Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 2010, 4 (1), 35-50[i].
The Effect of Metacognitive Strategy Training
on the Listening Performance of Beginner Students
Abdullah COŞKUN*
Abstract : The objective of this study is to investigate the
effect of metacognitive listening strategy training
on the listening performance of a group of beginner preparatory school students
at a university in Turkey. Two beginner groups, a control group (n: 20) and an
experimental group (n: 20), were chosen as the participants of the study. The
experimental group received five weeks of metacognitive strategy training
embedded into a listening course book, while the other group did not. At the
end of the training, a listening test taken from the teacher’s manual of the
same course book was administered to both groups. The analysis of the test
scores using t-test revealed that the experimental group did statistically
better in the test. The implication of the study is that metacognitive
strategy training should be incorporated into the regular listening teaching
program to help students become more effective listeners.
Keywords: Listening, metacognitive
strategy training, English as a Foreign Language.
Özet: Bu çalışmanın amacı bilişötesi dinleme stratejilerine yönelik eğitimin Türkiye’deki bir üniversitede öğrenim gören bir grup
başlangıç düzeyi hazırlık öğrencisinin dinleme performansına olan etkisini araştırmaktır.
Bu çalışmada 20 kişiden
oluşan bir deney ve aynı
sayıdaki bir kontrol grubu olmak
üzere iki başlangıç düzeyi öğrenci grubu yer
almıştır. Deney grubu dinleme derslerindeki
ders kitabına dahil edilmiş beş
hafta süren
bir bilişötesi strateji eğitimi almıştır. Bu eğitimin
sonunda, aynı ders kitabının öğretmen elkitabından seçilen bir dinleme
sınavı her iki gruba da uygulanmıştır.
Sınav sonuçlarının t-test kullanılarak yapılan analizi deney grubunun sınavda istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ölçüde daha iyi
sonuç aldığını ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu çalışmadan çıkarılabilecek
sonuç öğrencilerin etkin dinleyiciler olmalarına yardımcı olmak için dinleme
programlarına bilişötesi strateji eğitiminin dahil edilmesi gerekliliğidir.
Anahtar kelimeler: dinleme, bilişötesi strateji
eğitimi, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce.
Background to the Study
It is common knowledge that listening in English is an active skill requiring listeners to deal with a variety of complicated tasks, such as discriminating between sounds and interpreting stress and intonation. It is also known that listeners use a variety of mental processes to give meaning to the information they listen to. These mental processes that listeners use to understand spoken English can be broadly described as listening comprehension strategies. As indicated by Cohen (2000), many researchers in the field of second and foreign language (L2) listening agree on the idea that listeners often do not handle listening tasks in an effective way utilizing these strategies. There seems to be a common feeling among L2 listening researchers that listening should be approached as a skill requiring strategy use and teaching students how to use these strategies leads to improvement in their listening ability.
For a better understanding of listening strategies, especially metacognitive ones, it is necessary to explain and categorize language learning strategies first. In this study, learning strategies are “behaviors or actions which learners use to make language learning more successful, self-directed, and enjoyable” (Oxford: 1989, p. 235) and they can be categorized under three main groups as listed below (O'Malley et al., 1985, p. 582-584): 1.cognitive strategies (e.g. repeating, translation, grouping, note taking, deducting, imagery, auditory representation, key word, contextualization, elaboration, transfer) 2. metacognitive strategies (e.g. planning for learning, thinking about the learning process as it is taking place, monitoring of one's production or comprehension, and evaluating learning after an activity is completed) 3. socioaffective strategies(e.g. social-mediating activity and transacting with others)
Among these strategies, metacognitive strategies are considered as the most essential ones in developing learners’ skills (Anderson, 1991) and it was emphasized by O’Malley et al. (1985) that learners without metacognitive approaches have no direction or ability to monitor their progress, accomplishments, and future learning directions. On the other hand, learners who have developed their metacognitive awareness are likely to become more autonomous language learners (Hauck, 2005). Similarly, Chamot (2005) points out that less successful language learners do not have the metacognitive knowledge needed to select appropriate strategies. Goh (2002) emphasizes the importance of metacognitive strategies by arguing that learners’ metacognitive awareness is related to effective learning in all learning contexts. Goh and Yusnita (2006) draw attention to the specific context of L2 listening and claim that strategies have a direct and positive influence on listening performance. Yang (2009) also indicates that one of the distinctive features differentiating successful listeners from unsuccessful ones is their use of metacognitive strategies and he supports the idea that teaching the role of metacognition in L2 listening helps listeners to approach the listening task more effectively. As Luo-xiang (2005) concludes, more discussion is needed to increase learners' metacognitive awareness in listening. In the light of this research, the aim of this study is to research the effect of metacognitive strategy training and its effect on listening performance. This study has the main objective to review relevant literature about the effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on L2 listening comprehension and evaluate the effectiveness of a five-week metacognitive strategy training program in a beginner group at an intensive English preparatory school of a Turkish state university.
