顯性教學對英語學習者後設認知與聽力理解的效果

全文

(1)國立台灣師範大學英語學系碩. 士. 論. 文. Master’s Thesis Department of English National Taiwan Normal University. 顯性教學對英語學習者後設認知與聽力理解的效果 The Efficacy of Explicit Instruction on Enhancing Metacognition and Listening Comprehension of EFL Learners. 指導教授：劉宇挺博士 Advisor: Dr. Yeu-ting Liu 研究生：林芸竹 Graduate: Yun-jhu Lin. 中華民國一百零四年七月 July 2015.

(2) 中文摘要近年來，與英文聽力相關的研究大多著重於探討影響聽力的因素，而非增進聽力的方法。本研究旨在探討後設認知教學程序 (metacognitive pedagogical sequence)對聽力的介入成效，透過顯性教學，將聽的過程分為五個階段，並引導學習者在聽力過程中運用後設認知聽力策略，例如：在聽前進行「計畫預測 (planning)」、在聽的過程中進行「監控理解 (monitoring)」、在聽後進行「自我評估(evaluating)」，並將不同的後設認知策略融入聽力教學的各階段之中。本研究之假設為：（一）後設認知聽力教學法會提升學習者的後設認知；（二）後設認知聽力教學法會增進學習者的聽力理解；（三）聽力後設認知與聽力理解兩者顯著相關。本研究以 74 位新北市高中學生為研究對象，以 38 位學生為實驗組，接受後設認知聽力訓練；以 36 人為控制組，其課程依台灣一般英語聽力教學方式── 聆聽並回答聽力理解問題──進行八週的實驗教學。實驗教學分為三大階段：前測、介入、後測。在前、後測階段，研究者採用後設認知聽力問卷(Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire)來測量學生的聽力後設認知量，並以全民英檢 (General English Proficiency Test) 中級聽力測驗來測量學生聽力理解成績，最後再以皮爾森相關 (Pearson correlation)來探討學生之聽力後設認知量與其英檢聽力成績的關係。本研究主要有三項發現：（一）雖然實驗組學生的聽力後設認知量並沒有顯著增加，但他們的聽力成績有顯著進步，大部分進步的分數來自於全民英檢聽力測驗第三大題「簡短對話」(Short Dialogue)；（二）與程度較好的學生相比，程度較差的學生在聽力表現上進步幅度較大；（三）學生的聽力後設認知量與聽力表現有顯著正相關，而後設認知量可以預測約 12%的全民英檢聽力成績。本研究證實了後設認知聽力教學法對英語為外語(EFL)學習者的正面效果，以及後設認知與聽力表現的顯著關聯。雖因研究時間上的限制，無法以此教學法讓學生的聽力後設認知在短時間內能有顯著進步，但這 8 週的實驗仍能提升學生的聽力表現，也證明了此一著重過程 (process-based)的後設認知聽力教學法的成效。最後，本研究也提供了將此教學法運用在聽力課堂的可行方式，並對未來相關主題的研究提出建言。關鍵字：顯性教學、後設認知、聽力理解. i.

(3) ABSTRACT So far, most studies on listening have drawn attention on the factors affecting listening instead of approaches facilitating listening. Therefore, the researcher proposed a potential way of teaching listening─ implementing a metacognitive pedagogical cycle in language classrooms. Engaged in a five-staged listening process, learners were guided by explicit instruction on metacognitive strategies such as planning, monitoring, and evaluating. It was hypothesized that learners may have significant increase in listening comprehension as well as metacognitive awareness and that the two may correlate significantly with each other. Conducted in an EFL context, the present study recruited 74 high school students in New Taipei City in the 8-week treatment. The students were assigned to either experimental group (N=38) or control group (N=36). In each listening section, the former experienced the abovementioned metacognitive approach while the latter followed the conventional approach─ listen and answer comprehension questions. The present study has a pre- and posttest design, assessing learners’ metacognitive awareness and listening comprehension by Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) and the listening section of intermediate level General English Proficiency Test (GEPT). Also, Pearson Correlation was performed to explore the correlation between MALQ and GEPT. Results of the present findings suggest that although learners in the experimental group had no significant progress in metacognitive awareness, they had significant gain in listening comprehension. The significant gain of the experimental group chiefly stemmed from progress in the Short Dialogue section of GEPT. Moreover, in terms of listening comprehension, the less proficient learners made more significant progress than the more proficient ones. Lastly, metacognitive awareness correlated positively and significantly with listening comprehension, accounted for up to 12% of listening performance. To sum up, results of the present study validated the positive effect of metacognitive approach on EFL learners’ listening comprehension. In addition, the present study also confirmed the hypothesis that the higher metacognitive awareness a learner has, the better listening comprehension s/he achieves. However, due to the lack of time for treatment, there was no significant difference in learners’ metacognitive awareness. Finally, the study concluded with a discussion on the potential use of the metacognitive, process-based approach in teaching listening, providing implications and suggestions for future research. Keywords: explicit instruction, metacognition, listening comprehension ii.

(4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT “I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” ~Isaac Newton I made it. Were it not for the unconditional love and support I had been granted, I would not have reached the finish line of the six-year-long marathon. My gratitude goes first and foremost to Prof. Yeu-ting Liu, the head coach who provided me expert guidance and constant encouragement throughout the tortuous journey. Whenever I was overwhelmed by the conflict between work and study, Prof. Liu would patiently reminded me not to lose faith and to enjoy the process. I am grateful to him for helping me develop interest and build up confidence in the research field. My sincere appreciation also goes to my committee members, Prof. Huei-chun, Teng and Prof. Mei-zhen, Wu, whose expert advice has made my thesis more comprehensive. I owe the two generous referees a debt of gratitude for taking time out of their tight schedule, helping me reach the last mile of my graduate study. Next, my deepest gratitude is extended to the following respectable coaches in the TESOL program of NTNU: I would like to show genuine appreciation to Prof. Chin-cheng, Lin, Prof. Wen-ta, Tseng, and Prof. Yuh-show, Cheng, whose wholehearted support enabled me to stick to my goal and move on. Also, I would like to express my utmost appreciation to Prof. Wu-chang Chang, Prof. His-chin Chu, and Prof. Hao-jan, Chen for sharing their established expertise and thus kindled my interest in researching testing, reading, and vocabulary. In addition to giving thanks to these honorable professors, I would like to express iii.

