CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION
The discussion section provides explanations to the results of the present study. First, the GEPT pretest and posttest results are explicated. Second, the Listening Comprehension Strategy Questionnaire responses are analyzed. Then, interpretations and generalizations are provided for the learners’ perceptions toward the strategy instruction course.
5.1 GEPT Pretest and Posttest
As is demonstrated by the results, learners in the experimental group registered greater improvement than their peers in the control group on the posttest. The size of change that occurred in the experimental group learners was bigger than that in their control group counterparts. The substantial difference between the two group’s performances could be attributed to the different instructional methods used with them during this period of time. Prior to the experiment, the control group performed much better than the experimental group on the GEPT elementary listening test. Yet, after strategy training was given to learners in the experimental group, they outperformed the control group learners who were provided with no instruction. The number of students in the experimental group who made improvements in the posttest increased. All the evidence indicated that the strategy instruction course designed in the present study for the targeted learners was effective. With the aid of listening strategies, the
The fact that learners in the experimental group came to vary more considerably in their listening performance in the posttest than did those in the control group could be accounted for by the following explanation. For one thing, both the experimental and control groups comprised learners of varying proficiency levels. While the contrast was sharper for the control group, hence its wider standard deviation in the first place, the experimental group was primarily constituted by learners of more or less the same proficienc. During the month of watching the ON Channel TV English learning DVD, some learners in the control group naturally improved their listening over time, whereas other learners made no progress. That was exactly why the standard deviation for the control group in the posttest became wider, an indication that the learners differed even more enormously from one another in terms of their listening ability. Likewise, the one-month strategy instruction course seemed to enhance the performance of only part of the learners in the experimental group. The only difference was that these learners, exposed to the experimental treatment, made a substantial gain, bigger than that by learners in the control group who bettered their listening through watching English-language DVD clips.
It was apparent that the explicit strategy instruction improved the learners’ listening performance, which was consistent with findings from previous studies (Carrier, 2003; Cheng, 2002; Chien, 2005; Huang, 2002; Lin, 2006; O’Malley et al., 1989; O’Malley et al., 1985b).
These studies all indicated that high school students and tertiary-level learners alike could
benefit from strategy training. At first glance, one-month instruction might seem unlikely for proficiency growth, but it did boost the learners’ listening performance, as was verified by the present study. But since the effect size was weak (partial eta squared value = .09; see Table 7), there appeared to be many confounding factors involved in the effects of strategy instruction.
In other words, some other reasons could have contributed to the experimental group learners’
improvement.
The present study differed from the previous similar research in that it excluded the influence of motivation at the beginning of the strategy instruction course so as to measure the sole effect of strategy training. This enabled a better insight into whether strategy instruction could really work for teenage EFL learners. With deduction of the impact of learning motivation—a major contributing factor in learning, the present study still proved that strategy instruction could assist learners with their learning.
The fact that significant results were achieved within such a short period of time could possibly be accounted for by the following explanations. First, the listening tasks used in the training sessions matched the instruction of the target strategies very well so as to exert maximum influence on the learners. Next, maybe the learners worked harder and paid more attention in class because they enjoyed such non-conventional activities which were so dissimilar to the ones they were used to. Also, the learners probably valued much the chances to improve their ability to do well on GEPT, which has been receiving more recognition than
ever
5.2 LCSQ Pretest and Posttest
The strategy of inferencing was the only targeted strategy for which the experimental group learners provided a more negative rating in the posttest. It was also one of the strategies whose pretest-posttest rating comparison did not achieve significance. Interestingly, the reflection questionnaire results suggested that the final training session, which was devoted to instruction of inferencing, received the most favorable comments from the learners (see 5.3 below). While it was possible that the training provided for learners was problematic, the GEPT results indicated that the learners did reap the benefits provided by the strategy training course.
Since the assumption on which that particular training session was rested was that inferencing involved many types, like linguistic, extralinguistic, voice and intonation, textual, situational, and worldly (Oxford, 1990; Vandergrift, 2003), just as the inferencing-oriented GEPT questions showed, the class session incorporated activities calling for many different kinds of inferencing skills. According to the GEPT results, the learners made improvement in their listening performance, but question 23 in LCSQ was meant only to probe their use of linguistic inferencing. And that explained why the learners reported to detect no improvement on their part in this strategy.