Metacognitive
Strategies and Listening
In simple terms, metacognition is thinking about thinking. Its scholarly description comes from cognitive psychology that approaches metacognition as one's knowledge concerning one's own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them. Active monitoring, consequent regulation and orchestration of these processes to achieve a goal also seem to be the necessary components of metacognition (Flavell, 1976 cited in Goh, 2008). In link with this definition, metacognitive development can be described as conscious development in one’s metacognitive abilities, such as the move to greater knowledge, awareness and control of one’s learning, selecting strategies, monitoring the progress of learning, correcting errors, analyzing the effectiveness of learning strategies, and changing learning behaviors and strategies when necessary (Ridley et al., 1992).
The use of metacognitive strategies activates one's thinking and leads to improved performance in learning in general (Anderson, 2002). Learners who have metacognitive abilities seem to have the following advantages over others who are not aware of the role metacognition plays in learning another language:
1. They are more strategic learners.
2. Their rate of progress in learning as well as the quality and speed of their cognitive engagement is faster.
3. They are confident in their abilities to learn.
4. They do not hesitate to obtain help from peers, teachers, or family when needed.
5. They provide accurate assessments of why they are successful learners.
6. They think clearly about inaccuracies when failure occurs during an activity.
7. Their tactics match the learning task and adjustments are made to reflect changing circumstances.
8. They perceive themselves as continual learners and can successfully cope with new situations (Wenden, 1998).
Metacognitive strategies do not only help learning in general but also have a lot to offer to listening comprehension specifically. Vandergrift (1997) indicates that metacognitive strategies such as analyzing the requirements of a listening task, activating the appropriate listening processes required, making appropriate predictions, monitoring their comprehension and evaluating the success of their approach cause the difference between a skilled and a less-skilled listener. Similarly, Goh (2008) lists some of the positive effects of metacognitive strategy training on listening comprehension. She states that it improves students’ confidence and makes them less anxious in the listening process. She also believes that weak listeners in particular benefit much from the training.
There is empirical evidence in the literature that use of metacognitive strategies lead to better listening performance in different contexts (e.g. Vandergrift, 2003; O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Thompson and Rubin, 1996). For instance, Vandergrift (2003) trained students in the use of prediction, individual planning, peer discussions, and post listening reflections that made up the metacognitive strategies in beginner elementary school and university contexts in France. Students in both groups were more focused on the advantages of predictions for successful listening, the place of collaboration with a partner for monitoring, and the confidence-building function of this approach for developing listening comprehension ability.
Another study proving the effectiveness of metacognitive strategy training on L2 listening performance is that of O'Malley and Chamot (1990) whose intermediate high school ESL students received instruction in a metacognitive, a cognitive, and a socio-affective strategy. Performance on a post-listening test was compared with two other groups: the first group received instruction in a cognitive and a socio-affective strategy only, the second was a control group, and received no strategy instruction. Results revealed that in each daily test, the treatment group performed better than the control group, and that the metacognitive group had a better performance than the cognitive group on three of the four tests.
