國高中生英語聽力表現與聽力焦慮、聽力自我效能以及聽力後設認知之關係研究

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩. 士. 論. 文. Master’s Thesis Department of English National Taiwan Normal University. 國高中生英語聽力表現與聽力焦慮、聽力自我效能以及聽力後設認知之關係研究. A Study on the Relationships of EFL Learners’ Listening Performance to Listening Anxiety, Listening Self-efficacy, and Metacognitive Awareness. 指導教授：程玉秀 Advisor: Dr. Yuh-Show Cheng 研究生：周曉佳. 中華民國一百零六年一月 January 2017.

(2) 摘要國中教育會考已於 2015 年正式採計英語聽力測驗成績，而大學入學測驗也於同年將英語聽力測驗納入考試的一環，目前台灣已有一百多所的大專院校要求其考生必須在聽力測驗中達到一定的等級。為了增進英語聽力教學，教師有必要了解哪些學習者因素可能有助於學習者的英語聽力。本篇研究旨在探討台灣國高中生英語聽力表現與聽力焦慮、聽力自我效能以及聽力後設認知之關係。此外，本研究亦探討哪種因素對英語聽力表現的影響最大。受試者為 121 位八年級國中生以及 123 位十一年級高中生，他們分別來自台灣西部的一所國中和高中。施測過程中，受試者先接受全民英檢聽力測驗，其中國中受試者接受全民英檢初級聽力施測，高中受試者接受全民英檢中高級聽力測驗。聽力測驗結束後，受試者填寫基本資料，並根據先前施測的聽力測驗，加以填寫聽力焦慮量表(SLLAS)、聽力自我效能量表(LSE)，及後設認知覺察聽力量表(MALQ)。藉此，研究者可掌握更多受試者的資料以利分析統計。研究者使用描述性數據、皮爾森相關積差相關係數，以及複迴歸分析統計來檢測受試者的聽力焦慮程度、自我效能強度，及後設認知覺察能力。本研究發現國高中生的聽力表現和其聽力焦慮、自我效能、及後設認知覺察程度都有顯著的相關。其中，國高中生的聽力表現與其聽力自我效能強度的相關性最高，聽力表現與聽力後設認知覺察程度間的相關性次高，聽力表現與聽力焦慮程度的相關性則較低。此外，研究結果顯示國高中生的聽力自我效能對於其聽力表現有顯著的預測成效，且在本研究中，自我效能是唯一對國中生聽力表現具有顯著預測能力的變項。除了聽力自我效能，聽力焦慮則是對高中生的聽力表現也有一定的預測成效。最後，本研究針對國高中生英語聽力教學及未來的研究，提供進一步的建議。關鍵字: 焦慮，自我效能，後設認知，聽力學習成就 i.

(3) ABSTRACT Listening comprehension tests have been incorporated into the Comprehensive Assessment Program (CAP) for junior high school students and have been included as part of college entrance exam for senior high school students since 2015. More than one hundred local colleges demand their applicants to achieve certain level in the test. To increase listening comprehension instruction, it is essential to discover what learner factors may contribute to listening proficiency. The present study explored the relationships of EFL learners’ listening performance to English listening anxiety, English listening self-efficacy, and English listening metacognitive awareness at junior and senior high school levels. Besides, the current study also investigated which one of the three learner factors is the best predictor to listening comprehension performance at both education levels. The participants of the study were 121 eighth graders at junior high school and 123 eleventh graders at senior high school in western Taiwan. An elementary level and an intermediate level listening comprehension tests retrieved from General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) were used to assess the participants’ listening proficiency at both education levels respectively. The background questionnaire, Second Language Listening Anxiety Scale (SLLAS), the Listening Self-efficacy questionnaire (LSE), and Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) were then given to the participants at both education levels to obtain their basic personal information and to assess their listening anxiety, listening self-efficacy, and listening metacognitive awareness. Descriptive statistics, Pearson product-moment correlation analysis, and multiple regression analyses were conducted to analyze the data. The results revealed that English listening anxiety, English listening self-efficacy, ii.

(4) and English listening metacognitive awareness significantly correlated with English listening performance both at junior and senior high school levels. Specifically, at both education levels, the strongest correlation was found between English listening self-efficacy and English listening performance, followed by the correlation between English listening metacognitive awareness and English listening score, and by the correlation between English listening anxiety and English listening attainment. English listening self-efficacy appeared to be the best predictor to listening performance. English listening self-efficacy was also proved to be the only significant predictor to English listening performance at junior high school level. In addition to English self-efficacy, English listening anxiety contributed 3% of the variance to English listening attainment at senior high school level. According to the findings in the present study, some pedagogical implications were provided for listening instruction at both education levels.. Key words: anxiety, self-efficacy, metacognitive awareness, listening performance. iii.

(5) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. My dissertation finally comes up after a long time! I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor, colleagues, friends, and dearest family members. Without the support and assistance from those people, it would been impossible for me to conquer the challenge of thesis writing. First, I would like to express my deep gratitude to my dearest advisor, Dr. YuhShow Cheng. She is not only my instructor to guide me through the journey of dissertation writing, but also my mentor in life to offer me advice in many things. Whenever I got confused with my thesis, Dr. Yuh-Show Cheng always pointed out my blind spot and led me back to the right track immediately. When I felt upset in life, Dr. Yuh-Show Cheng always listened to me first and then provided me with the possible solutions. I truly benefited a lot from her both in the academic research field and in life. Special gratitude is also given to my colleague, Teresa Liu, and to my good friend, Monica Chung. Teresa helped me a lot with school work so that I could concentrate more on my study. Monica Chung shared lots of her experience of thesis writing to me and informed me things that I should pay attention to in presentation. Last, my special appreciation goes to my dearest family members, including my parents, my husband, and my sweet little baby boy. It is their full-hearted love and great support that keeps me moving on to complete my thesis writing.. iv.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHINESE ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………i ENGLISH ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………...………………..iv TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………..……………..v LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………...…viii LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………...ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………..1 Background…………………………………………………………………………..1 Research Question……………………………………………………………………8 Significance of the Study……………………………………………………………..9 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………….11 Anxiety………………………………………………………………………….11 Conceptualizations………………………………………………………...11 Anxiety in Second/Foreign Language……………………………………..13 Anxiety and Second/Foreign Listening Performance……………………...13 Self-efficacy…………………………………………………………………….19 Conceptualizations………………………………………………………...19 Self-efficacy in Second/Foreign Language Learning………………………21 Self-efficacy and Second/Foreign Listening Performance…………………22 Metacognitive Awareness……………………………………………………….25 Conceptualizations………………………………………………………...25 Metacognitive Awareness in Second/Foreign Language Learning………...26 Metacognitive Awareness and Second/Foreign Listening Performance…...29 Summary of Chapter Two…………………………………………………..…...34 v.