According to the statistics achieved by the t-test, comparisons of the experimental group learners’ responses before and after the experiment to questions 2, 4, 18, and 21 reached significance. Although the participant’s responses to the other three questions were non-significant, it did not signify ineffectiveness of the strategy instruction course carried out in the present study. As has been widely known in the field of strategy instruction in second language learning, it is global comprehension that strategy use exerts control over. That is to say, the effects of some individual strategies cannot be entirely separated from those of other strategies. Hence, there is no so-called one-on-one correspondence between individual strategies and specific representations of comprehension. This is consistent with Bissonnette’s (2007) study suggesting that listening strategy use promoted global listening ability but not discrete listening skills.
Also, as many researchers (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p.144; Oxford, 1990, p.16) have declared, there was a large overlap among the existing strategy groups. For instance, the metacognitive strategies involving self-assessment and planning often demand reasoning, which is itself cognitive in nature. This could partly account for the reason why it is difficult to separate the effects of individual strategies that combine to demonstrate global understanding.
It is not surprising, though, that the participants’ responses to the four questions attained significance. Although questions 1 and 2 both coped with advance organization, but the participants were only coached for previewing materials, in this case pictures, which was
exactly what question 2 was about, rather than reading instructions, addressed by question 1.
Therefore, due to the strategy training they underwent, the participants must have felt that they improved the specific skill inquired by question 2 instead of the one mentioned in question 1.
Also, as instruction in the strategy of listening for the general gist was coupled with that of advance organization, it makes sense that the participants’ responses to question 21 were also significant. Likewise, the fact that both the participants’ responses to questions 4 and 18 achieved significance could be relevant to the combined instruction of them. As the strategy of listening for key words, which underlay question 18, was considered the most helpful strategy by most learners, it was very likely that they put more effort in learning it as they perceived its importance. Accordingly, selective attention, associated with listening for key words, was grasped more easily by the participants, who learned these two strategies at the same time.
One cogent reason why the learners’ responses to question 22 were non-significant might be linked to the materials used in class. In the training session geared toward the strategy of prediction, two DVD clips were used as the primary teaching materials, which many learners expressed concerns over its difficulty as well as their lack of understanding in both the reflection questionnaires and interviews. As for the learners’ non-significant responses to question 23, it seemed legitimate as well because the strategy of inferencing, discussed by question 23, was generally considered somewhat abstruse in the general literature.
According to the statistics derived, explicit strategy instruction successfully promoted
students’ overall strategy use, though out of the seven questions examining the six strategies taught in the present study, only four received significant responses. This was an indication that the participants’ responses to many other questions, addressing other strategies, were significant. The reason why participants in the experimental group seemed to increase their use of strategies not taught in the one-month training sessions might have to do with the broad focus (Oxford, 1990, p.205) highlighted in the instruction course of the present study.
Likelihood was that by taking part in group activities and group discussions, the participants got to practice social strategies. Also, the learners’ report of their feelings in the reflection questionnaires and interviews implicitly phased in affective strategies throughout the training course. Another possibility would be that the learners’ self-assessment of their own improvement, recorded in the reflection questionnaires and interviews, helped contribute to the use of the metacognitive strategy of self-evaluation.
As for the control group, their act of providing a more positive rating to six out of the seven questions was not startling. It could be related to the DVD clips they watched during this period of time, which they could have mistaken for a kind of instruction given to sharpen their English listening ability. Therefore, the control group learners might have been misguided and assumed that they made progress in their use of listening strategies.
The reason why the control group learners’ responses before and after the experimental period to question 22 were significant could again be connected with their watching the On
Channel English learning DVD clips. Question 22 dealt with the strategy of prediction, which could possibly be practiced when watching DVD clips. And DVD clips happened to be the major instructional materials used to teach the strategy of prediction to the experimental group in the 3rd class session since the nature of DVD clips lent themselves well to practicing prediction. Perhaps the control group outperformed the experimental group in the rating of this strategy because they got to watch more DVD clips throughout the strategy training course.
