventory for metacognition related to academic tasks. Paper presented in the 10th Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Padova, Italy.
Field, J. (2001). Lexical Segmentation in First and Foreign Language Listening.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cambridge University, U.K..
Field, J.(2008). Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1963). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. Princeton, NJ:
86
Van Nostrand.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2005). Second language listening: Theory and practice.
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Gary, J. O. (1975). Delayed oral practice in initial stages of second language learning.
In M. K. Bburt & H. C. Dulay (Eds.), Paper from TESOL ’75: New Directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual education (pp. 89-95). Los Angeles, CA.
Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 365-383.
Gillham, B. (2000). Developing a questionnaire. London, England: Continuum.
Gilman, R. A. & L. M. Moody (1984). What Practitioners say about Listening:
Research Implications for the Classroom. Foreign Language Annals,17(3), 31-34.
Goh, C. (1997). Metacognitive awareness and second language listeners. ELT journal, 51(4), 361-369.
Goh, C. (2002a). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns. System, 30(2), 185-206.
Goh, C. (2002b). Learners’ self-reports on comprehension and learning strategies for listening. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12, 45-68.
Goh, C., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT journal, 60(3), 222-232.
Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development theory, practice and research implications. RELC Journal, 39(2), 188-213.
Gourgey, A. F. (1998). Metacognition in basic skills instruction. Instructional science, 26(1-2), 81-96.
Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297.
Gunstone, R. F., & Northfield, J. (1994). Metacognition and learning to teach.
International Journal of Science Education, 16(5), 523-537.
Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.) (2009). Handbook of metacognition in education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hsiao, T. Y., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning
strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 368-383.
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading:
Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22,
87
255–278.
Kellough, R. D., & Kellough, N. G. (2008). Teaching young adolescents: Methods and resources for middle grades teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Kennedy, G. D. (1978). The testing of listening comprehension. Singapore: Singapore University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London, England: Longman.
Liu, X. L., & Goh, C. (2006). Improving Second Language Listening: Awareness and Involvement. In T.S.C. Farrell (Ed.), Language Teacher Research in Asia (pp.
91-106). Alexandria, VA: Thomas Sylvester Charles Farrell
Manning, M. L. (2002). Developmentally appropriate middle level schools. Olney, MD: Association for Childhood Education International.
Mareschal, C. (2007). Student perceptions of a self-regulatory approach to second language listening comprehension development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Ottawa, Canada.
McCombs, B. L. (1988). Motivational skills training: Combining metacognitive, cognitive, and affective learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P.
A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 141-169). San Diego, CA: Academic Press McDonough, S. (1999). A hierarchy of strategies? In S. Cotterall & D. Crabbe (Eds.),
Learner autonomy in language learning: Defining the field and effecting change (pp. 51-60). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
Mendelsohn, D. J. (1994). Learning to listen: A strategy-based approach for the second-language learner. San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
Mendelsohn, D. J. (1998). Teaching listening. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 81-101.
Movahed, R. (2014). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on listening performance, metaconitive awareness and listening anxiety of beginner Iranian EFL students. International Journal of English Linguistics,4(2), 88-99.
Nunan, D. (2002a). Learner strategy training in the classroom: An action research study. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp.133-143). Cambridge, MA.:
Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (2002b). Listening in language learning. In J. C. Richards & W. A.
Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 238-241). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
88
acquisition. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (2002). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Update and ESL suggestions. In J.C. Richard & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 124-132). Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (2013). Teaching & Researching: Language Learning Strategies. New York, NY: Routledge.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction, 1, 15-51.
Peacock, M., & Ho, B. (2003). Student language learning strategies across eight disciplines. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 179-200.
Piaget, J. (M. Cook, Trans.) (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International Universities Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of educational psychology, 82(1), 33.
Postovsky, V. A. (1974). Effects of delay in oral practice at the beginning of second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 58(5‐6), 229-239.
Rankin, P. T. (1928). The importance of listening ability. The English Journal, 17(8), 623-630.
Rivers, W. M. (1981). Teaching foreign-language skills. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rost, M. (2005). L2 listening. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 503-527). Mahwah, NJ: Elbaum.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “ good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51.
Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. The modern language journal, 78(2), 199-221.
Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Harris, V., & Anderson, N. J. (2007). Intervening in the use of strategies. Language learner strategies, 30, 29-45.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-370).
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.). Metacognition in learning and instruction: theory, research, and practice (pp. 3-16). Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media.
89
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness.
Contemporary educational psychology, 19(4), 460-475.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational psychology review, 7(4), 351-371.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional science, 26(1-2), 113-125.
Sheerin, S. (1987). Listening comprehension: teaching or testing?. ELT journal, 41(2), 126-131.
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(2), 117-139.
Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner?. Canadian Modern language review, 31(4), 304-318.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an expert student?. Instructional science, 26(1-2), 127-140.
Swanson, H. L. (1990). Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 306-314 Teng, H. C. (2002). An investigation of EFL listening difficulties for Taiwanese
college students. Paper presented at the Eleventh International Symposium on English Teaching, Taiwan.
Teng, H. C., & Lin, C. H. (2015). A Study of Metacognitive Listening Instruction to EFL Young Learners. Paper presented at LTTC International Conference, Taiwan.
Vandergrift, L. (1996). Listening Comprehension Strategies of Core French High
Vandergrift, L. (1996). Listening Comprehension Strategies of Core French High