字彙與聽力學習後設認知策略覺察與行動語言學習準備度關係之研究－以台灣國中英語學習者為例

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文 Master’s Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 字彙與聽力學習後設認知策略覺察與行動語言學習準備度關係之研究－以台灣國中英語學習者為例 The Relationship between Metacognitive Vocabulary and Listening Learning Strategy Awareness and Mobile-Assisted Language Learning Readiness: A Study of Taiwanese Junior High School Learners of English. 指導教授：林至誠博士 Advisor: Dr. Chih-Cheng Lin 研究生：吳德彥 De-Yan, Wu. 中華民國一百零三年六月 June, 2014.

(2) 中文摘要本研究旨在探討，在台灣以英語為外語學習（EFL）的國中學生，其字彙及聽力學習的後設認知策略覺察，與使用手機學習字彙及聽力準備度之間的關係。本研究採用問卷調查法，使用的問卷包含五個部份：受試者個人基本背景資料、字彙行動學習準備度問卷、聽力行動學習準備度問卷、後設認知字彙學習策略覺察問卷、以及後設認知聽力策略覺察問卷（MALQ）。在預試中，總共回收 251 份有效問卷。將回收問卷後所得的資料進行主成分分析（principal components analysis），經過刪題並且分類命名後，得到以下正式問卷：字彙及聽力行動學習準備度問卷將受試者的準備度分為三個層面（aspects），分別是熟悉度（Familiarity）、態度（Attitude）、及經驗（Experience）。後設認知字彙學習策略覺察問卷是用以探究受試者在選擇性注意（Selective Attention）、自我驅動（Self-Initiation）、及強化鞏固（Consolidation）三個要素（components）的覺察情形。而後設認知聽力策略覺察問卷，則將受試者的後設認知聽力策略覺察狀況分為五個要素來評估：問題解決（ Problem Solving ）、計畫評估（ Planning/Evaluation ）、專注學習（ Directed Attention ）、心智翻譯（ Mental Translation）、及個人知識（Person Knowledge）。接著以正式問卷施測，共回收 877 份有效問卷，將問卷調查所得資料進行描述統計、獨立樣本 t 考驗、單因子變異數分析（one-way ANOVA）和多元迴歸分析（multiple regression analysis）等統計方法後，獲得下列結論：一、受試者的性別，對其字彙及聽力後設認知學習策略覺察，以及其行動學習準備度無顯著影響。二、受試者的就讀年級、英語程度（全民英檢通過狀況）以及手機持有與使用的時間，對其字彙及聽力策略後設認知策略覺察，以及其行動學習準備度有顯著影響。三、受試者的後設認知字彙學習策略覺察，與其行動學習準備度有顯著相關；並且此後設認知策略覺察可用以預測其字彙行動學習之準備度。四、受試者的後設認知聽力策略覺察，與其行動學習準備度有顯著相關；並且此後設認知策略覺察可用以預測其聽力學習之準備度（個人知識除外）。本研究認為，若能提升學習者的整體英語能力，並且若能長時間的持有與使用手機學習，可以提升學習者的字彙及聽力後設認知學習策略覺察，以及其字彙及聽力行動學習的準備度。此外，若能提升學習者字彙及聽力的後設認知學習策略覺察，亦能提升其字彙及聽力行動學習的準備度。. 關鍵字：後設認知字彙學習策略覺察，後設認知聽力學習策略覺察，行動語言學習準備度. i.

(3) ABSTRACT Educators are looking into the opportunities and concerns brought by the integration of mobile technologies and language learning. Although m-learning has been thought to be effective and beneficial, few studies have investigated learners’ perception and their readiness towards using these technologies in language learning. The present study intends to explore the relationship between the metacognitive vocabulary and listening learning strategy awareness and the readiness towards mobile-assisted English learning among Taiwanese junior high school EFL students. In the pilot study, a total of 251 participants completed the four questionnaires as the research instruments: a metacognitive vocabulary learning strategy awareness questionnaire, a Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ), a mobile vocabulary learning readiness questionnaire, and a mobile listening learning readiness questionnaire. Their readiness towards mobile learning was assessed in terms of familiarity, attitude, and experience was assessed. The metacognitive vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire was used to investigate the learners’ awareness of metacognitive vocabulary learning strategies with respect to Selective Attention, Self-Initiation, and Consolidation. The MALQ evaluated their awareness and perceived use of listening strategies in five components, including problem solving, planning-evaluation, directed attention, mental translation, and person knowledge. After the principal components analysis (PCA), the questionnaires were revised and administered in the main study. A total of 877 copies of questionnaires were collected and analyzed. The results of the analysis revealed that the learners’ current grade levels, proficiency levels and ownership duration had significant influence not only on their readiness towards mobile vocabulary and listening learning, but also on their metacognitive vocabulary and listening strategy awareness. In addition, with the multiple regression analysis, the learners’ awareness of metacognitive vocabulary strategy in general was found to be significantly related to their mobile vocabulary learning readiness. The three aspects of readiness could be good predictors of the learners’ mobile vocabulary learning readiness. Furthermore, it was also found that the learners’ metacognitive listening strategy awareness in general was related to their mobile listening learning readiness. The five components of the awareness except person knowledge were also good predictors of their readiness. Keywords: metacognitive vocabulary learning strategy awareness, metacognitive listening learning strategy awareness, mobile language learning readiness. ii.

(4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not be completed without the guidance and support from many people. First of all, I would like to express my sincere and earnest gratitude to my advisor, Prof. Chih-Cheng Lin, who always provides me with enlightening ideas and encourages me during the research. I especially thank him for making time to read my drafts and give me so much insightful advice and help. All the discussion and his advice have been invaluable to this thesis. It is a great pleasure of mine to receive guidance from such a knowledgeable professor. I would also like to thank the committee members, Dr. Pei-Chin Chang and Dr. Huei-Tse Hou. Their professional comments and suggestions helped me refine this thesis and make it more comprehensive. I also owe my heartfelt thanks to all the professors that have taught me in the past three years. The courses in the NTNU MA TESOL Summer Program have been a challenging but fruitful adventure in my life. This thesis would not have been started without the knowledge and inspiration provided by the courses and the professors. My special thanks are extended to my helpful colleagues and classmates. Thank Mr. Yong-Zhang Lin for teaching me all the knowledge about statistics that I need for the survey and analysis; thank Nina Han for giving me so many useful suggestions; thank Janet Chou, Jean Lin, Joyce Kao, Stacy Yang, Sophie Chen, Tony Chou, and Victor Wu for their kind help with the data collection and warm support during the proposal hearing and the oral defense. Last but not least, I must express my deepest gratitude to my parents and my family. Their love, consideration and companionship are so important to me throughout the thesis writing. Were it not for their love, patience, and encouragement, I could not have accomplished this study. This thesis is especially dedicated to them.. iii.