(7) CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHOD………………………………………...36 Participants……………………………………………………………………...36 Instruments……………………………………………………………………...37 Listening Comprehension Tests……………………………………………38 Background Questionnaire………………………………………………...39 Listening Anxiety Questionnaire…………………………………………..40 Listening Self-efficacy Questionnaire……………………………………..40 Listening Metacognitive Awareness Questionnaire………………………..41 Procedures………………………………………………………………………43 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………43 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS………………………………………………………...45 Results of Background Information Questionnaire ……………………………..45 Relationships of English Listening Performance to Listening Anxiety, Listening Self-efficacy, and Metacognitive Awareness at Junior High School Level……..48 Relationships of English Listening Performance to Listening Anxiety, Listening Self-efficacy, and Metacognitive Awareness at Senior High School Level…….50 Predictors of English Listening Comprehension………………………………..52 Summary of Chapter Four………………………………………………………54 CHAPTER FIVE DISSCUSSION AND CONCLUSION…………………………...56 English Listening Performance and English Listening, Listening Self-efficacy, and Metacognitive Awareness……………………………………………….….57 Predictors of English Listening Performance…………………………………...60 Implications of the Study……………………………………………………….61 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Study………………………………….62 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………..64 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………… vi.

(8) 66 Appendix A Example Task Items of the Listening Comprehension Test (Elementary Level)………………………………………………………………………………...74 Appendix B Example Task Items of the Listening Comprehension Test (Intermediate Level)……………………………………………………………………………..….76 Appendix C Background Information Questionnaire………………………………..78 Appendix D Second Language Listening Anxiety Scale……………………………..80 Appendix E English Listening Self-efficacy Questionnaire…………………………..82 Appendix F English Listening Self-efficacy Questionnaire…………………………..84 Appendix G Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire……………………..86. vii.

(9) LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Participants’ Background Information………………………………………37 Table 2. Research Questions and the Corresponding Instruments and Analysis……..44 Table 3. Participants’ Reported Years of Learning English…………………………..46 Table 4. Participants’ Perception of the Most Difficult English Skill………………..46 Table 5. Reported Materials for English Listening Practice Outside of the Classroom.47 Table 6. The Time Spent on English Listening in a Week……………………………..48 Table 7. Descriptive Statistics (Junior High Group)…………………………………..49 Table 8. Correlation Matrix (Junior High Group)……………………………………..50 Table 9. Descriptive Statistics (Senior High Group)………………………………….51 Table 10. Correlation Matrix (Senior High Group)…………………………………...52 Table 11. Results of Stepwise Multiple Regressions of English Listening Ability on Listening Anxiety, Listening Self-efficacy, and Listening Metacognitive Awareness (Junior High Group)…………………………………………….53 Table 12. Results of Stepwise Multiple Regressions of English Listening Ability on Listening Anxiety, Listening Self-efficacy, and Listening Metacognitive Awareness (Senior High Group)…………………………………………..54. viii.

(10) LIST OF FIGURES. Figure 1. Flowchart of the Procedure………………………………………………43. ix.

(11) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background Of the four language skills, listening is the least understood and explored process in language learning (Vandergrift, 2007; Feyten, 1991). According to Vandergrift (2007), this may be owing to its implicit and fleeting nature of the aural input and the difficulty in probing into the process. Besides, listening has long been considered as a receptive language skill in which listeners passively assimilate the information presented by the interlocutors. Instructors generally regard listening as breathing that learners can master it spontaneously. Therefore, most of the time in class is distributed to development of other skills, i.e., speaking, reading, and writing (Kutlu & Aslanoğlu, 2009). However, the society where we live requires each member to cooperate with others through communication to accomplish tasks. When it comes to communication, listening skill plays the dominant role in determining whether a conversation can be carried on because a conversation breakdown would happen if there is no mutual understanding between the interlocutors (Capan & Karaca, 2013). Moreover, unlike what many people used to believe, recent research shows that listening is a complex, active process in which listeners need to distinguish between sounds, know the meaning of vocabulary and grammatical structures, understand stress and intonation, retain what was gathered in all of the above (Vandergrift, 1999), make meaning by withdrawing from their background knowledge, and come up with their own interpretations of the spoken messages (Young, 1997). This process involves a great deal of mental activity on the part of the listener and becomes more complicated for 1.

(12) second or foreign language learners whose memory capacity is limited when it comes to learning target language (Yamat & Bidabadi, 2011). With the increasing interest in the communicative approach, listening has been considered as the pivotal and crucial component in second language (SL) or foreign language (FL) acquisition (Brown, 1987). Feyten (1991) in his research pointed out that 70 percent of the average adult’s working day is spent on verbal communication, with 45 percent of that spent on listening acts. He further claimed that listening skill was a good predictor of general language achievement and the most frequently used mode of human communication. Dunkel (1993) echoed the importance of listening and claimed that, “the development of communicative competence and oral proficiency was achieved by putting the horse (listening comprehension) before the cart (oral production).” Vandegrift (2007) also asserts that listening comprehension lies at the heart of second language learning and that the mastery of listening imposes a positive effect on the development of other skills, i.e. reading, speaking, and writing. That is to say, the key to achieving successful SL or FL learning is developing the proficiency in listening skill. Likewise in Taiwan, the concept of developing listening skill in foreign language learning has recently received more and more attention. Listening comprehension tests have been incorporated into the Comprehensive Assessment Program (CAP) for junior high school students and have been included as part of college entrance exam for senior high school students since 2015. More than one hundred local colleges demand their applicants to achieve certain level in the test. Therefore in this testoriented society, the backwash effect inevitably force teachers and students to devote more attention to the development of the listening skill in English. However, English listening skills are particularly difficult for Taiwanese learners 2.

(13) to master because in Taiwan, the EFL environment, Chinese is the dominant language. Learners in Taiwan have little exposure to English once they step out of English classrooms or cram schools. In other words, English is not served as the language for daily communication. Hence, learners in Taiwan seldom have the chance to use or receive auditory input of English. Consequently, learners in Taiwan seldom have the chance to use or receive auditory input of English. Besides, the phonological system of Taiwanese learners’ mother tongue, Chinese, is totally different from that of English, making it more difficult for Taiwanese learners to acquire and make sense of English sounds. What is worse, even in language classes, the instruction always places focal attention on the development of reading skills. The most common ways of teaching English in Taiwan are memorization, drill practices, and endless tests in the English classroom in Taiwan (Chen, 2007). The focus of instruction lies in grammar rules instead of communicative skills, and instructors mostly conduct classes in Chinese. Thus, it is much more difficult for Taiwanese EFL learners to develop listening skills under such aural-input-deprived environment. Given that listening comprehension has become the “polestar” of English learning but learners in Taiwan do not have sufficient auditory input of English, it is important to discover what learner factors may contribute to listening proficiency. This study focused on three learner factors that have long been recognized as influential in second or foreign language learning: anxiety, self-efficacy, and metacognitive awareness. Among many other affective factors that affect one’s achievement in the target language, foreign language anxiety is considered as a major variable with a salient impact on listening comprehension performance (Capan & Karaca, 2012). SL anxiety is viewed as “the feeling of tension and apprehension specifically associated with SL contexts, including speaking, listening and learning” 3.