(5) my profound gratitude to all the lovely cheerleaders keeping me company during the six-year marathon. First, I would like to give thanks to my students and colleagues in DanFeng High School, whose valuable feedback and solid support motivated me to forge ahead. Second, I would like to gratefully thank the members in the “in-service teacher support group”: Jenny Huang, Amy Cheng, and Helen Hung. Also, I would like to express my warmest thanks to my dear classmates: Alison, Remy, and Tiffany. Without their company, my graduate study would not have been colorful and memorable. Additionally, my sincere thanks goes to Lily Chen, Bonnie Chang, and Ya-hua, Gu, whose unconditional support helped me build up inner strength to accomplish my goal. Last but not least, I am indebted to my families─ my father, my mother, and my dearest younger sister, Light Lin. They have been the wind beneath my wings, and it is to them that I would like to dedicate this master’s thesis. Thanks to the six-year training in NTNU’s TESOL program, I have become more capable of helping myself and people around to take on challenges in life, to adopt scientific ways to tackle problems, and to finally shout out loud, “I made it!” at the finish line.. iv.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS 中文摘要......................................................................................................................... i 中文摘要 ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. v LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................vii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 Motivation .............................................................................................................. 1 Theoretical Background ......................................................................................... 4 Rationale ................................................................................................................ 6 Significance of the Study ..................................................................................... 10 Research Questions .............................................................................................. 11 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 13 Metacognition ...................................................................................................... 13 Metacognition and Learning ................................................................................ 16 Metacognition and Strategy Instruction ............................................................... 20 Metacognitive Strategies for Listening Comprehension...................................... 21 Metacognitive Teaching Approach to Enhancing L2 Listening Comprehension 25 Empirical Studies on Metacognitive Pedagogical Sequence ............................... 29 CHAPTER THREE: METHOD .............................................................................. 36 Participants ........................................................................................................... 36 Materials .............................................................................................................. 36 Design .................................................................................................................. 37 Experimental Group Treatment.................................................................... 38 Control Group Treatment ............................................................................. 39 Instrument ............................................................................................................ 40 Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) ..................... 40 General English Proficiency Listening Test (GEPT) ................................... 42 Procedure ............................................................................................................. 43 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 44 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULT.................................................................................... 46 Differences in Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) ...... 47 Differences in the Intermediate Level Listening Test of General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) ...................................................................................... 53 Correlation between Metacognitive Awareness and Listening Comprehension . 57 Summary of Results ............................................................................................. 60 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION............................................................................. 62 v.

(7) Metacognitive Awareness as a Predictor for Listening Performance .................. 62 The Effect of Metacognitive Approach to Listening Instruction on Metacognitive Awareness ............................................................................................................ 64 The Effect of Metacognitive Approach to Listening Instruction on Listening Comprehension .................................................................................................... 69 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 75 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 75 Implications.......................................................................................................... 77 Limitations ........................................................................................................... 80 Suggestions for Future Research ......................................................................... 82 REFERENCE ............................................................................................................. 84 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ 92 Appendix A: Listening Materials ......................................................................... 92 Appendix B: Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire(MALQ) ......... 94 Appendix C: Translated Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) ............................................................................................................... 95. vi.

(8) LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Vandergrift’ (1997) Metacognitive Listening Strategies: Planning, Monitoring, Evaluating, Problem Identification ........................................... 24 Table 2 Stages of Instruction and Underlying Metacognitive Processes for Generic Listening Activities ......................................................................................... 27 Table 3 Synthesis of Studies on the Effect Metacognitive Approach Has on L2 Learners in FSL and ESL contexts ................................................................ 33 Table 4 Synthesis of Studies on the Effect Metacognitive Approach Has on L2 Learners in EFL contexts ............................................................................... 33 Table 5 Intervention of Control Group and Experimental Group ............................. 38 Table 6 Note-taking Worksheet for the Experimental Group..................................... 40 Table 7 Taxonomy of Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) .. 42 Table 8 Procedure ...................................................................................................... 44 Table 9 Result of Shapiro-Wilk Normality Test on MALQ and GEPT Pretest .......... 47 Table 10 Analysis of Differences in Pretest Result between Eg and Cg.................... 47 Table 11 Results of Differences in MALQ Pretest and Posttest between Eg and Cg 48 Table 12 Descriptive Statistics of MALQ Pretest and Posttest Means ...................... 48 Table 13 Analysis of Differences in the Pretest and Posttests of the Five Factors Underlying MALQ ......................................................................................... 49 Table 14 Analysis of the Notes of Learners in the Experimental Group ................... 52 Table 15 Differences in GEPT Pretest and Posttest between Eg and Cg.................. 54 Table 16 Descriptive Statistics of GEPT Pretest and Posttest Mean Differences ..... 54 Table 17 Analysis of Differences in GEPT Pretest and Posttest between Eg and Cg Based on Question Types ............................................................................... 55 Table 18 Descriptive Statistics of Differences in Pretest and Posttest of Dialogue Section between Eg and Cg ........................................................................... 56 Table 19 Analysis of Differences between GEPT Pretest and Posttest Based on L2 Listening Proficiency of Learners in Ega....................................................... 57 Table 20 Descriptive Statistics of Differences between GEPT Pretest and Posttest Based on L2 Listening Proficiency of Learners in Eg ................................... 57 Table 21 Correlation between Listening Performance and Metacognitive Awareness ....................................................................................................................... 58 Table 22 Linear Regression Analysis of Pretest: MALQ Scores Predicting GEPT Performance .................................................................................................. 59 Table 23 Linear Regression Analysis of Posttest: MALQ Scores Predicting GEPT Performance .................................................................................................. 59 Table 24 Linear Regression Analysis of Pretest: Five Factors Underlying MALQ vii.

(9) Predicting GEPT Performance...................................................................... 60 Table 25 Linear Regression Analysis of Posttest: Five Factors Underlying MALQ Predicting GEPT Performance...................................................................... 60 Table 26 Goals of Assessment for Different Sections in the Intermediate Level GEPT Listening Test ................................................................................................. 71. viii.

(10) CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION. Motivation As researchers and practitioners in the TESOL field, we cannot overemphasize the importance of the four skills, namely, listening, speaking, reading, and writing, in second language learning. Among the four skills, listening deserves particular attention because it is not only an essential channel for communication but a prerequisite skill in language acquisition. Based on empirical studies, listening has been proven to be the most frequently used skill for human communication (Rankin, 1928). The dominant role of listening among the four skills was verified by Rivers (1981), who reported that adults spend approximately 40-50% communication time on listening, and the rest half on speaking, reading, and writing. In addition to its significance in communication, listening is regarded as the primary medium of language acquisition (Rost, 2005). According to researchers, at the initial phase of first and second language acquisition, comprehension comes before production (Asher, 1972; Gary, 1975; Postovsky, 1974; Winitz, 1973, cited from Gilman & Moody, 1984). The claim that receptive language takes precedence over productive language gave listening research a boost. Later, when Krashen’s. 1.

(11) (1985) input hypothesis was proposed, listening established its predominant role in language acquisition with the emphasis on comprehensible spoken and written input. Since listening plays a fundamental role in communication and language acquisition, a number of researches have been done to help both first language (L1) and second language (L2) learners improve their listening ability. In recent years, L2 listening research has come under close scrutiny. According to Flowerdew and Miller (2005), the listening process L2 learners go through is similar to that of L1 learners. But without sufficient exposure to the target language and specific schemata to match the incoming information, L2 listening becomes “an arduous task” (p.27). When factors such as amount of target language input and contextual information come into play, L2 listening is no longer “a point on one linear continuum” but “a point in a multi-dimensional space” (Buck & Tatsuoka, 1998, p.146). So far, researchers have successfully identified major factors influencing L2 listening comprehension (Anderson & Lynch, 1988; Boyle, 1984; Brown & Yule, 1983; Kennedy, 1978). Based on Rubin’s (1994) comprehensive synthesis, the following five factors are especially critical to L2 listening comprehension: text characteristics (e.g. acoustic, morphological and syntactic modification), interlocutor characteristics (e.g.. gender), task characteristics (e.g. multiple choice or. WH-question), listener characteristics (e.g. language proficiency, background 2.