(5) TABLE OF CONTENTS 中文摘要.........................................................................................................................i ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION..........................................................................1 1.1 Background ..........................................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................3 1.3 Research Questions of the Study..........................................................................4 1.4 Significance of the Study .....................................................................................6 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................8 2.1 Metacognitive Learning Strategies.......................................................................8 2.1.1 Definition of Metacognition ..........................................................................8 2.1.2 Metacognitive Vocabulary Learning Strategies ..........................................11 2.1.3 Metacognitive Listening Strategies .............................................................19 2.2 Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) ..................................................24 2.2.1 What is MALL ............................................................................................25 2.2.2 Differences between E-learning and M-learning ........................................25 2.2.3 CALL and MALL........................................................................................26 2.3 MALL and Vocabulary Learning.......................................................................26 2.4 MALL and Listening Comprehension ...............................................................32 2.5 MALL and Learner Readiness ...........................................................................38 CHAPTER THREE METHODS ..............................................................................43 3.1 Participants .........................................................................................................43 3.2 Instruments .........................................................................................................43 3.2.1 Demographic Information Questionnaire....................................................44 3.2.2 Metacognitive Vocabulary Learning Strategy Awareness Questionnaire...44 3.2.3 Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ).....................45 3.2.4 Mobile Vocabulary and Listening Learning Readiness Questionnaires .....46 3.3 Procedures ..........................................................................................................47 3.3.1 The pilot study.............................................................................................47 3.3.1.1 Results of the Demographic Information Questionnaire .................48 3.3.1.2 Results of the Analysis of Metacognitive Vocabulary Learning Strategy Awareness Questionnaire...............................................................48 3.3.1.3 Results of the Analysis of Mobile Vocabulary Learning Readiness iv.

(6) Questionnaire ...............................................................................................51 3.3.1.4 Results of the Analysis of Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ)................................................................................55 3.3.1.5 Results of the Analysis of Mobile Listening Learning Readiness Questionnaire ...............................................................................................58 3.3.2. The Main Study ..........................................................................................62 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS ..................................................................................64 4.1 Sample Description ............................................................................................64 4.2 Demographic Information of the Participants....................................................64 4.3 Metacognitive Vocabulary Learning Strategy Awareness Questionnaire .........65 4.3.1 Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................................65 4.3.2 The Relationships among Demographic Variables and Metacognitive Vocabulary Learning Strategy Awareness ...........................................................65 4.4 Mobile Vocabulary Learning Readiness Questionnaire.....................................69 4.4.1 Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................................69 4.4.2 The Relationships among Demographic Variables and Mobile Vocabulary Learning Readiness...............................................................................................69 4.5 Predictors of Readiness towards Mobile Vocabulary Learning.........................72 4.5.1 Inter-Correlation among Variables..............................................................72 4.5.2 The Results of Multiple Regression Analysis .............................................73 4.6 Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) ...........................75 4.6.1 Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................................75 4.6.2 The Relationships among Demographic Variables and Metacognitive Listening Strategy Awareness ..............................................................................75 4.7 Mobile Listening Learning Readiness Questionnaire ........................................80 4.7.1 Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................................80 4.7.2 The Relationships among Demographic Variables and Mobile Listening Learning Readiness...............................................................................................81 4.8 Predictors of Readiness towards Mobile Listening Learning ............................84 4.8.1 Inter-Correlation among Variables..............................................................84 4.8.2 The Results of Multiple Regression Analysis .............................................85 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .........................................87 5.1 The Influences of Different Backgrounds on Vocabulary Learning..................87 5.1.1 Backgrounds and Metacognitive Vocabulary Learning Strategy Awareness ..............................................................................................................................87 5.1.2 Backgrounds and Mobile Vocabulary Learning Readiness ........................88 5.2 Metacognitive Vocabulary Learning Strategy Awareness, Mobile Vocabulary Learning Readiness and the Predictors ....................................................................89 v.

(7) 5.3 The Influences of Different Backgrounds on Listening Learning .....................91 5.3.1 Backgrounds and Metacognitive Listening Learning Strategy Awareness.91 5.3.2 Backgrounds and Mobile Listening Learning Readiness ............................93 5.4 Metacognitive Listening Learning Strategy Awareness, Mobile Listening Learning Readiness and the Predictors ....................................................................94 5.5 Conclusion..........................................................................................................96 5.6 Pedagogical Implications ...................................................................................97 5.7 Limitations of the Present Study ........................................................................99 5.8 Suggestions for Future Research......................................................................100 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................101. vi.

(8) LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire, Version 3 (Gu & Johnson, 1996).......12 Table 2.2 A Taxonomy of Vocabulary Learning Strategies (Schmitt, 1997, pp. 207-208) .........................................................................................................................14 Table 2.3 Gu and Johnson’s Vocabulary Learning Metacognitive Strategies (1996) ..17 Table 2.4 Examples of metacognitive listening strategies (Vandergrift et al., 2006, pp. 450–1)..............................................................................................................22 Table 3.1 The critical ratio value and the correlation coefficient of metacognitive vocabulary learning strategy awareness questionnaire....................................49 Table 3.2 Results of KMO and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity........................................50 Table 3.3 Summary of items and factor loadings from PCA.......................................50 Table 3.4 Total Variance Explained.............................................................................51 Table 3.5 The critical ratio value and the correlation coefficient of mobile vocabulary learning readiness questionnaire......................................................................52 Table 3.6 Results of KMO and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity........................................53 Table 3.7 Summary of items and factor loadings from PCA.......................................54 Table 3.8 Total Variance Explained.............................................................................55 Table 3.9 The critical ratio value and the correlation coefficient of Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire ................................................................55 Table 3.10 Results of KMO and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity......................................57 Table 3.11 Summary of items and factor loadings form factor analysis......................57 Table 3.12 Total Variance Explained...........................................................................58 Table 3.13 The critical ratio value and the correlation coefficient of mobile listening learning readiness questionnaire......................................................................59 Table 3.14 Results of KMO and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity......................................60 Table 3.15 Summary of items and factor loadings from PCA.....................................61 Table 3.16 Total Variance Explained...........................................................................61 Table 4.1 The results of the one-sample t-test of the metacognitive awareness and the three components (test value = 3)....................................................................65 Table 4.2 The results of ANOVA and Post Hoc Tests (Scheffe) of the learners’ current grade levels......................................................................................................66 Table 4.3 The results of the independent sample t-test of the learners’ gender ...........66 Table 4.4 The results of ANOVA and Post Hoc Tests (Scheffe) of the learners’ proficiency levels.............................................................................................67 Table 4.5 The results of ANOVA and Post Hoc Tests (Scheffe) of the learners’ ownership duration ..........................................................................................68 Table 4.6 The results of the one-sample t-test of the readiness and the three vii.