(14) (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994, p.284). Particularly, Young (1992) declared that anxiety directly leads to poor SL / FL listening ability. Moreover, Elkhafaifi (2005) found listening anxiety a significant predictor of FL listening performance. Similarly, Cheng’s (2006) research on Taiwanese EFL senior high school students’ listening performance revealed that listening anxiety was significantly and negatively correlated with the participants’ listening performance. In addition, the low-anxiety group significantly outscored the high-anxiety group on overall listening performance. Another study conducted by Su (2007) on Taiwanese EFL college students also revealed similar results: the participants’ listening comprehension anxiety was in significant negative relation to listening comprehension performance; and their listening comprehension anxiety was the most dominant factor in listening comprehension performance compared with another two factors (i.e., personality and linguistic intelligence). Compared to the large amount of research on anxiety and overall performance, studies probing into the relationship between FL listening anxiety and FL listening comprehension are far from sufficient. Although in Taiwan Cheng (2006) and Su (2007) have shed some light on this area, their participants only came from a university and a senior high school respectively. Studies on participants from junior high schools are rare, let alone studies on students from both junior high and senior high levels. Hence, this study filled the gap by examining the relationship between listening comprehension attainment and listening anxiety across the two education levels. Another factor explored in this study was self-efficacy belief, which is considered as the leading factor to SL/FL learners’ performance within socio-cognitive theory. Self-efficacy belief is defined by Bandura (1986) as people’s own perception of their 4.

(15) abilities to frame and perform courses of action required to achieve designated types of performance. Further, it is not related to the skills individuals have but to the perception and judgments of what individuals can do with the skills they possess. Social cognitive theorists viewed self-efficacy belief as the main factor to determine learners’ anxiety. The extent to which learners suffer from anxiety largely rely on their self-efficacy beliefs, (as cited in Mills, Pajares, & Herron, 2006 ). That is to say, anxiety arousal occurs when SL/FL leaners’ perceived values of themselves are not strong enough to deal with potentially detrimental evens (Mills et al., 2006). SL/FL learners with stronger sense of self-efficacy belief are more likely to hold more optimistic expectations while confronting difficulties, experiencing less anxiety arousal and often making more successful changes from the difficult situations to satisfying outcomes. Graham (2006) argued that among the four language skills, low self-efficacy may pose more serious problems for SL/FL listening than the other three skills because listening skill is less observable and thus less controllable. Mills et al. (2006) showed that listening self-efficacy was in positive relation to listening proficiency (albeit only for female leaners) and correlated with listening anxiety negatively. Rahimi and Abedini’s (2009) study in Iran also revealed that self-efficacy in FL listening was significantly and positively correlated to FL listening proficiency. However, compared to the studies exploring self-efficacy belief and general SL/FL performance, researches on self-efficacy belief and SL/FL listening comprehension are rather limited (Rahimi &Abedi, 2014). Even less research has been conducted in Taiwan on the relationship between listening self-efficacy and listening attainment in English. Chen’s (2007) study is one of the few on this relationship. Recruiting 277 EFL undergraduates, Chen (2007) 5.

(16) showed that English self-efficacy was a much stronger predicator of English listening performance than English anxiety and perceived value of English. However, the participants in Chen’s (2007) study are all at college levels. Whether the result can be generalized to students at different grade levels (e.g., junior high level and senior high level) still remains unknown. Hence, in addition to English anxiety, the current study examined the relationship between English listening performance and English self-efficacy as well. Finally, metacognitive awareness has also been proved to be an important element in successful SL/FL learning (Vandergrift, 1998, 2005; Rahimi &Abedi, 2014). When it comes to metacognitive awareness, it is important to speak of the concept “metacognition” first. Metacognition was coined and first introduced by Flavell (1976) within cognitive enterprise to refer to thinking about one’s thinking or the human ability to be aware of individual’s mental process (Flavell, 1979). Though literature offers diverse meanings and definitions of the term “metacognition,” Paris and Winograd (1990) have found out that most definitions encompass both knowledge and executive aspects of metacognition. That is, metacognition can be divided into metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies. Metacognitive knowledge refers to information learners obtain about their learning. Metacognitive strategies are general skills through which learners manage, direct, regulate, and guide their learning, i.e., planning, monitoring, and evaluating (Wenden, 1998). In the field of SL/FL learning, a general consensus has been formed that metacognition plays a crucial role in enhancing learners’ thinking and comprehension. Anderson (2002) contended that learners can withdraw from their metacognitive knowledge and choose a strategy that will help them succeed in the face of new learning challenges. Vandergrift, Goh, Mareschal, and Tafaghodtari 6.

(17) (2006) further focused on metacognitive awareness of listening comprehension and developed a questionnaire called Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) to assess learners’ metacognitive awareness of listening. According to Vandergrift et al. (2006), metacognitive awareness of listening is concerned with listeners’ consciousness of themselves as listeners, their understanding of the listening task requirements, and the awareness of their listening strategies deployment during the listening process. Among the empirical studies, Goh’s (1997) qualitative study on the relationship between metacognitive awareness and listening comprehension indicated the potential role metacognitive awareness played in listening comprehension. Yang’s (2009) quantitative research further probed into the different metacognitive strategies employed by more-skilled listeners and less-skilled listeners in an EFL college-level setting. The results showed that more-skilled listeners were better at the use of diverse metacognitive strategies more flexibly whereas less-skilled listeners only regularly applied limited metacognitive strategies rigidly. Therefore, Yang (2009) and Goh (1997) both strongly encouraged instructors to cultivate learners’ metacognitive awareness. Consistent with this call, Selamat and Sidhu (2013) reported a study which investigated the effects of metacognitive strategy training on lecture listening comprehension abilities of undergraduate students. The study showed that all the participants exhibited a higher level of improvement on listening comprehension after the treatment. To sum up, some studies have investigated the relationship between listening comprehension performance and learners’ factors, such as SL/FL listening anxiety (e.g. Elkhafaifi, 2005; Zhang, 2013), SL/FL listening self-efficacy (e.g. Mills et al., 2006; Rahimi & Abedini, 2009), and metacognitive awareness of listening (e.g. Goh, 7.