(12) knowledge), and process characteristics (e.g. top-down, bottom-up, parallel processing, listening strategies). Despite extensive exploration of factors affecting listening comprehension, which sheds light on the ways language practitioners optimize the L2 listening condition, there hasn’t been thorough research on the approaches to facilitating listening comprehension, which investigates possible ways to help language learners take control over their listening process and improve understanding. Until now, L2 listening methodology has not been fully explored due to the following two misconceptions. One is the assumption that listening skills in L1 can be effortlessly transferred to L2. The other is the equation of testing listening with teaching listening. It is almost impossible for listening ability to transfer directly from L1 to L2. While L1 listeners are capable of automatic processing, which requires little demand on processing capacity, L2 listeners, especially those novice ones, rely on controlled processing, which requires conscious attention which takes up much mental resource for meaning building (Goh, 2002). With limited vocabulary, grammar, and decoding skills, L2 learners’ inclination to transfer L1 listening skill is often inhibited by the unfamiliar nature of the target language experience (Brown, 2011; Field, 2008). In addition to assuming the transferability of L1 listening ability, there’s a tendency to equate testing listening with teaching listening. It’s not uncommon for 3.

(13) listening comprehension lessons to be made of a series of listening tests (Sheerin, 1987). A focus on the product, commonly implemented through comprehension question check, reveals little about how learners arrive at understanding. Instead of “assessing” learners’ understanding of the spoken language, strenuous effort should be made to “assist” learners’ development of better ways to comprehension (Anderson & Lynch, 1988). To help L2 learners acquire better listening ability, it is crucial for researchers and practitioners to develop effective instructions. As what Vandergrift suggested (2004), “students need to ‘learn to listen’ so they can better ‘listen to learn’” (p.19).. Theoretical Background As what Nunan (2002a) maintained, “language classroom should have a dual focus, not only teaching language content but also developing learning processes as well” (p.143). With the aim to help students “learn to listen,” there is a recurring theme in recent literature on listening methodology─incorporating language learning strategy into classroom instruction. Strategies, by definition, are conscious actions learners take to facilitate language learning (Anderson, 2005). Based on empirical investigation into the learning process L2 learners undergo, researchers have identified a wide range of language learning 4.

(14) strategies (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994; Cohen, 1996a; Hsiao & Oxford, 2002; Weaver & Cohen, 1997). According to one of the most popular classifications by O’Malley and Chamot (1990), language learning strategies fall into three main categories. First, cognitive strategies, such as identifying, consolidating, and transforming knowledge, aid learners execute the learning process. Second, metacognitive strategies, such as planning, monitoring, and evaluating, help learners reflect upon and gain control over the learning process. Third, social-affective strategies, such as cooperating with others for task completion and managing one’s emotions, beliefs, and attitudes, enable learners to handle feelings and motivation in the learning process. Researchers reported that the three aforementioned strategies are equally important for language learning and that they should not be used in isolation, but in an orchestrated manner (Rubin & Chamot, 1994). After thorough investigation, researchers started pondering over whether there is a hierarchy of strategies for language learning (McDonough, 1999), and then embarked on further research to find whether any one category plays a more significant role than the others. Anderson (2005) hypothesized that among the three strategies of language learning, metacognitive strategies play a leading role. He argued that language learning will speed up once learners are able to take control over their learning process. With these higher order strategies, learners “focus on and reflect upon the process underlying 5.

(15) their own learning” (Nunan, 2002b, p.240-241) so as to take full advantage of other strategies. Since metacognitive strategies may enhance language learners’ overall learning strategy use, researchers started to investigate the effect of metacognitive strategy intervention (Goh, 2008; Liu& Goh, 2006; Mareschal, 2007; Mendelsohn 1998; Vandergrift, 1996; Zeng, 2007). Vandergrift, as one of the most actively engaged researchers in strategy research on L2 listening, proposed a new way of listening instruction─the metacognitive approach. With metacognitive strategies at the heart of the listening lesson, L2 learners are encouraged to predict, monitor, and evaluate their own learning process. Since learners become aware and reflective, shouldering greater responsibility for their own learning (Field, 2001, 2008; Vandergrift, 2003a), they are capable of selecting and adopting other strategies to fill gaps in comprehension. Since researcher suggested that it may have positive effects on L2 listening, as a new way to teaching listening, metacognitive approach deserves in-depth examination.. Rationale According to Goh (2008), L2 listening researches on the effect of metacognitvie approach is relatively new. In recent years, related researches, primarily conducted in ESL settings, have reported that this approach can successfully enhance learners’ 6.

(16) listening performance as well as metacognitive awareness (Goh& Taib, 2006; Mareschal, 2007; Vandergrift, 2002; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). In addition, it also has positive effects on key factors for language learning: improved cognitive strategy use (Mareschal, 2007), increased self-regulation (Goh & Tabi, 2006), and a higher level of motivation (Vandergrift, 2002, 2003b). However, such results may not be widely generalized in other L2 contexts due to the following reasons. First of all, there is a need to conduct more studies in contexts where English is a foreign language (EFL). Until now, results of studies conducted in EFL contexts have been varied. Some provided empirical support to existing studies (Cross, 2010; Movahed, 2014; Zeng, 2014); some demonstrated no significant gain in learners’ metacognition growth (Bozorgian, 2014) or listening comprehension (Teng & Lin, 2015). Vandergrift (2004) maintained that listening comprehension is achieved through the dynamic interaction between physiological and cognitive processes with social and cultural information. Without the “here and now” contextual clues, EFL learners depend entirely on the spoken input, struggling with considerable difficulty such as speed of delivery, ambiguity of the message, and amount of processing time (Teng, 2002). Since the comprehension process EFL learners go through differs significantly from that of ESL learners, the present study attempted to explore whether metacognitive approach can lead to similar results in EFL learners’ 7.

(17) performance. Second, the participants in previous studies are either young (Goh & Taib, 2006; Vandergrift, 2002) or adult (Cross, 2010; Mareschal, 2007; Vandergrift, 2003b) learners. There hasn’t been any investigation into the effect metacognitive approach has on adolescent learners. Cohen and Macaro (2007) proposed that group difference can be a variable interacting with strategy use, since results of limited studies showed that age determines the number (Peacock & Ho, 2003) and type (Victori & Tragant, 2003) of strategy use. Different from childhood and adulthood, adolescence is a remarkable stage in which a wide range of intellectual development takes place. The changes adolescent learners experience includes the development of abstract thinking (Flavell, 1963; Piaget & Cook, 1952), reflective thinking (Manning, 2002), and metacognition (Kellough & Kellough, 2008), which are key components highly relevant to metacognitive strategies. Therefore, the current study engaged high school students as participants, exploring the effect metacognitive approach has on adolescent learners. Third, the present study attempted to add more value to the metacognitive approach to listening instruction by comparing its effect with that of the listen-and-answer-comprehension-question convention in the research context. Previous studies rarely made comparisons between metacognitive approach with other 8.