(9) components (test value = 3).............................................................................69 Table 4.7 The results of ANOVA and Post Hoc Tests (Scheffe) of the learners’ current grade levels......................................................................................................69 Table 4.8 The results of the independent sample t-test of the learners’ gender ...........70 Table 4.9 The results of ANOVA and Post Hoc Tests (Scheffe) of the learners’ proficiency levels.............................................................................................71 Table 4.10 The results of ANOVA and Post Hoc Tests (Scheffe) of the learners’ ownership duration ..........................................................................................72 Table 4.11 Inter-correlation among variables ..............................................................73 Table 4.12 Summary of multiple regression analysis for variables predicting readiness towards mobile vocabulary learning (N=877).................................................74 Table 4.13 The results of the one-sample t-test of the metacognitive awareness and the five components (test value = 3) .....................................................................75 Table 4.14 The results of ANOVA and Post Hoc Tests (Scheffe) of the learners’ current grad levels ...........................................................................................76 Table 4.15 The results of the independent sample t-test of the learners’ gender .........77 Table 4.16 The results of ANOVA and Post Hoc Tests (Scheffe) of the learners’ proficiency levels.............................................................................................78 Table 4.17 The results of ANOVA and Post Hoc Tests (Scheffe) of the learners’ ownership duration ..........................................................................................79 Table 4.18 The results of the one-sample t-test of the readiness and the three components (test value = 3).............................................................................81 Table 4.19 The results of ANOVA and Post Hoc Tests (Scheffe) of the learners’ current grade levels..........................................................................................81 Table 4.20 The results of the independent sample t-test of the learners’ gender .........82 Table 4.21 The results of ANOVA and Post Hoc Tests (Scheffe) of the learners’ proficiency levels.............................................................................................82 Table 4.22 The results of ANOVA and Post Hoc Tests (Scheffe) of the learners’ ownership duration ..........................................................................................83 Table 4.23 Inter-correlation among variables ..............................................................85 Table 4.24 Summary of multiple regression analysis for variables predicting readiness towards mobile listening learning (N=877).....................................................86. viii.

(10) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 The theoretical framework of the present study ...........................................5. ix.

(11) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the background, the purposes, research questions, and the significance of the present study. The theoretical framework is also included. 1.1 Background Vocabulary learning is essential for English learning because vocabulary comprises basic building blocks of English sentences (Nation, 2001). Moreover, vocabulary knowledge is fundamental to reading comprehension (Nagy, 2003). Therefore, with the intention of helping students learn English vocabulary effectively, English teachers would try different ways to teach them. In class, instructors would like students to learn vocabulary through explicit instruction, or students would be guided to do extensive or intensive reading with instructors’ hope that they can acquire vocabulary incidentally or intentionally. However, because the class time is limited, students usually have to use their own time to study or review what they have learned in class. Whereas the need of self-learning of the language outside the classroom, for the majority of the students in Taiwan, the English class is the only time to use English (Lu, 2008). In other words, in this EFL environment, students lack exposure to English and chances to use the language for reviewing and reinforcement of their learning. Therefore, to find a way that can help facilitate students’ self-learning of English vocabulary has become an important issue for educators and researchers in Taiwan. In addition, listening is also one of the four basic skills of language learning and plays an important role in communication. Listening ability is a fundamental and crucial component of overall language competence (Sun, 2002). Learners internalize linguistic information through listening so that they can produce language (Brown, 2001). In terms of second/foreign language (L2) learning, listening is an important language skill to develop (Dunkel, 1991). Learners usually do more listening than speaking in classrooms (Brown, 2001). Thus, learners’ ability to use listening is a key factor of successful learning (Rost, 2001). In spite of its importance, however, people tend to view speaking as the major index of language proficiency (Brown, 2001), and listening has been neglected among all the four language skills (Frommer, 1989; Osada, 2004). Therefore, learners may not be taught how to learn listening effectively (Vandergrift, 2007). Language learners use various strategies to enhance their learning. According to O’Malley and Chamot (1990), learning strategies can be classified into three 1.

(12) categories: metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies and socioaffective strategies. In regard to many cognitive activities related to language use such as oral communication of information, oral comprehension, reading comprehension, and language acquisition, metacognition has been suggested to play an important role (Flavell, 1976). Metacognitive strategies, as higher executive skills, help learners plan, monitor and evaluate their success of learning (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 44). The development of learners’ communicative competence and language proficiency can be deemed to relate to the use of these strategies (Oxford, 2002). Thus, it is important to know whether learners are aware of their use of metacognitive strategies for language learning. Metacognitive strategy awareness is defined as ‘‘planning and consciously executing appropriate actions to achieve a particular goal’’ (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001, p. 432). Based on the theory of metacognition, the metacognitive vocabulary learning strategy awareness involves in the way learners deal with the discovery and consolidation of new words (Gu & Johnson, 1996; Schmitt, 1997), while the metacognitive listening strategy awareness concerns with the extent to which language learners are aware of their strategies and can regulate the process of L2 listening comprehension (Vandergrift, Goh, Mareschal, & Tafaghodtari, 2006). In recent years, due to the rapid advancement of mobile communication and wireless technologies, mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) has attracted researchers’ attention. Some researchers have recognized mobile technology as a useful platform for presenting language learning content (Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2008) as long as educators and instructors can provide the learning content on mobile devices according to learners’ short-term memory ability (Chen, Hsieh, & Kinshuk, 2008). Thus, MALL has been proposed to provide EFL learners with large exposure to the target content and to facilitate their self-learning (Lu, 2008; Thornton & Houser, 2005). In 2013, Taiwan’s penetration rate of mobile phones had passed 125% (Research and Markets, 2013), and the penetration rate of smartphones hit 51% in the first quarter of the same year. Therefore, with the high penetration rates of mobile phones and smartphones in our country, it may be a chance for instructors to take the advantages of using mobile devices and technologies to facilitate students’ language learning. But how these various novel devices and technologies can be actually used in language learning and teaching may be an important issue to discuss. However, despite the rapid advancement of mobile devices and wireless technologies, learners’ successful use of technology can be determined by different factors (Rahimi & Katal, 2012). For example, when discussing the success in learning with technology, learners’ readiness for and perception of using technology to learn should also be taken into consideration (Wagner, 2005). In other words, learners may not be as ready or eager to use the technology for educational purposes as educators 2.

(13) and instructors think. Therefore, before integrating new technology into curricula, educators and instructors may have to make sure that learners are really ready for it (Walls, Kucsera, Walker, Acee, McVaugh, & Robinson, 2010). As Stockwell (2007) suggested, although most of the learners had positive view of mobile learning, not all of them were willing to engage in it. Learners may use these devices mainly for socializing or entertainment most of the time. There may be a disparity between what learners are willing to accept for their own personal uses, and when the usage is related to their study (Stockwell, 2007). Moreover, even though mobile devices and technologies can be used to provide language learning materials at any time and any space and bring sense of freedom to learners, such freedom of time and place may also cause difficulties to learners in deciding which times and places are the most suitable for mobile learning (Stockwell, 2010). Thus, educators and instructors may need to detect the reasons for learners’ willingness/avoidance of mobile learning, and then they can begin to introduce not only the technology itself, but also the association of using mobile devices for educational purposes (Walls et al., 2010). 1.2 Purpose of the Study According to Bannert, Hildebrand and Mengelkamp (2009), with the help of metacognition knowledge, learners can choose relevant technological devices for learning and use effective strategies to facilitate achieving learning goals. In such technology-enhanced environments, successful learners especially need metacognition to identify the differences among available technological tools (Antonietti, Colombo, & Lozotsev, 2008). Thus, the awareness of metacognitive strategy use may also have effects on success of learning with technology. Therefore, metacognitive instruction should be incorporated in e-learning (Kramarski & Zeichner, 2001), and instructors should evaluate learners’ metacognition, analyze their status of metacognitive knowledge and intervene to help them become aware of their use of metacognitive strategies (Oxford, 2002; Stadtler & Bromme, 2008). Furthermore, when using technology in learning, educators and instructors should take learners’ readiness for and perception of using such technology to learn into consideration (Wagner, 2005). The present study adopts the classification of in Rahimi and Katal (2012), in which learners’ readiness consist of attitudes, experience and familiarity. It is generally suggested that positive computer attitudes improve computer use for educational purposes (Rahimi & Katal, 2012). The findings of former studies on attitudes reveal that any successful implementation of new technology in education requires the development of users’ positive attitudes that take shape as a result of perceived usefulness and ease of use of that technology (Davis, 3.