(18) 1997; Vandergrift, 2005). A few of the researches took more than one factor into consideration within a study. For example, Rahimi and Abedi (2014) investigated the relationship between listening self-efficacy and metacognitive awareness of listening strategies on students at high school level. Mills et al. (2006) examined the relationship among listening anxiety, listening self-efficacy, and listening performance on college-level students. Golchi (2012) conducted a study on listening anxiety, metacognitive awareness of listening strategy use, and listening comprehension among Iranian IELTS learners. Nevertheless, researches reviewed so far have not involved all the three factors in a single study. More importantly, no study so far has been conducted to find out whether the three factors (i.e. listening anxiety, listening self-efficacy, and metacognitive awareness of listening) contribute differently to SL/FL listening performance for students at different education levels. Hence, the present study aimed to explore the relationships of EFL learners’ listening performance to listening anxiety, listening self-efficacy, and metacognitive awareness at two education levels (i.e. junior high school level and senior high school level). Research Questions The current study was to investigate among the three factors, listening anxiety, listening self-efficacy, and metacognitive awareness of listening, which one would contribute most to English listening performance. The present study also aimed to find out whether the relative contribution of the three factors to listening comprehension attainment would vary depending on different education levels (i.e. junior high school level and senior high school level). The specific research questions are as follows: 1. What is the relationship of English (FL) listening performance to English (FL) listening anxiety, listening self-efficacy, and listening metacognitive awareness 8.

(19) among junior high school learners? 2. What is the relationship of English (FL) listening performance to English (FL) listening anxiety, listening self-efficacy, and listening metacognitive awareness among senior high school learners? 3. Of the three learner factors, English (FL) listening anxiety, English (FL) selfefficacy, and English (FL) metacognitive awareness, which one is the best predictor of English (FL) listening performance for learners at junior high and senior high levels respectively? Significance of the Study The results of this study might provide a few theoretical and practical implications to the field of English (FL) listening performance. Theoretically, the study might benefit relevant researchers in explaining the successful experiences of English (FL) listening attainment. Specifically, the results could help researchers to understand which of the three factors (i.e., English (FL) listening anxiety, English (FL) listening self-efficacy, and English (FL) listening metacognitive awareness) is the dominant predictor of successful listening performance. Moreover, the current study might also shed some light on the effect of education level by investigating listeners of junior and senior levels respectively. Practically, this study might provide some suggestions for both instructors and learners at the two education levels in English listening attainment. For example, if listening anxiety is proven to be the dominant factor contributing to listening performance on junior high school level, teachers at this level may distribute more efforts to learners’ inner feelings during the practice and help them to calm down as much as possible. However, for learners at senior high school level, the factor accounts most for the listening comprehension performance might be different from that for learners at junior high school level. 9.

(20) Therefore, instructors teaching at different education levels could benefit from the results of the present study by taking the most relevant factor into consideration when they are designing the listening course. Taken together, this study would help researchers and instructors theoretically and practically. As a result, it is of great importance to conduct the current study.. 10.

(21) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reviews literature related to the three learner variables explored in this study: anxiety, self-efficacy, and metacognitive awareness. In each section, the researcher first discusses main conceptualizations of each learner variable and its role in second/foreign language learning and then reviews literature on its relationship to second/foreign listening performance. Anxiety Conceptualizations Within psychological domain, psychologists view anxiety as a tension state, an apprehension which has some vague and indirect association with an object (as cited in Scovel, 1978). According to Spielberger (1983), anxiety is regarded as an individual’s subjective feeling of tension, uneasiness, apprehension, nervousness, disquiet, and worry. It is this subjective feeling that alerts an individual’s autonomic nervous system (Spielberger, 1983). Because anxiety itself is a multi-faceted concept, it has been categorized into some different types, including trait anxiety, state anxiety, achievement anxiety, and facilitative-debilitative anxiety (Horwitz, 2010). In the field of SL/FL acquisition, anxiety is viewed as the state of tension and apprehension that exclusively related to FL learning such as speaking and listening (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994, p.284). This multi-faceted feeling has been distinguished into different categories with various terminologies, with facilitative– debilitative anxiety (Scovel, 1978) and state-trait anxiety (Spileberger, 1983) being two popular dichotomies. The former categorization is based on the idea that anxiety is not always harmful 11.

(22) to learning outcomes, and in some cases it can even impose a positive influence on individual learning outcome. Hence, facilitating anxiety has positive effects on performance while debilitating anxiety is more likely to impede one’s learning. As for the latter dichotomy, state anxiety, also recognized as transient anxiety (Horwitz, 2001), refers to some temporary and passing feeling of anxiety aroused by anxietyprovoking situations and may fluctuate and diminish over time (Papi, 2010; Sıla, 2010). Trait anxiety, on the other hand, is identified as a personality trait which is a rather stable anxiety felt by individuals regardless of threats generated by their environment (Papi, 2010; Sıla, 2010). Further, researchers also distinguish among different kinds of anxiety associated with specific situations, that is, situation-specific anxiety. Different from trait anxiety, situation-specific anxiety may vary with situations. Language anxiety is one such situation-specific anxiety. Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) claimed that language anxiety was associated with three kinds of performance anxiety: communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation. Communication apprehension concerns a type of fear and shyness felt by individuals when communicating with others; test anxiety, as the name suggested, is a type of performance anxiety rooted in the fear of failure in academic evaluation situations; fear of negative evaluation, which stems from an individual’s dread of being evaluated negatively, may lead the individual to avoid appraisal situations (Horwitz et al., 1986, Papi, 2010; Sıla, 2010). However, Horwitz and her associates (1986) do not view foreign language anxiety as simply the sum of these three kinds of performance anxiety. Rather, they describe the construct as complicated self-perceptions or behaviors specifically associated with foreign or second language learning (Horwitz et al., 1986, p.128). More specifically, language anxiety may be activated when one 12.

(23) learns and uses second or foreign languages (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989). Anxiety in Second/Foreign Language Learning Regarding the effect of foreign language anxiety on language achievement, many studies showed a similar negative correlation. MacIntyre and Gardner’s (1989) study revealed significant and negative correlation between French (L2) performance and language anxiety (French class anxiety). Aida’s (1994) finding echoed MacIntyre and Gardner’s (1989) finding that there was a significant and negative relationship between foreign language classroom anxiety scale (FLCAS) scores and final course grades among American second-year Japanese students. Consistent with the previous studies, Coulombe’s (2000) study revealed a negative correlation between foreign language anxiety and final course grade in French classes ranging from beginning to advanced levels. Furthermore, Kim’s (1998) study in an Asian EFL context not only revealed significant and negative correlations between foreign language anxiety and achievement but also indicated differences in the relationship between a conversation class and a traditional reading-based class. She found that learners were comparatively at ease and not that nervous in the reading class than in the conversation class. The result of the study corresponds to people’s common belief that speaking classes are more likely to arouse learners’ anxiety compared with traditional reading-based classes. Anxiety and Second/Foreign Listening Performance Gardner and MacIntyre (1993) claimed that anxiety is the most negative factor to language performance. A large number of studies about anxiety have laid emphasis on the speaking skill since it is considered as the most anxiety-producing skill in FL learning for many learners. However, Krashen (in Young, 1992) acknowledges that of 13.