Of all the comparisons between the experimental and control groups’ two sets of responses before and after the experiment to the seven questions, the ones to question 1 were the only ones in which neither group’s responses achieved significance. In all likelihood, the skill forming the basis of question 1—reading instructions carefully before carrying out listening tasks—was already utilized by these learners on a regular basis. That is, all participants had already been accustomed to using this listening skill before the experiment, so they generally perceived no progress in their use of it after the experimental period.
The results of the open-ended question of LCSQ indicated that the participating learners in the experimental group, after receiving instruction in listening strategies, were much more aware of how they made use of other listening skills. As with the results revealed by the paired samples t-test gauging their overall strategy use, these participants seemed capable of acquiring the listening strategies not taught in the listening strategy training course (Oxford, 1990, p.205).
Completely ignorant of listening strategies in the first place, the participants, after having been
given training in listening strategies, started to have a smattering of English listening strategies, and so were better able to describe some strategies they used. On the other hand, learners in the control group were more proficient to start with and were conscious of some ways they used to enhance learning. Throughout the experimental period, they received no training and remained generally insensitive to how listening strategies should be utilized to better their listening performance.
5.3 Reflection Questionnaires
The reflection questionnaire results provide good evidence that the learners’ self-reported ratings did not always match their emotional reactions well. That was especially true for learners from the class made up of quiet, slightly more proficient students. Compared with the other class of students comprising the experimental group, they were relatively critical of the class activities. But generally, most of the experimental group learners could sense that they benefited a lot from the instruction.
Judging from the student responses, learning motivation could have a marked effect on students’ learning attitudes. In general, the participants were drawn by the activities which were non-conventional and incorporated techniques that arouse their interest. In order to motivate those learners, activities which could suit their taste are much required. Also, it appeared that incorporation of activities of appropriate difficulty could greatly enhance teenage
students’ motivational level—at least in relation to specific learning tasks or situations.
5.4 Interviews
On the whole, all interviewees harbored positive affect toward the strategy training course.
It appeared that student motivation and linguistic difficulty determined to a large degree whether learners would view a strategy instruction course positively. Students with a low level of motivation could possibly be coaxed into learning—at least in the short term—by class lessons or activities that look appealing to them.
The less successful learners felt intimidated by the learning materials with great linguistic complexity. It signifies that less proficient learners benefit little from the instruction because of the great linguistic complexity involved in the learning materials, hence their weak grades. By inference, unsuccessful learners tend to be discouraged by materials beyond their linguistic competence.
Overall, a vast majority of interviewees reported to have perceived the effectiveness of the learning strategies they were taught. It seems that the participants found it easier to grasp uncomplicated cognitive strategies—for instance, listening for the general gist and listening for key words instructed in the present study. Conversely, they detected no effectiveness in the strategies they had trouble understanding. Sometimes unskillful learners had difficulty pointing out the most helpful and least helpful strategies, showing their incapability for strategy
training—they were simply below the proficiency level required to follow the course materials.
As could be inferred from the results, more skillful learners have a tendency to view their learning difficulties as controllable. On the other hand, unskillful learners are disposed toward uncontrollable factors, one example being the difficulty of tasks. According to Graham (2006), the learners who believe that success or failure can be attributed to internal or controllable factors have a strong sense of instrumentality, which is one of the key components in self-efficacy. And learners with positive self-beliefs—strong self-efficacy—seem to have better control over learning strategies. This is aligned with the results of the present study. Similarly, MacIntyre and Noels (1996) once warned that difficulty in strategy use was correlated negatively with motivation. Graham (2006) also suggested that learners who attributed their failure to uncontrollable factors were likely to become demotivated, without a sense that change and improvement are possible. Therefore, these low-achieving learners should be provided with opportunities to assess the cause of their listening difficulties and to practice using some specific learning strategies to enhance their listening performance.
Correspondingly, when proposing suggestions for improving the course, the advanced learners were liable to discuss controllable and changeable elements, putting forward concrete solutions, whereas the low proficiency learners focused more on the appeal of the activities—the fun they had in class, so to speak. They also indicated that they did not have a large enough vocabulary to comprehend the materials.