(14) 1993). In addition, the total number of time spent on working with computer has been found to be one of the most important factors that influence computer attitudes (Beckers & Schmidt, 2003). The more experiences with technology increase the degree of self-confidence in using computers, create positive attitudes toward technology, and thus facilitate learning with technology (Matthews & Shrum, 2003). As for the last category, it is also assumed that familiarity plays an important role in using technological devices and applications. The familiarity with technology can be improved with experience of use (Yushau, 2006) and amount and condition of accessing (Kerr, Rynearson, & Kerr, 2006), which may lead higher computer literacy for learners to benefit from information on computers (Poynton, 2005). In Taiwan, however, there seem to be very limited studies have investigated the roles of Taiwanese EFL learners’ metacognitive learning strategy awareness and their readiness towards mobile-assisted language learning. It may be worthwhile to pay attention to how learners’ metacognitive learning strategy awareness is related to their mobile language learning readiness and whether their metacognitive learning strategy awareness can be predictors of their readiness towards mobile language learning. Moreover, vocabulary and listening were the most commonly discussed areas in m-learning (Miangah & Nezarat, 2012). Therefore, the present study intends to investigate the relationship between the awareness of metacognitive vocabulary and listening learning strategy use and the readiness towards mobile-assisted language learning among Taiwanese junior high school EFL students. 1.3 Research Questions of the Study The present study aims to explore the relationship among Taiwanese EFL junior high school students’ metacognitive vocabulary and listening learning strategy awareness and their readiness for using smartphones for language learning. According to the aforementioned studies, it can be hypothesized that learners’ readiness, including their attitudes towards, experience in, and familiarity with mobile devices and technologies, are determining factors of using smartphones for learning English as a foreign language. Moreover, research on metacognition suggests that learners’ metacognitive strategy awareness influences the learning outcomes of using educational technologies. Therefore, learners’ metacognitive strategy awareness is also hypothesized to predict learners’ readiness for the use of smartphones for learning English as a foreign language. Based on the theoretical framework, the present study intends to answer the following research questions: 1. Do the learners of different backgrounds (current grade levels, gender, proficiency 4.

(15) levels, and ownership duration) have different levels of metacognitive vocabulary learning strategy awareness and readiness towards mobile vocabulary learning? 2. Is there any relationship between metacognitive vocabulary learning strategy awareness and readiness towards mobile vocabulary learning? 3. Are the components of metacognitive vocabulary learning strategy awareness predictors of the learners’ readiness towards mobile vocabulary learning? 4. Do the learners of different backgrounds (current grade levels, gender, proficiency levels, and ownership duration) have different levels of metacognitive listening learning strategy awareness and readiness towards mobile listening learning? 5. Is there any relationship between metacognitive listening strategy awareness and readiness towards mobile listening learning? 6. Are the components of metacognitive listening strategy awareness predictors of the learners’ readiness towards mobile listening learning? Figure 1.1 The theoretical framework of the present study Metacognitive vocabulary learning strategy awareness 1. Selective Attention 2. Self-Initiation 3. Consolidation A. C Mobile vocabulary learning readiness 1. Familiarity 2. Attitude 3. Experience. Learners’ backgrounds 1. Current grade levels 2. Gender. B. 3. Proficiency levels (GEPT) 4. Ownership duration. Metacognitive listening strategy awareness 1. Problem-solving 2. Planning/evaluation 3. Directed attention 4. Mental translation 5. Person knowledge. D. F Mobile listening learning readiness 1. Familiarity 2. Attitude 3. Experience. E. 5.

(16) The theoretical framework is presented in Figure 1.1. The explanations of each arrow are as follows: A: Using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and ANOVA to analyze the differences of metacognitive vocabulary learning strategy awareness among the learners of different backgrounds. B: Using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and ANOVA to analyze the differences of mobile vocabulary learning readiness among the learners of different backgrounds. C: Using multiple regression analysis to investigate whether the components of metacognitive vocabulary learning strategy awareness can be predictors of the learners’ readiness towards mobile vocabulary learning. D: Using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and ANOVA to analyze the differences of metacognitive listening learning strategy awareness among the learners of different backgrounds. E: Using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and ANOVA to analyze the differences of mobile listening learning readiness among the learners of different backgrounds. F: Using multiple regression analysis to investigate whether the components of metacognitive listening strategy awareness can be predictors of the learners’ readiness towards mobile listening learning. 1.4 Significance of the Study Students in an EFL context such as Taiwan usually have to use their own time to study or review what they have learned in class because the class time is limited. MALL seems to be a promising option to for facilitating students’ self-learning at any time and any place. Mobile devices and technologies have been assumed to be useful for self-learning of vocabulary (Huang, Huang, Huang, & Lin, 2012; Lu, 2008; Thornton & Houser, 2005). Moreover, mobile devices are also suggested to lower listeners’ cognitive load and enhance their performance in English listening (Chang, Lei & Tseng, 2011). However, educators and instructors may need to inquiry whether students are really ready for mobile learning. Furthermore, metacognition plays a crucial role in language learning, especially in this m-learning environment where language learners’ need such ability to select and apply various technologies to learn. Thus, it may be important to know more about how learners’ metacognitive strategy awareness and readiness towards mobile language learning are related to each other, which is one of the goals for the present study to achieve. In addition, in many EFL countries such as Taiwan, public examinations have been leading the pedagogical practices in schools (Chen, 2002). Taking into account the importance of listening ability in daily communication and international 6.

(17) examinations, the Test of English Listening Comprehension of the College Entrance Examination had already been held officially in 2011. What is more, there will also be an additional English listening comprehension test in the English exam of the coming Junior High School Joint Examination for the students attending the twelve-year compulsory education in Taiwan. Consequently, instructors will need to help students apply more effective ways to enhance their listening comprehension. Through the survey of the present study, some implications may be provided for educators and instructors to design and implement mobile learning materials that can make the best of learners’ metacognitive language learning strategy awareness and better fit their readiness for mobile language learning.. 7.