(24) the four language skills, although speaking is often considered and mentioned as the most anxiety-provoking, listening skill may also result in high degrees of anxiety especially under the situation that listeners cannot comprehend the text. Vogely (1998) further explains the importance of managing listening anxiety: In order to maintain a conversation, the interlocutors must first have mutual understanding of each other’s speech, which could be hindered by listening comprehension anxiety (Vogely, 1998). The need to differentiate language anxieties associated with different language skills is most clearly articulated in Cheng, Horwitz, and Schallert (1999). They posit that the differentiation helps educators or researchers to identify more precisely the source of anxiety that negatively impacts learning and/or using of a specific language skill. Pae (2013) further examined the intra-relations and inter-relations between the four skill-based SL anxieties and general foreign language anxiety with 285 Korean university EFL students. The study proved that each of the four skill-specific anxieties was unique and different from each other statistically. Moreover, each of the skillspecific anxieties served as an independent variable contributing to general classroom anxiety. These studies justify investigations of listening anxiety as an independent construct. In comparison with research on general foreign language anxiety, studies concerning SL/FL listening anxiety are rather limited (Elkhafaifi, 2005; Zhang, 2013). Elkhafaifi (2005) was the first one to investigate the relationship between general FL anxiety and FL listening anxiety and to associate both anxieties with overall FL achievement and listening comprehension performance respectively. To be more specific, he recruited 233 postsecondary students of Arabic as a FL from six US universities, ranging from juniors to seniors and even to graduates. All the participants were non-Arabic majors. The measures of their overall FL performance and listening 14.

(25) comprehension achievement were the final course scores and listening comprehension grades respectively provided by the instructors. As for the assessment of general anxiety and listening anxiety, the FLCAS designed by Horwitz et al. (1986) served as the measurement instrument for the former anxiety and the Foreign Language Listening Anxiety Scale (FLLAS) the latter. The FLLAS was adapted from Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale (FLRAS) developed by Saito, Garza, and Horwitz (1999). The results revealed that FL anxiety and FL listening anxiety were two separate constructs but were in positive correlation with each other (r = .66, p < 0.1). That is, students with higher degrees of FL listening anxiety were prone to have higher degrees of FL anxiety and vice versa. In regard to the relationship between anxiety and performance, the data evidenced that both types of anxiety (i.e., FL anxiety and FL listening anxiety) were significantly correlated with final course grade and listening comprehension score. To be clearer, FL anxiety was significantly and negatively correlated with overall performance (r = -.54, p < .01) and listening comprehension achievement (r = -.53, p < .01), indicating that students with higher levels of FL anxiety had lower grades on overall achievement and listening performance than those with lower FL anxiety. FL listening anxiety was also negatively correlated with general performance (r = -.65, p < .01) and listening comprehension achievement (r = -.70, p < .01). Students who experienced higher levels of FL listening anxiety had lower final course grades and listening comprehension scores than those with lower degrees of FL listening anxiety. Apart from the finding regarding anxiety and achievement (general and listening performance), Elkhafaifi’s (2005) study also revealed a significant and negative relationship between FL listening anxiety and students’ year of study in school. That is, the older/more advanced students experienced lower levels of FL listening anxiety. 15.

(26) However, gender and FL listening anxiety were not correlated with each other statistically. In other words, gender was not a factor affecting one’s level of listening anxiety (Elkhafaifi, 2005). Similar finding on the relationship between FL listening anxiety and listening performance can be found in Zhang’s (2013) research. Specifically, Zhang (2013) further addressed the causal effect on FL listening anxiety and listening performance. In the study, Zhang included 300 first year English majors in a university in China. All the participants filled in the FLLAS and took the IELTS listening test twice. The FLLAS was a replication of the FLLAS by Elkhafaifi (2005) but the version tapped into English listening classrooms rather than Arabic classrooms. To ensure that each item in the scale was clear enough to each participant, all the content of FLLAS was translated into Chinese by Zhang. The result indicated that FL listening anxiety was negatively related to FL listening performance. Moreover, the causal relationship found in the study showed that FL listening performance was statistically affected by FL listening anxiety, but not vice versa. Zhang (2013) further claimed that the combination of self-efficacy and FL listening anxiety might lead to more powerful prediction on listening comprehension performance. Likewise in Taiwan, studies on FL listening anxiety and FL listening performance evidence that FL listening anxiety was in a significant and negative relationship with listening achievement. Cheng’s (2006) research on the effect of listening anxiety on EFL senior high school students’ listening performance on different question types (i.e., global / local questions), text types (i.e., statements, conversations, and short talks), and strategy use revealed results consistent with the previous studies. In the study, Cheng (2006) recruited 132 senior high school students, who were divided into high/low anxiety groups and high/low proficiency 16.

(27) groups based on their responses to a modified FLLAS from Elkhafaifi (2005) and a listening test. Apart from the use of the FLLAS questionnaire, Cheng further adopted an interview from different groups of participants to elicit more information. The results revealed that listening anxiety was negatively correlated with the participants’ listening performance significantly (r = -.29, p < .01), which was in line with Elkhafaifi’s (2005) and Zhang’s (2013) findings. In addition, the low-anxiety group outscored high-anxiety group on overall listening performance (t = -3.56, p < .01) and global questions (t = -4.20, p < .01), but not on local questions (t = -1.87, p > .05). Regarding the text types, students in low anxiety group significantly outperformed the participants in high anxiety group on statements (t = -3.43, p < .01) and short talks (t = -2.18, p < .05), but not on conversations (t = -1.73, p > .05). With respect to the listening strategy, it was found that the low-anxiety group tended to use all the strategy types (i.e., memory, cognitive, metacognitive, compensation, affective, and social) more frequently than the high-anxiety group, except for cognitive and affective strategies. Besides, the more advanced listeners were prone to apply more strategies to the listening task than their counterparts. Another study conducted by Su (2007) revealed similar results on FL listening anxiety and FL listening comprehension attainment. The study aimed to explore factors which affect listening comprehension anxiety and the effects of listening anxiety on Taiwanese EFL college students’ listening comprehension. Su (2007) involved 1772 non-English-major freshmen, from various departments. The results not only showed that the participants’ listening comprehension anxiety was in significant negative relation to listening comprehension performance (r = -.54, p < .01), but also evidenced that listening comprehension anxiety was the most dominant factor affecting participants’ listening comprehension performance 17.