(18) approaches to teaching listening. Some of the studies were conducted without a control group; consequently, differences in pretest and posttest may be attributed to not only the intervention but other decisive factors (Bozorgian, 2014; Cross, 2008; Goh & Taib, 2006; Vandergrift, 2002, 2003a). Some of the studies added a control group, which received no instruction during their listening process (Movahed, 2014; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). Having a control group substantially eliminated confounding variables and bias. However, if researchers could have implemented another approach to teaching listening in the control group treatment, they may be able to draw comparisons between the two and to subsequently determine the more effective way to facilitating L2 listening. To investigate whether metacognitive approach can yield more benefits to L2 listening in comparison with the listen-and-answer-comprehension-question convention in language classrooms, the experimental group and control group in the present study received metacognitive approach and conventional approach respectively during the eight-week treatment. In view of the potential gaps in existing studies, the current study aimed to conduct in-depth research on metacognitive approach in Taiwan’s high school classrooms, and to compare its effect on EFL adolescent learners’ metacognition and listening comprehension with that of the conventional approach.. 9.

(19) Significance of the Study The present study aimed to inquire the potential value of metacognitive approach in hope of having the following three contributions to L2 listening research. To begin with, the study intended to establish the importance of teaching metacognitive strategies in L2 listening. Such strategies enable learners to predict, monitor, and evaluate the learning process and to orchestrate other strategies to bridge comprehension breakdown (Vandergrift, 1996). Adopting these superordinate strategies to reflect upon the learning process, L2 learners are expected to become not only “better listeners” but “effective language learners” (Nunan, 2002b, p.240). Second, the study aspired to bridge the gaps of existing research on metacognitive approach to listening instruction. Since related studies conducted in EFL contexts have yield different results, further investigation should be initiated to explore how metacognitive instruction can affect EFL learners’ listening process. What’s more, related studies have targeted exclusively at either young or adult learners. Involving Taiwanese high school students as participants, the researcher endeavored to examine the effect of metacognitive approach on adolescent learners in an EFL context. Last but not least, the main purpose of the study was to yield pedagogical contribution to L2 language classrooms. In Taiwan, where the study was conducted, 10.

(20) the College Entrance Examination Center had incorporated listening test into current entrance exam since 2013. In the face of the huge change, there is a need to develop effective methods of teaching listening in classroom-based settings. Rather than following the traditional way of listening and answering comprehension questions, L2 learners are encouraged to experience and profit from this metacognitive approach, which is considered “optimum listening practice” (Vandergrift, 2004, p.12).. Research Questions With the above aims in mind, the present study explored the effect of metacognitive approach to listening instruction on Taiwanese high school L2 learners by addressing the following research questions: 1. Can metacognitive approach to listening instruction lead to any growth in learners’ metacognitive awareness of their own listening process? 2. Can metacognitive approach to listening instruction result in listening comprehension gain? 3. Based on the result of metacognitive awareness and listening comprehension assessment, do learners who demonstrate higher metacgonitive awareness score higher on listening comprehension test? The first questions probed into the efficacy of metacognitive approach in 11.

(21) enhancing EFL learners’ ability to monitor, regulate, and orchestrate the listening process, which was assessed by Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) (Vandergrift, Goh, Mareschal, & Tafaghodtari, 2006). The second research question was intended to explore the effect of metacognitive approach on listening comprehension, measured by the intermediate level listening test of General English Proficiency Test (GEPT), which is a valid, reliable English test devised by Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC) in Taiwan. As for the last question, the result was obtained by statistical analysis of learners’ responses and performance on MALQ and GEPT.. 12.

(22) CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW. Metacognition Metacognition, in its literal sense, refers to a status that is beyond or at a high level of cognition. Defined as “cognitions about cognition,” or “thinking about one’s own thinking” (Georghiades, 2004, p.365), metacognition serves as a superordinate mechanism monitoring our thinking process. The origin of this concept dates back to the work of Flavell (1979), a distinguished American psychologist specialized in children’s cognitive development. After more than three decades of investigation, metacognition had not only been studied in the field of child psychology, but in the field of other educational domains (Adey & Shayer, 1994; Schoenfeld, 1992). With a larger number of empirical investigations, the definition of metacognition has been broadened to “a state of consciousness of our own thoughts as we focus on a particular cognitive or learning situation” (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012, p.84). The importance of metacognition lies in its potential of enabling learners to “be agents of their own thinking” (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012, p.84). Once learners take control over their thoughts and behaviors, they can actively construct an understanding of the upcoming information, shoulder greater responsibility of their own learning, and develop better self-concept (Hacker, 2009). According to Paris and 13.

(23) Winograd (1990), learners engaged in metacognitive process gain a sense of agency because of the two major benefits brought by metacognition: self-appraisal and self-management. The former refers to the knowledge learners have of their own competence and performance. The latter refers to the executive ability with which learners orchestrate their cognitive strategies. The two major benefits of metacognition reflect its two key constructs, metacognitive knowledge (i.e. knowing WHAT strategies are available for facilitating cognition) and metacognitive regulation (i.e. knowing HOW to use these strategies to regulate cognition). Ever since the distinction between metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation was made, researchers have been trying to flesh out the two key constructs thorough in-depth exploration of their subcomponents. Metacognitive knowledge, also referred to as knowledge of cognition, includes person knowledge, task knowledge, and strategy knowledge (Flavell, 1979). The first variable, person knowledge, is a learner’ understanding of his/her strengths and weaknesses as a cognitive processer and belief about by what means can s/he achieve success in learning. For example, a learner may hold a strong belief that s/he is more an auditory than visual learner, and that s/he would learn better by listening than reading. The second variable, task knowledge, is a learner’s knowledge of the nature and demand of the task as well as what resources are available to him/her to complete 14.

(24) the task. For example, a learner may recognize that it’s more challenging to recall details instead of main idea of a text, and may thus select the best memory strategies to facilitate overall understanding. The third variable, strategy knowledge, is the knowledge of strategies and how to make the most of these strategies to facilitate learning. For example, to recite a large amount of information, a learner may look for strategies such as rehearsal, organization, elaboration (Bjorklund & Douglas, 1997) and then adopt the one s/he believes to be the most effective. Metacognitive regulation, on the other hand, includes three subcomponents which regulate cognition before, during, and after a given task (Schraw & Moshman, 1995). The first subcomponent, planning, refers to the strategies learners adopt “prior to the onset of action” (Wenden, 1987, p.580). Examples include making predictions, allocating time, and attending to information selectively. The second, monitoring, refers to the “on-line awareness” (Schraw, 1998, p.115) of comprehension and strategy use to facilitate comprehension. It requires learner’ constant reflection on the current state of his/her understanding, and on what, why, and how s/he reacts when faced with comprehension breakdown. As to the last subcomponent, evaluation, it refers to one’s judgment on the effectiveness of strategies and the outcome of learning. Even though metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation seem 15.