(18) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter first presents the review of literature on the issues of metacognitive learning strategies concerning vocabulary and listening learning. The second part presents the review on the relationships among mobile-assisted language learning (MALL), vocabulary learning, listening learning, and learner’ readiness in previous studies. 2.1 Metacognitive Learning Strategies Language learners apply different strategies to facilitate their own learning. Previous research focused on identifying and classifying different learning strategies. O’Malley, Chamot and other colleagues differentiated 26 strategies and grouped them into three categories: metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies and socioaffective strategies (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper, & Russo, 1985a; 1985b). According to O’Malley and Chamot (1990), metacognitive strategies refer to self-regulatory actions or techniques which learners use to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning processes. On the other hand, cognitive strategies are operations or techniques which learners take to directly manipulate the incoming materials themselves. In addition, when students interact with the teachers or other students to solve a problem or adjust of their emotional state, they are using socioaffective strategies. Furthermore, Oxford (1990) developed the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), in which strategies for second language learning were classified into two categories, direct ones and indirect ones. Direct strategies include memory strategies, cognitive strategies and comprehension strategies, while indirect strategies consist of metacognitive strategies, affective strategies and social strategies. 2.1.1 Definition of Metacognition Metacognitive strategies are sequential processes that one uses to control cognitive activities, and to ensure that a cognitive goal (e.g., understanding a text) has been met (Livingston, 1977). Metacognition is the underlying concept of the use of metacognitive strategies. Metacognition can be most simply defined as “thinking about thinking” (Flavell, 1979, p. 906), “cognition about cognition”, or “knowing about knowing” (Metcalfe & Shimamura, 1994). The area of study has received researchers’ attention in psychology since 1970’s. Flavell (1976) first used the term 8.

(19) metacognition to refer to “one’s knowledge concerning one's own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them”. In other words, metacognition can be described as the knowledge about and regulation of one’s cognitive activities in learning processes (Flavell, 1979; Brown, 1978). Subsequent development and definition of the term concerns the thinking about thinking process and learning how to learn (Tsung, 2012). For example, in Cross and Paris (1988, p. 131), metacognition was defined as “the knowledge and control children have over their own thinking and learning activities”; and as Baird (1990) summarized, metacognition refers to “the knowledge, awareness and control of one’s own learning” (p.184). According to Flavell (1979; 1987), metacognition can be classified into metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experiences or regulation. Metacognitive knowledge refers to the acquired world knowledge that is related to cognitive matters and can be used to control cognitive processes (Flavell, 1987). This knowledge can be subdivided into three categories, including person variables, task variables, and strategy variables. Knowledge of person variables refers to learners’ knowledge or beliefs about how human beings and they themselves learn and deal with information as cognitive processors. Knowledge of task variables includes knowledge about how the nature of a task and the type of processing needed can influence the performance. Knowledge of strategy variables refers to learners’ understanding about the values of different strategies and how to use them to enhance learning. As for metacognitive experiences, Flavell (1987) defined them as “conscious experiences that are cognitive and affective” (p.24). To be more specific, metacognitive experiences are feelings and judgments/estimates that learners may have before, after or during learning or information processing (Efklides, 2006). Such experiences often occur when cognitions break down, such as the sudden sinking feeling learners may have when failing to remember what they have learned during a test (Flavell, 1981). Both metacognitive knowledge and experiences guide people to select, evaluate, revise, or abandon cognitive tasks, goals, and strategies (Hacker 1997). Studies have been done to discuss how they interact with and facilitate each other. For example, Flavell (1979) argues that metacognitive experiences are important for the development and refinement of metacognitive knowledge because they allow learners to monitor and regulate their cognitive processes. Later, Schraw (1998) notes that a number of empirical studies have found that metacognitive knowledge appears to enhance metacognitive regulation and they are correlated with each other. Furthermore, attention also have been paid to the research on the components of metacognition (Brown, 1987; Flavell, 1987; Jacobs & Paris, 1987; Pintrich, Wolters, & Baxter, 2000; Schraw, 1998; Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Schraw & Moshman, 1995; 9.

(20) Winne & Hadwin, 1998). Many researchers agree that metacognition comprises two major components, knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition (Brown, 1987; Flavell, 1987; Jacobs & Paris, 1987; Schraw, 1998; Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Schraw & Moshman, 1995). According to Schraw and Moshman (1995), knowledge about cognition refers to “what individuals know about their own cognition or about cognition in general” (p.352). The knowledge consists of three kinds of metacognitive awareness, including declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and conditional knowledge (Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Schraw & Moshman, 1995). As Schraw and Dennison (1994) defined in their study, declarative knowledge is “knowledge about self and strategies”, procedural knowledge is “knowledge about how to use strategies”, and conditional knowledge is “knowledge about when and why to use strategies” (p.460). Moreover, regulation of cognition refers to “a set of activities helping students control their learning” (Schraw, 2001, p.4). The knowledge for these series of activities can be divided into planning, monitoring or regulating and evaluation (Cross & Paris, 1988; Schraw & Moshman, 1995; Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley, 2006). Planning involves how to identify and select appropriate strategies to use. It also includes the allocation of resources such as setting, activating background knowledge, and budgeting time. Monitoring or regulating involves learners’ on-line attention to and awareness of comprehension and task performance. Self-testing while learning can also be included in the activities. Evaluation is defined as “appraising the products and regulatory processes of one’s learning”, and it includes revisiting and revising one’s goals (Schraw et al., 2006, p.114). According to some researchers (Brown, 1987; Flavell, 1987; Jacobs & Paris, 1987; Baker, 1989), knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition believed to be correlated. Although metacognition is generally considered to consist of two components, there are still different ways of classification. For example, in Pintrich, Wolters, and Baxter (2000), the researchers suggest three components of metacognition: metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and self-regulation and control. The first component, metacognitive knowledge, refers to cognitive learning strategies which learners use to regulate the process of knowledge acquisition. The strategies include memory strategies such as note taking and elaboration strategies such as the building of links to prior knowledge (Cubukcu, 2008). The second group, metacognitive monitoring, consists of metacognitive control strategies. The strategies are concerned with planning and monitoring of learning activities, the evaluation of learning outcomes and the adaptation of the use of strategies to meet task demands. The third category in the model developed by Pintrich and Garcia (1994) involves resource management and self-management. The control of the general conditions associated with learning, such as the management of time and environment, is the 10.