(28) compared with the other two factors (i.e., participants’ personality and linguistic intelligence). Cheng’s (2005) research was in line with the aforementioned studies. The study investigated the sources of and change in EFL leaners’ listening comprehension ability over one semester. A class of 23 English-major freshmen and sophomores at a university in northern Taiwan were recruited to participate in the study. An openended questionnaire and two one-item rating scales (one for retrieving participants’ anxiety and one for assessing self-efficacy belief) were used as instruments in the study. The participants were asked to fill out the open-ended questionnaire right after every class meeting throughout the whole semester. The other two one-item scales were given to the participants at the beginning, the middle, and the end of the semester. Apart from the negative association between final course grades and listening anxiety reported at three points of time throughout the semester (r = -.14, r = -.53, r = -.31), the results further revealed an even stronger association between listening anxiety and listening self-efficacy (r = -.22, r = -.64, r = .61). Moreover, it also showed a decline of learners’ listening anxiety levels with time passing, but the difference failed to reach statistically significant level. Compared to the large amount of research on general language anxiety and overall L2 performance, studies probing into the relationship between FL listening anxiety and FL listening comprehension are rather insufficient. Although in Taiwan Cheng (2006), Su (2007) and Cheng (2005) have shed some light on this area, their participants only came from a senior high school and two universities respectively. Studies concerning participants from junior high school are rare, let alone studies conducting on both junior high and senior high levels. Hence, this study examined the relationship between listening comprehension and listening anxiety across the two 18.

(29) education levels. Self-efficacy Conceptualizations Self-efficacy is a construct grounded in socio cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), which studies human cognition, actions, motivation and emotion, assuming people’s ability to self-reflect and self-regulate. The core of social cognitive theory lies in “triadic reciprocality” the interaction among environmental, personal, and behavioral effects (Bandura, 1986). Based on this theory, one’s behavior is the outcome from the interaction of the three dimensions. And this outcome is used to form expectations of one’s future behavior. Individuals then form a self-system to control over what they think, believe, and feel, through which one interpret and decode the outcomes of their behavior (Bandura, 1986; Pajares, 1997). This interpretation affects their self-beliefs, which, in turn, influences their subsequent behaviors. Accordingly, individuals’ behaviors are under the impact of the beliefs they hold about themselves. Self-efficacy is defined by Bandura (1986) as people’s own perception of their abilities to frame and perform courses of action required to achieve designated types of performance. Further, it is not related to the skills individuals have but to the perception and judgments of what individuals can do with the skills they possess. Therefore, the foundation of personal efficacy beliefs lies in what people believe they might be accomplished with their possessed skills rather than in their actual abilities. According to Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, self-efficacy serves as the dominant element in human behavior. It imposes great influences on the decision individuals make, on the effort they are willing to pay in given endeavors, the persistence they hold against obstacles, and the proportion of tension or confidence they will hold in the face of challenges (Bandura, 1986). Further, Bandura (1997) 19.

(30) posited that individuals’ personal efficacy mainly formed the dominant factor to human agency, without which one may have little motivation to perform the courses of action. It is the different degrees of perceived personal belief one possesses that distinguishes people’s behaviors even when they are equipped with similar skills and abilities (Rahimi & Abedini, 2009). Moreover, according to Bandura (1986), self-efficacy affects human behavior in four ways. First, it influences choice of behavior. Bandura (1994) claimed that people’s evaluation of their capability corresponds to the performance they expect and to the abilities they seek and require. Second, self-efficacy determines how much effort and persistence individuals will give and hold on each activity. For example, a low self-efficacy student has no confidence in himself/ herself might give up immediately in the confrontation of obstacles and refuse to take challenges. Hence, a higher degree of self-efficacy contributes to a greater endeavor, expenditure, and endurance. Third, self-efficacy has great impact on individuals’ emotional reactions and thought patterns. People with a low sense of self-efficacy, for instance, might consider things more difficult and tougher than they really are. As a result, this thought generates stress and might make individuals ascribe their loss or failure in challenging tasks to insufficient ability instead of to deficient efforts. The last point self-efficacy affects human behavior is by recognizing humans as producers rather than simply foretellers of behavior. Many studies have provided evidence that self-efficacy is a strong predictor to academic performance. Lent, Brown, and Larkin’s (1986) study revealed that selfefficacy has a significant unique contribution to the prediction of final grades and learners’ perseverance within science field. Meece, Wigfield, and Eccles (1990) conducted a study on affect variables contributing to math achievement among 20.

(31) adolescent learners. The results indicated that those young learners’ self-efficacy had great impact on their math performance expectancy, which then influences their math performance. Intriguingly, math anxiety was proved to be not directly related to math attainment. Instead, learners’ perceived self-efficacy belief served as the mediator to lower down the impact of anxiety on math achievement. Self-efficacy in Second/Foreign Language Learning In SL/FL learning field, several researches have shed light on the role of selfefficacy in language learning (Cheng, 2002; Mills, Pajares & Herron, 2007). Cheng’s (2002) study revealed that individual’s self-perceptions of confidence in English writing explained the largest amount of variance in SL writing anxiety (34%). Mills, Pajares, and Herron’s study (2007) also probed into the effect of self-efficacy and other motivational factors on the achievements of college students who learned French as a second language. The results evidenced that compared to French anxiety, self-efficacy contributed more to language achievement. To be more specific, their study indicated that self-efficacy for self-regulation contributed more to French language achievement than French learning self-concept, French anxiety in reading and listening, and self-efficacy to obtain grades in French. Moreover, learners who considered themselves with a stronger sense of deploying metacognitive strategies to supervise and monitor their academic work were in higher possibility to succeed in intermediate French. Though much research has revealed that anxiety is in significantly negative relation to language learning and performance (Horwitz, 2001) and is one of the leading predictors of SL acquisition (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986), social cognitive theorists (Bandura, 1997) stress the dominant role self-efficacy plays in performance compared with other motivational variables. In social cognitive theory, 21.