(25) distinctively different, referring to the understanding and the employment of cognitive strategies respectively, researchers maintained that the two are mutually related to each other (Flavell, 1979; Jacobs & Paris 1987; Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Sperling, , Howard, Staley, & DuBois, 2004). Research on Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI), a self-report instrument measuring learners’ metacognition, revealed that these two factors not only strongly intercorrelated but “may work in unison to help students self-regulate” (Schraw & Dennison, 1994, p.466). While metacognitive knowledge determines the ways learners regulate their cognitive process, the experience of regulating their learning process affects their metacognitive knowledge by “adding to it, deleting from it, or revising it” (Flavell, 1979, p.908). To sum up, it is the interaction between knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition that affects the decisions learners make to achieve the learning goal. In the ensuing section, we will first focus attention on the relationship between metacognition and general learning, and then on the relationship between metacognition and language learning.. Metacognition and Learning Metacognition is of great importance in learning. Although learning appears to be most closely related to cognitive skills, according to Schraw (1998), developing. 16.

(26) metacognitive skills may yield beneficial results in learning because of the following two reasons. First of all, metacognition is a not domain-specific but domain-general knowledge (Gourgey, 1998; Schraw, 2001; Sternberg, 1998). While most skills such as using quadratic formula, are encapsulated within specific domains, a large number of skills such as self-regulation span a variety of knowledge domains. The skills applicable to various subject areas are primarily metacognitive ones, for example, planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Instead of facilitating the learning of independent, specialized domain-specific knowledge, these skills help learners “developing their self-knowledge and ability to ‘learn how to learn’” (Georghiades, 2004, p.366) in any knowledge domain. Second, metacognition compensates for insufficiency of cognitive ability. Based on existing literature, at initial stages of knowledge acquisition, cognitive ability is a determining factor to successful learning, but it becomes far less crucial in later stages (Ackerman, 1987; Alexander, Carr, & Schwanenflugel, 1995). Cognitive ability may have considerable effect on fundamental, content-specific knowledge in the beginning; however, in later stages of learning, learners have to demonstrate the breadth and depth of understanding, which primarily relies on their metacognitive abilities. As what Swanson (1990) contended, as for successful problem solving, the importance of 17.

(27) metacognition overrides that of cognitive skills. Ever since metacognition was proven to facilitate learning in various knowledge domains, researchers have been advocating the integration of metacognition into formal educational context (Georghiades, 2004). Several researchers considered it feasible and desirable to promote metacognitive instruction in classroom-based settings, proposing that students can learn better by becoming aware of their own learning process (Flavell, 1979; Gunstone & Northfield, 1994; Paris & Winograd, 1990). In regard to language learning, Wenden (1987) was the first one to articulate how metacognition expands our understanding of language learners’ cognitive process and how instruction on metacognition can facilitate learners’ language learning. Based on Flavell’s (1979), who claimed that metacognition consists of metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation, he illustrated a metacognition framework particularly for language learning. According to Wenden (1998), the first key component, metacognitive knowledge, includes 1) age, proficiency, and subject matter information for person knowledge, 2) rhetorical and metalinguistic characteristics for task knowledge, and 3) appropriateness and effectiveness judgment for strategy knowledge. As for the other component, metacognitive regulation, is made up of task analysis and monitoring before, during, and after engagement in a 18.

(28) language learning task. Obviously, the three subcomponents of metacognitive knowledge are extensions of person, task, and strategy knowledge, and the ones of metacognitive regulation are consistent with planning, monitoring, and evaluation. After Wenden’s pioneering work, researchers have further explored the relationship between metacognition and language learning; however, most of attention has been drawn to language learners’ metacognitive knowledge instead of their metacognitive regulation (Wenden, 2001). For learning to be effective, however, learners must do more than simply reflecting upon their learning process. Schraw (1998) underscored the importance of putting metacognitive knowledge to use, arguing that through constant practice can learners better acquire better metacognitive knowledge. Vandergrift and Goh (2012) also contended that “Learners who are aware of learning needs or problems can either choose to do nothing differently or they can select appropriate strategies to improve their learning” (p.92). Therefore, there’s a need to not only raise learners’ awareness of their cognition, but encourage learners to practice making good use of the acquired metacognitive knowledge to solve problems in language learning. Since there is a need to give learners opportunities to apply their metacognitive knowledge to complete language learning tasks, instruction becomes one of the ways for metacognition in action. Instruction on metacognition may raise students’ 19.

(29) awareness of their own learning process and guide them to select appropriate strategies to solve problems they encounter during the learning process. Once learners are able to recognize comprehension gaps and then to adopt the right strategies to bridge the gaps on their own, they may achieve comprehension more efficiently. To sum up, in order to facilitate learning, we should focus not only on introduction to metacognitive knowledge but guidance on metacognitive regulation.. Metacognition and Strategy Instruction The teaching of metacognition is often associated with strategy instruction. Learning strategies, by definition, is a conscious, goal-driven process learners involve in to complete a language task (Chamot, 2005). The history of research on language learning strategy dates back to the 1980s. Pioneering researchers like Stern (1975) and Rubin (1975) made effort to identify characteristics of successful language learners. According to strategy research, the frequent use of metacognitive strategy, along with cognitive strategies (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983) or affective and social strategies (Dansereau, 1985; McCombs, 1988), is one of the distinguished features of the best learners. Later researchers compared strategy use by more successful learners with that by less successful learners. Results showed that what differentiated successful from less successful learners is the frequency of strategy use. For example, more successful 20.

(30) listeners tended to use more metacognitive strategies and engage in questioning for clarification (Vandergrift, 2003a). What’s more, the results revealed that the main difference between the two is not only about the frequency of strategy use, but the way strategies are used. While more successful learners are capable of selecting strategies that facilitate task completion, their less successful peers, however, have difficulty choosing the most suitable strategies due to lack of metacognitive knowledge of task (Chamot, 2005). To help learners move closer to “the profile of ‘a good language learner’,” (Oxford, 2002, p.129), researchers started studying experts’ use of strategy, making a list of strategies adopted by successful learners. Afterwards, they have to teach learners these strategies and the ways to orchestrate them. In addition to an introduction to the “what,” the types of strategy contributing to successful language learning, researchers have focused attention to the guidance on “how,” the way to use strategies to help learners tackle tasks at hand. To teach language learners not only knowledge of strategies but the way to regulate them, the importance of language learning strategy instruction cannot be overemphasized.. Metacognitive Strategies for Listening Comprehension Since metacognition has been proven to be one of the key characteristics of. 21.