(21) core of the group of strategies. In addition, in the model developed by Winne and Hadwin (1998), the function of metacognition includes four stages: task understanding, goals setting and planning, study tactics enacting, and metacognition evaluating and adapting. While processing a learning task, learners first construct an understanding of the assigned or chosen task. And they will set goals for the task by making use of the information from the first stage or other metacognitive knowledge. In the next stage, learners choose and implement strategies for learning. The final stage involves learners’ adjustment of strategies and plans to facilitate the cognitive process based on their own learning outcomes. Despite the divergence in details among the attempts to conceptualize metacognition, they all indicate that learners’ personal selection and implement of knowledge and strategies are related to outside learning environment (Tsung, 2012). 2.1.2 Metacognitive Vocabulary Learning Strategies Language learning strategies are “special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to comprehend, learn, or retain new information” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p.8). Oxford (1990) also defined them as “specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” (p.8). For Brown (2001), language learning strategies are “specific methods of approaching a problem or task, modes of operation for achieving a particular end, or planned designs for controlling and manipulating certain information”. Emphasizing on the learning process, Chamot (2004) defined them as “the conscious thoughts and actions that learners take in order to achieve a learning goal”. From the definition above, language learning strategies can be viewed as learners’ thoughts, behaviors, methods or plans that are operated consciously to facilitate learning, achieve certain learning goals and retain the knowledge for future application. Vocabulary learning strategies, as a subcategory of language learning strategies, can thus be deemed as steps and actions taken by learners to discover the meaning of new words, retain them in long-term memory, retrieve them when needed, and use them in language production (Catalán, 2003). With regard to the systematic categorization of the identified learning strategies, several researchers have proposed different categories of learning strategies. O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manaznares, Kupper, and Russo (1985b) recognized 26 strategies and classified into three groups: metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective. Further, Oxford (1990) developed a comprehensive taxonomy of language learning strategies, the Strategies Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). She first distinguished between the two major classes, direct and indirect strategies. Three of the six 11.

(22) subcategories, memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies, were grouped under the direct class, while the other three were assigned to the indirect class, including metacognitive, affective, and social strategies. SILL has become the most widely used instrument in assessing language learning strategies. Some vocabulary learning researchers (Kudo, 1999; Schmitt, 1997) also adopted the categorization as their framework. Although vocabulary learning strategies were found to be used more frequently than the strategies used for any other language learning activities (Chamot, 1987; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; O’Malley et al., 1985b), the field of vocabulary studies seemed to be “a neglected area” (Meara & Jones, 1987) and there were limited studies on vocabulary learning strategies (Schmitt, 1997). However, since 1990s, several researchers have paid attention to this area and started their attempts to classify vocabulary learning strategies (Gu & Johnson, 1996; Fan, 2003; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 1997; Stoffer, 1995). Stoffer (1995) established a questionnaire with 53 items to administer the Vocabulary Learning Strategies Inventory (VOLSI) to 707 students at the University Alabama. She suggested that the 53 items on the VOLSI could be clustered into nine categories: strategies involving authentic language use, strategies involving creative activities, strategies used for self-motivation, strategies used to create mental linkages, memory strategies, visual/auditory strategies, strategies involving physical action, strategies used to overcome anxiety, strategies used to organize words . Later, Gu and Johnson (1996) studied 850 Chinese EFL university students by means of a questionnaire concerning learners’ beliefs about vocabulary learning and their strategy use. The 74 items investigating vocabulary learning strategies were classified into seven categories: metacognitive regulation, guessing strategies, dictionary strategies, note-taking strategies, rehearsal strategies, encoding strategies, and activation strategies. Table 2.1 is Gu and Johnson’s (1996) Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire (VLQ), version 3, which outlines the major dimensions in the questionnaire, the categories under each dimension, the number of items under each category, acronyms for independent variables. Table 2.1 Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire, Version 3 (Gu & Johnson, 1996) Variable Labels. Dimensions and Categories. No. of Items. Beliefs About Vocabulary Learning Words Should Be Memorized. 17 8. MEMORIZ. Words Should Be Acquired in Context: Bottom-Up Words Should Be Studied and Put to Use: Top-Down. 4 5. ACQUIRE LEARN. 12.

(23) Metacognitive Regulation Selective Attention. 12 7. ATTEND. Self-Initiation. 5. SELFINI. Guessing Strategies Using Background Knowledge/ Wider Context. 12 7. WIDECUE. Using Linguistic Cues/Immediate Context. 5. LOCOCUE. Dictionary Strategies Dictionary Strategies for Comprehension. 17 4. DICOMPR. Extended Dictionary Strategies Looking-Up Strategies. 8 5. DICEXTN DICLOOK. Note-Taking Strategies. 9. Meaning-Oriented Note-Taking Strategies Usage-Oriented Note-Taking Strategies. 5 4. NOTEMNG NOTEUSE. Rehearsal Strategies Using Word Lists Oral Repetition Visual Repetition. 12 6 3 3. VOCLIST ORALREP VISUREP. Encoding Strategies Association/ Elaboration Imagery. 24 4 4. ASSOCIA IMAGERY. Visual Encoding Auditory Encoding. 3 3. VISUCOD AUDICOD. Using Word-Structure Semantic Encoding Contextual Encoding Activation Strategies. 3 3 4 5. WDFORM SEMANET CONTEXT ACTIVAT. In addition to the classification in previous research, Schmitt (1997) further developed a comprehensive list of vocabulary learning strategies. By examining the vocabulary reference books and textbooks, analyzing Japanese intermediate students’ responses to a questionnaire, and interviewing with language teachers, he compiled 58 strategies in his taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies (VLS). The strategies were classified with a framework based on two systems. First, he adopted four of the 13.

(24) six categories proposed by Oxford’s (1990) Strategies Inventory for Language Learning (SILL): Social Strategies (SOC), Memory Strategies (MEM), Cognitive Strategies (COG), and Metacognitive Strategies (MET). Oxford’s (1990) categorization was deemed to be “the most useful for his purpose” and “best able to capture and organize the wide variety of vocabulary learning strategies identified” (Schmitt, 1997, p.205). However, Oxford’s (1990) classification system was unsatisfactory to describe “the strategies used by an individual when faced with discovering a new word’s meaning without recourse to another person’s expertise” (Schmitt, 1997, p.205). Therefore, the fifth category for these strategies, Determination Strategies (DET), was added to the taxonomy. Second, following the idea of the distinction between Discovery and Consolidation, which was suggested by Cook and Mayer (1983) and Nation (1990), Schmitt clustered the strategies into two groups. The group of Discover Strategies helps learners find out the meaning of a newly encountered word, while the group of Consolidation Strategies facilitates memorization of the word once it has been introduced. Table 2.2 presents Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomy of vocabulary learning. Table 2.2 A Taxonomy of Vocabulary Learning Strategies (Schmitt, 1997, pp. 207-208) Strategy Group Strategies for discovering the meaning of a new word DET Analyze part of speech DET Analyze affixes and roots DET Check for L1 cognate DET Analyze any available pictures or gestures DET Guess from textual context DET Bilingual dictionary DET Monolingual dictionaries DET Word lists DET Flash cards SOC Ask teacher for L1 translation SOC Ask teacher for paraphrase or synonym of new word SOC Ask teacher for a sentence including the new word SOC Ask classmates for meaning SOC Discover new meaning through group work activity Strategies for consolidating a word once it has been encountered SOC Study and practice meaning in a group SOC Teacher checks students’ flash cards word lists for accuracy 14.