(32) self-efficacy belief is viewed as the main factor to determine learners’ anxiety. The extent to which learners suffer from anxiety largely rely on their self-efficacy beliefs (as cited in Mills et al., 2006). Bandura (1997) described anxiety as the state of tension over the potential detrimental outcomes. The arousal of anxiety mainly results from the imbalance of people’s perceived self-efficacy belief and the possible harmful happenings (Bandura, 1991, as cited in Chen, 2007). Apprehensive thinking occurs when learners possess a weak sense of self-efficacy, resulting in the arousal of anxiety. In contrast, learners who possess with more self-confidence are more likely to hold more optimistic expectations in the face of difficult situations, which helps to lower down the anxiety level. Thus, learners with a stronger sense of self-efficacy belief often change the difficult situations into satisfying outcomes. In other words, anxiety arousal occurs only when SL/FL leaners’ perceived values of themselves are not strong enough to deal with potentially detrimental evens (Mills et al., 2006). To clarify which construct (i.e., self-efficacy and anxiety) serves as the dominant role in SL/FL achievement, more related studies are still in need. Self-efficacy and Second/Foreign Listening Performance Graham (2006) argued that among the four language skills, low self-efficacy may pose more serious problems for SL/FL listening than the other three skills because listening skill is less observable and thus less controllable. Graham (2011) further stated, “An argument less frequently made, however, is that effective listening also depends on learners’ self-efficacy for listening, on their confidence in their ability to make sense of the input to which they are exposed” (p. 113). The listening skill is a source of frustration for learners because the transitory nature of spoken message and the speed of its delivery create listening anxiety that can demotivate learners (Graham, 2006) and lower learners’ self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). However, 22.

(33) researches on self-efficacy belief and more skill-specific SL/FL listening comprehension are rather limited (Rahimi & Abedi, 2014). Only a small number of empirical studies have explored the relationship between self-efficacy and listening performance (Graham, 2011). Mills et al. (2006) conducted a study on the correlation among French reading and listening self-efficacy, French reading and listening anxiety, and French reading and listening ability. Ninety-five undergraduate students in an American university ranging from freshmen to seniors were recruited to participate in the study. Three instruments were used to collect the desired data. The French Self-Efficacy Scale was developed by the investigators to assess individuals’ French reading and listening self-efficacy. French reading and listening anxiety was measured with an adapted version of Betz’s (1978) Mathematics Anxiety Scale (MAS). The last instrument, the University of Minnesota’s Graduate Standard Listening (1990) and Reading (1988) Proficiency Tests in French, was utilized to measure participants’ listening and reading proficiency in French. The results showed that French reading self-efficacy was in significant correlation with reading ability (r = .29, p < .05) whereas French reading anxiety and reading ability were not in significant correlation (r = -.19). As for listening, French listening anxiety was significantly related to listening ability (r = -.34, p < .01) while French listening self-efficacy was positively related to listening ability albeit for females. Rahimi and Abedini (2009) conducted a research to explore the role of EFL learners’ self-efficacy regrading listening comprehension in their listening test performance. A group of sixty-one college freshmen learning English at two universities in Iran participated in this study. Two instruments were used to collect the data. One is the author-designed listening self-efficacy questionnaire with reference to three questionnaires (i.e., Beliefs About Language Learning, Persian Adaption of the General Self-efficacy 23.

(34) Scale, and Morgan-Links Student Efficacy Scale). The other instrument was “Listening Diagnostic Pre-test” retrieved from paper-based Longman TOEFL test. The result showed that FL listening self-efficacy was in significant positive correlation to FL listening proficiency (r = .78, p< .05). Even less research has been conducted in Taiwan on the relationship between listening self-efficacy and listening attainment. Chen’s (2007) research on the relationship between EFL learners’ self-efficacy beliefs and English listening achievement recruited undergraduates from two listening comprehension classes at two universities in Taiwan. The listening term grades were used to identify participants’ listening proficiency level. A survey questionnaire containing two subparts was used as the instrument in the study. One sub-part was English self-efficacy scale designated by the researcher, and the other included English anxiety and perceived English value scale adapted respectively from Mathematics Anxiety Scale (Betz, 1987) and Student Attitude Questionnaire (Eccles, 1983). The results evidenced that self-efficacy belief and listening performance were in a significant and positive correlation. Besides, self-efficacy belief was proved to be a stronger predictor of listening comprehension ability (r = .74, p < .01) than English anxiety (r = -.57, p < .01) and perceived value of English language (r = .51, p < .01) and culture (r = .42, p < .01). The study further revealed that among the four sources of self-efficacy information (i.e., mastery experience, psycho-physiological state, social persuasionencouragement, and vicarious experience), mastery experience was the strongest factor to predict English listening self-efficacy (ß = .71), followed by psychophysiological state (ß = .33) whereas social persuasion (ß = .28) and vicarious experience (ß = .14) had relatively weaker impacts. Although based on most researches, FL listening self-efficacy correlates 24.

(35) positively with FL listening achievement, this issue is still new in Taiwan. Only Chen’s (2007) study was conducted in Taiwan, but the participants in her study were all at college levels. Whether the results can be generalized to different grade levels (i.e., junior high level and senior high level) still remains unknown. Therefore, in addition to English anxiety, the study also examined the relationship between English listening performance and English self-efficacy. Metacognitive Awareness Conceptualizations The core of metacognitive awareness lies the construct, metacognition. The term “metacognition” has various definitions. It was first introduced by Flavell (1976) within cognitive enterprise. He defined metacognition as follows: “In any kind of cognitive transaction with the human or non-human environment, a variety of information processing activities may go on. Metacognition refers, among other things, to the active monitoring and consequent regulation and orchestration of these processes in relation to the cognitive objects or data on which they bear, usually in service of some concrete goal or objective” (Flavell, 1976, p.232). Generally speaking, Flavell (1979) considered metacognition as a construct that refers to thinking about one’s thinking or the human ability to be aware of one’s mental process. In other words, metacognition is a form of cognition but is at a higher level thinking process that involves active control over cognitive processes (Wenden, 1998). Moreover, Birjandi (as cited in Rahimi & Katal, 2011) viewed metacognition as the “seventh sense” and one of the mental traits shared by successful learners. Flavell (1979), in his pioneering study about metacognition, emphasized learners’ knowledge to the person, task, and strategy in order to compartmentalize metacognitive knowledge. However, Brown (1978) reviewed the same early study in 25.