(31) successful language learners, it is essential for language teachers to have a thorough understanding of their metacognitive strategies so that to teach these strategies to the other learners. Although language researchers have different categorizations of metacognitive strategies (Bacon, 1992; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 2013; Vandergrift, 1997), their classification schema built on the same works ─ the categorization of Flavell (1979) and Wenden (1987). According to Flavell (1979) and Wenden (1987), there are two subcomponents of metacognition: knowledge of cognition (i.e. person, task, strategy) and regulation of cognition (i.e. planning, monitoring, evaluating). The latter, regulation of cognition, referring to the execution of knowledge of cognition, is the basis of metacognitive strategies. One of the earliest strategy classifications is done by O’Malley and Chamot (1990). Based on the three fundamental categories─planning, monitoring, evaluating, they further identified five strategies underlying the first category, planning. While the last two are made up of self-monitoring and self-evaluation individually, planning consists of five substrategies─1) advanced organizers, 2) directed attention, 3) functional practice, 4) selective attention, and 5) self-management. Following O’Malley & Chamot’ taxonomy, Vandergrift (1997) tried to identify metacognitive strategies particularly for listening comprehension. With a prime focus 22.

(32) on listening, he came up with a more detailed classification as well as adding the fourth category, problem identification, to the taxonomy (See Table 1). The first category, planning, has a lot in common with that of O’Malley and Chamot’s classification. As for the second category, monitoring, Vandergrift identified three strategies through observing learners’ listening process─1) comprehension monitoring, 2) auditory monitoring, and 3) double-check monitoring. The third category, evaluation, is specified to include not only performance evaluation (i.e. checking one’s comprehension), but strategy evaluation (i.e. judging one’s strategy use). The last category, problem identification, refers to listeners’ awareness of a certain point during the listening process that hinders comprehension. When it comes to metacognitive strategies for listening comprehension, Vandergrift’s classification has been the most comprehensive one for reference.. 23.

(33) Table 1 Vandergrift’ (1997) Metacognitive Listening Strategies: Planning, Monitoring, Evaluating, Problem Identification 1. Planning: Developing an awareness of what needs to be done to accomplish a listening task, developing an appropriate action plan and/or appropriate contingency plans to overcome difficulties that may interfere with successful completion of the task. Definition. Example. 1a. Advanced Clarifying the objectives of an organization anticipated listening task. I read over what we have to do. I try to think of questions the teacher is. and/or proposing strategies for handling it.. going to ask.. 1b. Directed. Deciding in advance to attend. I listen really hard.. attention. in general to the listening task and to ignore irrelevant distractors; maintaining. I pick out the words that are familiar.. attention while listening. 1c. Selective attention. 1d. Self-manage ment. Deciding to attend to specific aspects of language input or. I listen for the key words. I establish the speakers in the conversation,. situational details that assist in understanding and/or task completion.. their relationship by tone of voice, how they will address each other.. Understanding the conditions that help one successfully accomplish listening tasks and. I try to get in the frame of mind to understand French. I put everything aside and concentrate on. arranging for the presence of those conditions.. what she is saying.. 2. Monitoring: Checking, verifying, or correcting one’s comprehension or performance in the course of a listening task. Definition. Example. 2a. Comprehension. Checking, verifying, or. I just try to put everything. monitoring. correcting one’s understanding at the local level.. together, understanding one thing leads to understanding another.. 2b. Auditory monitoring. Using one’s “ear” for the language (how something. I use my knowledge of Portuguese, primarily sound.. sounds) to make decisions.. I use the sound of words to relate to other words I know.. Checking, verifying, or. I might catch it at the end and then. 2c. Double-check. 24.

(34) monitoring. correcting one’s understanding across the task or during the second time through the oral text.. I’d go back.. 3. Evaluating: Checking the outcomes of one’s listening comprehension against an internal measure of completeness and accuracy. Definition 3a. Performance. Judging one’s overall. evaluation. execution of the task.. 3b. Strategy evaluation. Judging one’s strategy use.. Example How close was I? I don’t concentrate too much to the point of translation of individual words because then you just have a whole lot of words and not how they’re strung together into some kind of meaning.. 4. Problem identification. Explicitly identifying the. I’m not really sure what. central point needing resolution in a task or identifying an aspect of the task that hinders its. “partager” means. Music, there is something, ...” des jeux”, I don’t know what this is.. successful completion.. Metacognitive Teaching Approach to Enhancing L2 Listening Comprehension According to Vandergrift (2003b), learning strategies are rarely used separately, let alone metacognitive strategies. Different from teaching individual strategies one at a time, “the coordinated used of multiple strategies during listening” (Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010, p.474) has yielded positive results. Therefore, learners should be given opportunities to learn how to orchestrate these strategies appropriately so as to better comprehend the listening text. So far, researchers have advocated a plausible way to teach metacognitive 25.

(35) strategies during listening─conducting listening classes with a dual focus, teaching the learning process as well as language content (Goh, 1997). Engaging students in the listening process rather than simply verifying comprehension as a final product, teachers empowered learners to select and use metacognitive strategies to facilitate the learning process. With constant practice and reflection, they are able to develop and modify their metacognitive knowledge of listening (Wenden, 1991), so as to take greater control over the listening process. To teach both language content and learning process in listening classes, one common approach is to teach listening based on a sequence of activities, in which learners are encouraged to apply metacognitive strategies step by step (Mendelsohn, 1998). Take Vandergrift’s (2003b) listening sequence for example. With a four-column note-taking table, learners kept a record of their listening process before, during, and after listening. Similarly, Goh and Taib (2006) proposed a process-based listening lesson─learners first completed the “listen and answer” stage, with a subsequent “individual reflection” stage, followed by the final “self-report and group discussion” stage. Cross (2009b) also guided learners through a pedagogical cycle “encompassing three stages reflecting real-life listening” (p.159): 1) pre-listening preparation, 2) monitoring of comprehension, and 3) evaluation of performance.. 26.

(36) Table 2 Stages of Instruction and Underlying Metacognitive Processes for Generic Listening Activities Pedagogical Stages. Metacognitive Processes. 1. Pre-listening─Planning/ predicting stage. 1. Planning. After learners have been informed of the topic and text type, they predict the types of information and possible words they may hear. 2. First Listen─First verification stage a. Learners verify their initial hypotheses, correct as. 2a. Monitoring. required, and note additional information understood. b. Learners compare what they have understood/written with a partner, modify as required, establish what still. and evaluation. needs resolution, and decide on the important details that still require special attention.. 2b. Monitoring, evaluation, and planning. Second Listen─Second verification stage. 3. a.. Learners verify points of earlier disagreement, make corrections, and write down additional details understood.. b. Class discussion in which all class members contribute to the reconstruction of the text’s main points and most pertinent details, interspersed with reflections on how learners arrived at the meaning of certain words or parts of. 3a. Monitoring, evaluation, and problem-solving 3b. Monitoring, evaluation, and problem-solving. 4.. the text. Third Listen─Final verification stage. 4.Monitoring and problem-solving. 5.. Learners listen specifically for the information revealed in the class discussion which they were not able to make out earlier. This listen may also be accomplished by the transcript of all or part of the text. Reflection and goal-setting stage Based on the earlier discussion of strategies used to compensate for what was not understood, learners write. 5.Evaluation and planning. goals for the next listening activity. Note. adapted from Vandergrift, 2004 (cited in Vandergrift & Goh, 2010). Among existing metacognitive pedagogical sequences, Vandergrift and Goh 27.