(25) SOC Interact with native-speakers MEM Study word with a pictorial representation of its meaning MEM Image word’s meaning MEM Connect word to a personal experience MEM Associate the word with its coordinates MEM Connect the word to its synonyms and antonyms MEM Use semantic maps MEM Use ‘scales’ for gradable adjectives MEM Peg Method MEM Loci Method MEM Group words together to study them MEM Group words together spatially on a page MEM Use new word in sentences MEM Group words together within a storyline MEM Study the spelling of a word MEM Study the sound of a word MEM Say new word aloud when studying MEM Image word form MEM Underline initial letter of the word MEM Configuration MEM Use Key word Method MEM Affixes and roots MEM Part of speech MEM Paraphrase the word’s meaning MEM Use cognates in study MEM Learn the words of idiom together MEM Use physical action when learning a word MEM Use semantic feature grids COG Verbal repetition COG Written repetition COG Word lists COG Flash cards COG Take notes in class COG Use the vocabulary section in your textbook COG Listen to tape of word lists COG Put English labels on physical objects COG Keep a vocabulary note book MET Use English-language media (songs, movies, newscast, etc.) 15.

(26) MET Testing oneself with word tests MET Use spaced word practice MET Skip or pass new word MET Continue to study over time More recently, a large-scale survey investigating 1067 Cantonese EFL learners’ frequency, perceived usefulness and actual usefulness of vocabulary learning strategies was conducted by Fan (2003). In his study, Fan (2003) also presented a taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies, in which a total of 60 strategies were clustered under nine categories: Management, Sources, Guessing, Dictionary, Repetition, Grouping, Analysis, Association, and Known Words. In addition, Fan (2003) also proposed that all vocabulary learning strategies are somewhat associated with a model of five essential steps of vocabulary acquisition identified by Brown and Payne (1994, cited in Fan, 2003). The steps are as follows: (1) having sources for encountering new words; (2) getting a clear image, either visual or auditory or both, (3) learning the meaning of the words, (4) making a strong memory connection between the forms and meanings of the words, and (5) using the words. Although some researchers have not directly adopted the term “metacognitive strategies”, their categorization often contain strategies involving the features of metacognition, that is, planning, monitoring and evaluating. For example, in Ahmed’s (1989), the micro-strategies of ‘overlook’, ‘ask for a test’ and ‘self-test’ are related to the ideas of planning and evaluating. This is also applied to other studies on vocabulary learning strategies, such as the categories of ‘independence’ and ‘review’ in Kojic-Sabo and Lightbown’s (1999) study, the class of ‘planning’ in Nation’s (2001) taxonomy, and the category of ‘management’ in Fan’s (2003) classification. On the other hand, within the aforementioned literature on vocabulary learning strategies, only Gu and Johnson’s (1996) and Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomies explicitly emphasized metacognitive strategies as one of the vocabulary learning strategies (Tsung, 2012). With the focus on the relationship between vocabulary learning strategies and learners’ learning outcomes, Gu and Johnson (1996) separated their questionnaire concerning vocabulary learning strategy use into two major parts, Metacognitive Regulation and Cognitive strategies. The part of Metacognitive Regulation consists of 12 items, which can be further divided into two subcategories, Selective Attention (seven items) and Self-Initiation (five items). The results of the study reveal that the metacognitive strategies appear to be effective predictors of learners’ general English proficiency. Table 2.3 presents the concrete description of these 12 strategies excerpted from Gu and Johnson’s (1996) questionnaire.. 16.

(27) Table 2.3 Gu and Johnson’s Vocabulary Learning Metacognitive Strategies (1996) Metacognitive Regulation (12) Selective Attention (7) I know when a new word or a phrase is essential for adequate comprehension of a passage. I know which words are important for me to learn. I have a sense of which words I can guess and which words I can’t. I look up words that I’m interested in. When I meet a new word or phrase, I have a clear sense of whether I need to remember it. I know what cues I should use in guessing the meaning of a particular word. I make a note of words that seem important to me. Self-Initiation (5) Besides textbooks, I look for other readings that fall under my interest. I wouldn’t learn what my English teacher doesn’t tell us to learn. I only focus on things that are directly related to examinations. I wouldn’t care much about vocabulary items that my teacher doesn’t explain in class. I use various means to make clear vocabulary items that I am not quite clear of.. Schmitt (1997) further provided a concise description in vocabulary learning in his taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies (Tsung, 2012). According to Schmitt (1997), “metacognitive strategies involve a conscious overview of the learning process and making decisions about planning, monitoring, or evaluating the best ways to study” (p.205). With metacognitive strategies, learners can consolidate the learned words in memory and facilitate recall. There are five strategies that were classified under the category: using English-language media (songs, movies, newscast, etc.), testing oneself with word tests, using spaced word practice, skipping or passing new words, and continuing to study over time. The description of metacognitive vocabulary learning strategies in Gu and Johnson’s (1996) taxonomy seems to be clear and complete, while some question stems are considered to be overlapping (Tsung, 2012). Unlike Gu and Johnson’s 17.

(28) (1996), the shorter question stems are thought to be subject-friendly (Tsung, 2012) and easy for collecting answers from learners (Catalán, 2003). In addition, while Schmitt (1997) divided vocabulary learning strategies into the groups of discovery and Consolidation, it seems that he mainly emphasizes the Consolidation function of metacognitive strategies. Gu and Johnson (1996), on the other hand, put emphasis on the discovery function of Metacognitive Regulation strategies, which consist of Selective Attention and Self-Initiation strategies that can be used when learners encounter new words. Therefore, according to (Tsung, 2012), the focuses of the two frameworks of metacognitive strategies can be deemed to be complementary rather than contradictory, and the integration of the two frameworks is a complete presentation of metacognitive awareness in application to second language vocabulary learning. The present study thus adopt and combine the categories of metacognitive strategies of the two frameworks to develop the questionnaires for evaluating learners’ awareness of their vocabulary learning strategies, as Tsung (2012) did in her study. With the growing attention to the importance of vocabulary learning strategies, some researchers in Taiwan have started to conduct studies investigating vocabulary learning strategies used by Taiwanese EFL learners. Among those studies, some of them are concerning metacognitive vocabulary learning strategies (Hsu, 2005; Kung, 2004; Liao, 2004; Lin, 2001; Wang, 2004). Lin (2001) looked into the vocabulary learning strategies used by seven Taiwanese elementary students through a case study. The 73 identified strategies were grouped into 18 types and clustered under three major categories, including 4 metacognitive strategies (Advance Preparation, Selective Attention, Monitoring, and Self-management), 11 cognitive strategies, and 3 socio-affective strategies. Unlike the other three metacognitive strategies which have been proposed in previous research, Advance Preparation was first presented by the Lin (2001) to refer to “preparing for an anticipated learning activity”. It includes (1) Writing down the L1 meaning of English vocabulary (L1 meaning), (2) Writing down the KK phonetic symbols of English vocabulary (KK phonetics), and (3) Dividing the target words into segments according to its sounds (Dividing). On the other hand, some studies replicating Gu and Johnson’s (1996) and Schmitt’s (1997) were conducted to explore Taiwanese EFL learners’ vocabulary learning regarding metacognitive strategy use. Kung (2004) investigated Taiwanese EFL elementary school students’ vocabulary learning strategy use and its correlation with the students’ English proficiency. The questionnaire used in the study was developed based on Schmitt’s (1997) framework and Lin’s (2001) research. The results show that Determination and Metacognitive are the most frequently used strategies, while Memory and Cognitive strategies are the least. Later, In line with Kung (2004), Hsu (2005) probed into Taiwanese EFL college students’ vocabulary 18.