(36) metacognition and focused on aspects of executive cognition as planning, monitoring, and revising one’s thinking. Wenden (1987) considered that metacognition contains metacognitive knowledge and regulatory skills. Metacognitive knowledge includes knowledge about person, task, and strategy. Regulatory skills consist of pre-planning and planning-in-action. Pre-planning includes setting goals, choosing materials and methods, evaluating proficiency level, and foreseeing the difficulty. Planning-in-action concerns strategies such as monitoring, checking outcomes, and improving skills. Though literature offers diverse meanings and definitions of metacognition, Paris and Winograd (1990) noted that most of the definitions contain both knowledge about cognitive states and processes and control or executive aspects of metacognition. That is, metacognition can be divided into metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies. According to Brown, Bransford, Ferraraand, and Campione (1983, as cited in Rahimi & Katal, 2011), metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies cannot be seen as the same concept; instead, they are two separate and distinct elements contributing to the broader construct “metacognition.” Metacognitive knowledge refers to information learners obtain about their learning. Metacognitive strategies are general skills through which learners manage, direct, regulate, and guide their learning, i.e., planning, monitoring, and evaluating (Paris & Winograd, 1990). Metacognitive Awareness in Second/Foreign Language Learning Within the realm of language learning, Wenden (1991) followed Flavell’s (1979) typology to compartmentalize metacognitive knowledge into person knowledge, task knowledge, and strategic knowledge. Person knowledge involves knowledge of judgments about one’s learning abilities and knowledge about internal and external factors like beliefs, age, aptitude, and learning style which influence the success or 26.

(37) failure in one’s learning. Task knowledge refers to what learners know about the purpose, demands, and nature of learning tasks, which enables learners to take into consideration the elements that may contribute to the difficulty of a task. Strategic knowledge is what learners know about strategies. It is useful for learners to approach language learning by helping them to choose and apply the most effective strategies to the tasks (Wenden, 1991). Metacognitive strategies contain strategies as planning, monitoring, and evaluating. These three skills have been applied to SL/FL learning in O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) taxonomy of language learning strategies. In fact, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) have differentiated the range of cognitive categories into two main types: cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Cognitive strategies are in charge of managing the material to be learned or apply a specific technique to the learning task. Metacognitive strategies, on the other hand, are responsible to supervise, control, and regulate the learning process. These kinds of strategies include thinking about learning process, planning, monitoring and evaluating learning (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Further, Vandergrift (1997) added one more skill, problem identification, to metacognitive strategies. Based on Vandergrift (1997), planning facilitates learners to develop an awareness of the needs for the task and make appropriate plans to overcome the possible difficulties for the successful completion of the task. Monitoring enables learners to check, verify, or correct their comprehension during the task. Evaluation helps learners to check the outcomes of their completion of the task against their internal standard. Problem identification empowers learners to point out the difficulties that may hinder the completion of the task or to identify the central points that may need resolution. Through the four metacognitive strategies, learners are expected to perform a task completely and successfully. 27.

(38) According to Vandergrift (2005), metacognition has been proven to play an important role in cognitive psychology and SL/FL learning. Moreover, Anderson (2002) contended that learners can pull from their metacognitive knowledge and choose a strategy that will help them succeed in the face of new learning challenges. In other words, metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies are in reciprocal relationship. Metacognitive knowledge enables EFL learners to supervise and manage learning effectively while metacognitive strategies empower learners with the real ability to deploy metacognitive knowledge (Yang, 2009). Moreover, studies on metacognitive knowledge and SL learning (specifically learner strategies) have revealed statistically significant correlations between strategy knowledge and learners’ perceived strategy use (Zhang & Goh, 2006) and the importance of incorporating metacognitive knowledge in the teaching program. In line with the above-mentioned research, many studies have been conducted to find out the characteristics of good language learners and their use of strategy types in a particular language task (e.g., Shamis, 2003; Kummin & Rahman, 2010). Shmais (2003) conducted a research on the use of language learning strategy among 99 college English majors in Palestine. The results showed that all the students used learning strategies from high to medium frequency. The highest utilized strategies are metacognitive strategies, with the percentage up to 79.6% whereas the lowest used are compensation strategies, with the percentage down to 63%. Further, highachieving students used more metacognitive strategies than low achievers. Shmais (2003) further indicated that high achievers had high metacognitive awareness because they were highly aware of their needs and sought more opportunities to practice English. Kummin and Rahman (2010) also investigated the relationship between the use of metacognitive strategies and achievement in English among 28.

(39) undergraduate students in Malaysia and revealed similar findings. A group of 50 freshmen were chosen from two groups. The first group consisted of students who scored high in Malaysian University Entrance Test (MUET) while the second involved those who scored lower in MUET. The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) designed by Pintrich and Smith (1993) was utilized to assess participants’ use of different learning strategies in the course. The results indicated that metacognitive strategy use correlated significantly with language achievement. And rehearsal strategy was the most frequently used strategy. Moreover, other variables like gender and ethnic were proven to be in no relation to the use of metacognitive strategies. There is also evidence that metacognitive strategies play more significant role than other learning strategies because metacognitive strategies accelerate language acquisition. Learners with metacognitive awareness are conscious of the learning process and strategies that lead to success. In other words, metacognitive awareness empowers learners to understand their own thinking and learning process, with which learners are more likely to supervise the choice and orchestration of learning strategies, plan how to perform a learning task, monitor their performance continually during the process, find solutions to the problems confronted, and finally evaluate their completion of a task (Rahimi & Katal, 2012). Metacognitive Awareness and Second/Foreign Listening Performance According to Vandergrift et al. (2006), metacognitive awareness of listening can be defined as listeners’ consciousness of themselves as listeners, their understanding of the listening task requirements, and the awareness of their listening strategies deployment during the listening process. Further, Vandergrift et al. (2006) developed a questionnaire, Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire 29.

(40) (MALQ), to assess learners’ awareness and perceived use of listening strategies. These strategies contain five types, i.e., problem-solving, planning and evaluation, mental translation, person knowledge, and directed attention. While a few researches have probed into the relationship between metacognitive awareness and SL/FL learning, the number of studies on metacognitive awareness of listening is relatively small and still in its early stages of development (Rahimi & Abedi, 2014). Vandergrift (1996) conducted a qualitative research on listening comprehension strategy use by high school students. A group of 36 core French students at four different course levels participated in the study. Retrospective self-reports, elicited by means of a structured interview (adapted from Zimmerman & Pons, 1986, and Chamot & Küpper, 1989), were used to obtain students’ use of listening strategies. The participants were asked to describe the particular techniques they used to comprehend what the teacher said, facilitate comprehension of classroom listening activities, and understand any French they may hear outside classroom. The interviews were conducted individually to prevent each participant from being affected by others. The results showed that the higher the course level, the greater the metacognitive strategy use. That is, students at higher course level demonstrated greater metacognitive use. Moreover, females reported greater use of metacognitive strategies than males. A deeper look at the deployment of metacognitive strategy use showed that participants across all course levels were most familiar with planning strategies, which represent about two-thirds of the total number of metacognitive strategies reported, followed by monitoring strategies (about 20-30%); the use of evaluation strategies was minimal but increased gradually by course level. Another qualitative study conducted by Goh (1997) also indicated the potential role metacognitive awareness plays in the listening comprehension. Through listening 30.