(37) (2012) argued that theirs deserves particular attention for any practitioners who aim to design effective listening activities. They suggested that although listening is inherently an individual mental process, listening comprehension can be facilitated by the implementation of metacognitive strategies under the teacher’s guidance. This argument built upon results of previous studies, which suggested that guiding learners through the process during listening lessons enhances their overall listening ability (Field, 2001; Goh, 2002a; Vandergrift, 2002, 2003a; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). To systematically guide learners through the listening process while practicing the metacognitive strategies for listening comprehension, Vandergrift and Goh (2012) divided the listening process into different stages (See Table 2). These stages allow learners to take notice of their own listening process and to apply their metacognitive knowledge to tackle problems during listening. At the pre-listening stage, learners use their prior knowledge to make predictions of the upcoming texts. After the first listening, they verify their hypothesis for the first time and note newly understood information. Also, by comparing the comprehended information with a partner, learners put down disagreements which need to be resolved. After that, they listen to the text for the second time to further check their comprehension. During the second verification stage, they are engaged in a class 28.

(38) discussion on strategies used to achieve comprehension as well as the main ideas and details of the text. Later on, learners listen to the text for the third time, paying attention to the information they may have missed. Last but not least, they reflect upon their own listening process and set goals for future listening.. Empirical Studies on Metacognitive Pedagogical Sequence After the focus of listening research had been shifted to strategy instruction and learner’s metacognition, a process-based, metacognitive approach was pioneered by Vandergrift (2002, 2003b), who conducted most of his researches in Canada, where French is a second language (FSL). In Vandergrift’s (2002) first research, 420 primary learners aged 10 to 12 completed a listening task with a follow-up reflective exercise. During the process, they made predictions, listened and verified their predictions, and then completed a reflective exercise to evaluate their performance. Next, learners filled out a questionnaire to comment on the listening activity. Results showed that the pedagogical cycle has successfully raised students’ awareness of the listening process, deepening their understanding of metacognitive strategies for task completion. Similar findings have been found in Vandergrift’s (2003a) follow-up research. Based on the abovementioned study, he recruited 41 beginning level college students for a 13-week study. Following the similar framework, learners made predictions in advance, listened to the text for three times, and were given opportunities for 29.

(39) information confirmation and strategy use discussion. Compared with the previous study, the sequence had become more systematic, enabling teachers to give clear instruction on planning, monitoring, and evaluation at each listening phase. Results of reflective journals indicated that learners responded positively to the approach and that they became more aware of the listening process. Findings in Vandergrift’s researches have sparked other researchers’ interest in this metacognitive approach to listening. In 2006, Goh and Taib conducted a small-scaled study in Singapore, where English is a second language (ESL). 10 primary learners aged 11 to 12 participated in eight specially designed listening lessons with three learning stages: 1) traditional listening exercise, 2) individual post-listening reflection, and 3) teacher-facilitated discussion on reflections of the first two stages. After the eight-week treatment, learners’ reflections showed that they were more capable of managing their listening process, especially the “weaker learners” (p.222), who always struggled with listening difficulties. While related studies yielded fruitful results of metacognitive approach to listening, Vandergrift et al. (2006) achieved a milestone─developing and validating Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ), which is a reliable and valid instrument devised to assess learners’ metacognitive awareness during listening. Before MALQ was formally introduced, aside from interviews and reflective journals, 30.

(40) there was no instrument designed particularly to reflect the degree to which learners take control over their listening process. Since then, with the help of MALQ, more researchers have embarked on exploration of how metacognitive pedagogy affects learners’ listening process. Related research has been conducted outside FSL or ESL contexts, and has been viewed in different perspectives. Take Cross’ (2010) study for example. In his small-scaled study, 12 advanced-level adult Japanese learners of English followed the pedagogical sequence to complete listening tasks. Adopting a socio-cultural perspective, he used peer-to-peer dialogue to help learners’ development of metacognition during L2 listening. While listening, learners were encouraged to explicitly verbalize their understanding of a given task and strategy use to achieve comprehension with their peers. Findings showed that incorporating dialogue interaction into the pedagogical cycle may positively enhance learners’ metacognitive awareness of L2 listening. Soon after, researchers investigating metacognitive approach to listening have broadened their focus. In addition to exploring the effect this approach has on learners’ metacognitive awareness, researchers started delving into its effect on learners’ listening comprehension and exploring how metacognitive awareness and listening comprehension correlate with each other. 31.

(41) In one of the most highly cited studies, Vandergrift and Tafaghodtari (2010) looked into the effect of this approach on listening comprehension and on learners with different listening proficiency. 106 university FSL students were involved in the study and were assigned to either control or experimental group. In the 13-week treatment, the experimental group received metacognitive instruction during the listening process. The control group listened to the same text for the same number of times but without guidance. Results verified their hypothesis, indicating that students in the experimental group performed significantly better than those in the control group, and that less proficient learners benefited far more from the approach than the more proficient ones in terms of increase in both listening comprehension and metacognitive awareness. In addition, findings also suggested that metacognitive awareness could be accounted for 13% of listening performance. Until now, most existing studies in FSL and ESL have revealed three major benefits exerted by the metacognitive pedagogical sequence. First of all, it can significantly increase learners’ metacognitive knowledge (Goh & Taib, 2006; Mareschal, 2007; Vandergrift, 2002, 2003b). Second, it has considerable potential to enhance learners’ listening comprehension (Goh & Taib, 2006; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). Last but not least, less successful learners benefit more significantly from the metacognitive pedagogical cycle than their more successful 32.

(42) counterparts (Goh, 2008; Goh & Taib, 2006; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). Table 3 Synthesis of Studies on the Effect Metacognitive Approach Has on L2 Learners in FSL and ESL contexts Researcher and Year Vandergrift. Participant number. age. Duration. Gain in. (weeks/sessions) Metacognitive. Gain in Listening. Awareness. Comprehension. 420. primary. -. v. -. 41. primary. 13. v. -. 10. primary. 8. v. v. 8. adult. 8. v. v. 106. university. 13. v. v. (2002) Vandergrift (2003b) Goh & Taib (2006) Mareschal (2007) Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari (2010). Table 4 Synthesis of Studies on the Effect Metacognitive Approach Has on L2 Learners in EFL contexts Researcher and Year Cross. Participant number. age. Duration. Gain in. (weeks/sessions) Metacognitive. Gain in Listening. Awareness. Comprehension. 12. adult. 5. v. -. 30. adult. 8. x. v. 55. university. 8. v. v. 60. university. 5. v. v. 140. primary. 12. v. x. (2009b) Bozorgian (2014) Movahed (2014) Zeng (2014) Teng & Lin (2015) 33.