(29) learning strategies and their relationship with proficiency level. The questionnaire for identifying the strategies used was adapted from Gu and Johnson’s (1996) classification of vocabulary learning strategies. The findings reveal that the learners used metacognitive and social strategies more often than cognitive and memory strategies. Both Kung (2004) and Hsu (2005) found that more proficient learners used vocabulary learning strategies significantly more often than the less proficient ones. However, different results are showed in Wang’s (2004) study on the relationships between learners’ vocabulary learning strategy use and their vocabulary size. Wang (2004) adopted Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomy to survey Taiwanese senior high school students’ vocabulary learning strategies, and Nation’s (1990) Vocabulary Level Tests for 2000-word and 3000-word level were to estimate their vocabulary size. The findings indicate that the use of strategies was significantly correlated with vocabulary size. In addition, she found that cognitive strategies were favored the most while metacognitive and social strategies the least. Liao (2004) also used Schmitt’s (1997) framework to survey the vocabulary learning strategies used by Taiwanese college students. Similar to Wang’s (2004) study, the findings reveal that the learners used metacognitive and social strategies the least frequently, while determination was the most favored strategy category. Although some of the results seem to be consistent in the aforementioned literature, the discrepancy among the results regarding the use of metacognitive vocabulary learning strategies indicates that further research is needed to explore the roles of metacognitive strategies and other categories of strategies, such as cognitive and socioaffective strategies, in vocabulary learning. 2.1.3 Metacognitive Listening Strategies For language learners, listening comprehension strategies are used in order to enhance their comprehension and retention of the target language (Vandergrift et al., 1996). In the first study that investigated effective and ineffective ESL learners’ listening strategies, Murphy (1985) concluded that effective listeners used listening comprehension strategies more frequently, applied a greater variety of strategies, and engaged themselves in interaction with the text more actively while the ineffective listeners relied more on the text and a consistent use of paraphrase. Later, more studies were conducted to examine listening strategies. Effective listeners were found to use more metacognitive strategies (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Chamot, 1987). The importance of metacognitive strategies in effective listening comprehension was demonstrated in Henner-Stanchina (1987). The study showed that proficient listeners made use of their world knowledge to raise hypotheses about what they had heard; 19.

(30) they integrated new information into the continuous predictions on the text; inferences were made from the context to bridge gaps; they monitored and assessed their interpretations; and their predictions were modified as necessary. In other words, successful listeners could identify their failure in listening comprehension and were capable of applying metacognitive listening strategies such as appropriate prior knowledge to recover comprehension. O’Malley, Chamot and Kupper (1989) also found that effective listeners could be distinguished from ineffective ones in three predominant strategies: self-monitoring, elaboration, and inferencing strategies. While self-monitoring, listeners could decide whether they should focus on more specific or more general information. They also comprehended and retained what had been demonstrated by relating their previous knowledge to new information of the text. When there were unknown words or missing ideas, they would guess and infer by using information and context of the text. On the other hand, the less skilled listeners would use word-by-word segmentation when listening. When they encountered a comprehension breakdown, they might stop and quit listening. They used less repair strategies such as connecting the incoming information to their prior knowledge to redirect their attention back to the task. In conclusion, these ineffective listeners adopted bottom-up processing for individual word meanings rather than made use of metacognitive strategies. Being in line with O’Malley et al. (1989), Vandergrift (2003) also found that effective listeners used twice as many metacognitive strategies as their less-skilled counterparts. In Taiwan, attention also has been paid to exploration of EFL learners’ use of metacognitive listening strategies. Teng (1997) investigated the EFL listening comprehension strategies used by college freshmen in Taiwan. The results showed that the less proficient listeners used the cognitive strategies most frequently, whereas the proficient listeners used the metacognitive strategies for compensation, such as self-monitoring and self-evaluation, with higher frequency. Later, the listening process of senior high school students was explored by Wang and Chao (2002) with the attempt to examine their frequency of strategy use. Similar to previous findings, listeners used metacognitive strategies more frequently, including the monitoring and self-management strategies. Furthermore, in Chan (2005), metacognitive listening strategies, such as planning, monitoring, and evaluation, were found to be used more frequently by the effective listeners than the ineffective counterparts. However, although it has been found that the effective listeners used more metacognitive listening strategies than cognitive ones, there are still other studies that have found different results. Goh (2002) found more proficient listeners demonstrated more effective use of both cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Furthermore, 20.

(31) Bacon (1992) investigated the listening strategies used by university students to learn Spanish. The researcher found that successful listeners used listening strategies more openly and flexibly than less successful ones. The results indicated that the listeners applied cognitive strategies more frequently than metacognitive strategies. That is, they used more bottom-up strategies than top-down ones. Among metacognitive strategies, monitoring was the most commonly used by the effective listeners. Bremner (1999) also found that high proficiency listeners frequently adopted cognitive and compensation listening strategies. In the study of Ozeki (2000), cognitive strategies were reported to be used most, while the listeners seldom used socioaffective strategies and rarely applied metacognitive ones. Moreover, Lee (1997) explored the listening strategies applied by Taiwanese junior college EFL learners. The study reported that the socioaffective category ranked first in average frequencies of use, followed by the metacognitive category. Cognitive strategies were found to be the least frequently used ones. Although the most frequent listening strategies applied by listeners were found to be different in former studies, the results showed that successful listeners tend to use a variety of strategies with greater flexibility. In spite of the diverse results of the aforementioned studies, metacognition was found to play an important role in L2 learning, for it enhanced thinking and comprehension (Vandergrift et al., 2006). According to Marzano et al. (1988), learners with high degrees of metacognitive awareness could comprehend and memorize new incoming data more effectively, finding the best ways to practice and reinforce what they had learned. In order to evaluate second language learners’ metacognitive awareness and perceived use of strategies, based on the theory of metacognition, Vandergrift et al.(2006) developed and validated a listening questionnaire named Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ), in which five types of strategies were identified: problem-solving, planning and evaluation, mental translation, person knowledge, and directed attention. The questionnaire contains 21 items for the five factors, including problem-solving (six items), planning and evaluation (five items), mental translation (three items), person knowledge (three items), and directed attention (four items). Each item is to be rated on a 6-point Likert scale rating from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). There is not a neutral point so that respondents could not hedge. The study demonstrated a significant relationship between MALQ scores and actual listening behavior. The four factors, problem-solving, planning and evaluation, person knowledge, and directed attention represented the important strategies that were applied by skilled L2 listeners. However, the third factor (mental translation) represented the strategies that beginning-level listeners often felt compelled to use (Eastman, 1991), but which they 21.