(43) The abovementioned studies have demonstrated the positive effect of metacognitive approach on raising learners’ metacognitive awareness and on enhancing their listening comprehension in FSL and ESL contexts (See Table 3). However, studies conducted in EFL contexts have varied results (See Table 4). In addition to Movahed’s (2014) and Zeng’s (2014) researches, which yielded similar results, different findings emerged from follow-up investigation. For example, in Bozorgian’s (2014) study, 30 high-intermediate EFL learners received instruction on planning, monitoring, and evaluation through the metacognitive pedagogical sequence over a semester. However, there was no significant gain in their overall metacognitive awareness. The lack of growth in metacognitive awareness may result from learners’ proficiency. Since participants in the study were high-intermediate learners, they may not rely so much on explicit strategy teaching and systematic guidance in the pedagogical cycle. Another example is Teng and Lin’s (2015) study. After students in the experimental group experienced 12 listening lessons with instruction on planning, verification, and reflection, their metacognitive awareness was significantly higher than that of the control group. However, as for listening comprehension, they did not significantly outperform those in the control group. The disparity could be attributed to the difficulty level of the instrument, Young Learners English (YLE) developed by University of Cambridge, which was designed for children aged seven to twelve on 34.

(44) the base of 390 entry-level English vocabulary words. Since all the participants were six graders, the test may have been too easy for them. Because of the ceiling effect of the instrument measuring listening comprehension, this study could not demonstrate the significant effect of metacognitive approach on enhancing learners’ listening performance. Based on previous studies, the present study was conducted in an EFL setting, exploring the effect of this pedagogical sequence on learners’ metacognition and listening comprehension. Furthermore, since several studies suggested that listening performance could be greatly attributed to metacognition (Al-Alwan, Asassfeh, & Al-Shboul, 2013; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010; Zeng, 2014), the present study also investigated the correlation between metacognition and listening comprehension.. 35.

(45) CHAPTER THREE: METHOD. Participants To bridge the gap of existing studies focusing on either children or adult learners, participants in the present study were 74 high school freshmen in New Taipei City. Since students were enrolled in the school based on their scores of Comprehensive Assessment Program for Junior High School Students, getting a percentile ranking of seventy to eighty, they were assumed to be intermediate English learners. Born in Taiwan, an EFL context, most of them didn’t start learning English until the age of nine, when English became a required subject in the elementary school. Having studied the L2 for at least seven years; however, most of them still had difficulty mastering English. Due to a lack of opportunities for language use, among the four skills, listening skills, which should be acquired over time with adequate exposure and sufficient practice, remained challenging for them.. Materials In the present study, the listening exercise of each unit in students’ textbook was selected as listening material. The listening exercise, titled “Beyond the Text”, served as a follow-up activity in each unit, taking forms of either conversations or short passages (see Appendix A). Although researchers underscored the importance of 36.

(46) choosing authentic texts for listening task, in the EFL context, most students listen to L2 not in real life situations but in language classrooms. Moreover, for these intermediate learners, they had to learn to listen so as to listen to learn. Therefore, textbook listening exercises which had been appropriately adapted from authentic texts were regarded as suitable materials for this pedagogical sequence.. Design The 74 participants in the present study were from two intact classes, one as the control group (N=36), the other experimental group (N=38). The GEPT listening test and MALQ were given in the beginning (pretest) and at the end (posttest) of the study. In the eight-week treatment, participants in both groups listened to the same text but with different procedures (See Table 5). While the experimental group followed the metacognitive pedagogical sequence, the control group followed the conventional listening procedure─listening and answering comprehension questions (Holden, 2002; Mendelsohn, 2001). To ensure that none of the participants deviated from the steps of treatment, the researcher, who also served as the two classes’ English teacher, carried out the experiment in person.. 37.

(47) Table 5 Intervention of Control Group and Experimental Group Control Group. Experimental Group Pre Listening First Listening. answer comprehension questions. verify comprehension and reconstruct the text. Second Listening check answers. verify comprehension and reconstruct the text Third Listening. -. reflect on the process and set goals for future listening. Note. Listening script was provided for learners in both groups to verify comprehension in Third Listening.. Experimental Group Treatment The experimental group followed the metacognitive pedagogical sequence with the help of a note-taking worksheet (See Table 6) adapted from Vandergrift (2003a). At the Pre-listening stage, the teacher encouraged students to make predictions of possible information related to the topic. Students were asked to put down possible key words in the “My Prediction” column. After that, students listened to the text for the first time. While listening, students put a checkmark beside the points they successfully predicted. They then wrote down any information they had acquired in the “First Listen” column. Next, pair discussion on their notes was facilitated by the teacher. To prepare themselves for the next listening, students talked about unclear information and disagreements in order to 38.

(48) decide which parts to focus particular attention on. Later, they listened to the text for the second time, trying to resolve problems raised after the first listening. In addition, they noted newly comprehended information in the “Second Listen” column. Then, the next listening stage was followed by a teacher-led class discussion, aiming to check comprehension and to let students share personal reflections on their own listening process. Afterwards, students listened to the text for the third time to check the points which they had missed or misinterpreted earlier. At this stage, students were given a transcript of the listening text to assist them in verifying the obtained information. Finally, students reflected on their own listening process and set goals for future listening in the columns below their previous notes.. Control Group Treatment Students in the control group listened to the same text for three times. Different from those in the experimental group, they were not guided through the predicting, monitoring, and evaluation stage. Neither were they involved in pair or class discussion. Following the format of conventional listening classes, students listened and answered comprehension questions of the listening exercises on textbooks. Since those in the experimental group had “First Listen,” “Second Listen,” and “Third. 39.

(49) Listen” stages in the metacognitive pedagogical cycle, students in the control group also listened to the same text for three times, but with no instruction from the teacher.. Table 6 Note-taking Worksheet for the Experimental Group Date Unit My Prediction. First Listen. Reflections (difficulties encountered?. Second Listen. Goals for future listening. strategies used to solve problems?). Note. adapted from Vandergrift (2003a). Instrument To answer the research questions, two instruments were included to measure learners’ metacognitive awareness and listening comprehension.. Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) Developed by Vandergrift et. al (2006), MALQ (see Appendix B) has been the only inventory designed especially for assessing language learners’ awareness and use of metacognitive listening strategies to achieve comprehension. 40.

(50) The instrument has not only theoretical support but empirical evidence. It was based on previous questionnaires assessing metacognitive awareness of listening (Goh, 2002b; Vandergrift, 2005a; Vogely, 1995; Zhang, 2001), developed according to guidelines (Brown, 2001, Dornyei, 2003, Gilhan, 2000), and was validated by factor analysis with two large samples of language learners (N=966, N=512). The 21 items reflect the five major factors underlying MALO: 1) planning and evaluation, 2) problem-solving, 3) directed attention, 4) mental translation, and 5) person knowledge (See Table 7). With a 6-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” it delves into the extent to which learners are aware of the listening process and are capable of using metacognitive strategies to achieve comprehension. To avoid misinterpretation of any item in MALQ, the questionnaire was translated into learners’ first language based on Chang and Li’s (2008) version. Then, it was carefully verified by two experts in researching language teaching and learning. The present study used the translated version of MALQ (see Appendix C) to inquire into learners’ metacognitive awareness as well as perception of strategy use.. 41.