In addition to the previous
studies, Thompson and Rubin (1996) worked on the influence of metacognitive and
cognitive strategy instruction on the listening comprehension performance of
American university students learning Russian. The listening scores of the
experiment group receiving systematic training in listening strategies were
compared to the scores of a similar group who received no instruction over a
two-year period. Pre- and post-tests showed that the students who received
strategy instruction in listening to video-recorded texts improved
significantly over those who had received no instruction at the end of two
years.
Models of Metacognitive Strategy
Training
In all metacognitive strategy training programs, there are some common basic principles that have been listed by Veenman et al. (2006 in Goh, 2008). They suggest that these programs should be embedded in the subject matter to ensure connectivity. Another key principle from their perspective is the necessity of informing learners about the usefulness of metacognitive activities to make them exert the initial extra effort. Prolonged training to guarantee the smooth and guaranteed maintenance of the metacognitive activity is another feature they underline. Similarly, Chamot and Rubin (1994) emphasize the importance of discovering and discussing strategies that students already use for specific learning tasks, presenting new strategies by explicitly naming and describing them, explaining why and when these strategies can be used and providing extensive practice.
In addition to key principles as indicated above, there are different categorizations of metacognitive strategies resulting in the appearance of different strategy training models although they seem to share similar stages.
In Anderson’s model (2002), metacognitive strategy training is divided into five primary components that are preparing and planning, deciding when to use particular strategies, monitoring strategy use, learning how to orchestrate various strategies, and evaluating strategy use. In the preparing and planning component, students are prepared in relation to their learning goal and start thinking about what their goals are and how they will go about accomplishing them. In the process of deciding when to use particular strategies, learners think and make conscious decisions about the learning process and choose the best and most appropriate strategy in a given situation. In the monitoring strategy use component, they need to ask themselves periodically whether or not they are still using those strategies as intended. While learning how to orchestrate various strategies; students coordinate, organize, and make associations among the various strategies available. In the last component, evaluating strategy use, students attempt to evaluate whether what they are doing is effective by means of self-questioning, debriefing discussions after strategies practice and checklists of strategies used can be used to allow the student to reflect through the cycle of learning. At this stage, all the previous stages are evaluated.
The models and training instruments, such as Cognitive
Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) and Metacognitive Awareness Listening
Questionnaire (MALQ) have been used in the metacognitive strategy training
incorporated into the listening lessons for this study. Therefore, they will be
explained in depth below and will also be mentioned in the “data
collection and training instruments” section of the paper.
Vandergrift (1997) lists four strategy categories, planning, monitoring, evaluation and problem identification, which make up the basics of his model. For planning, he draws attention to an appropriate action plan to deal with difficulties that may hinder the listener from completing a task successfully. At this stage, he underlines the importance of pre-listening activities that help students make predictions about what to listen for and, subsequently, to focus attention on meaning while listening. In his monitoring category, students check consistency with their predictions. In the evaluation category, students evaluate the results of decisions made during a listening task by getting involved in group or class discussions. Within the problem identification category, he underlines the importance of explicitly identifying the aspect of the task that hinders completion of the listening task successfully. He also suggests some teaching techniques to develop students’ metacognitive strategy use by illustrating some listening activities that are simple and helpful for listeners to develop their metacognition. His activities are mostly based on the idea that the regular use of pre-listening, listening and post-listening activities is likely to promote the acquisition of metacognitive strategies. He also suggests using a checklist including two parts as “before listening” and “after listening”. After the pre-listening activities, students complete the first part of the checklist, before listening, to evaluate whether they have followed all the necessary steps for successful listening before they begin to listen. After listening and attempting to complete the listening task, students complete the second part, which will help them to evaluate their performance in a systematic fashion, particularly if they had difficulty completing the task. This self-evaluation will help students to adjust their strategies for the following tasks. Room for a written reflection at the bottom of the instrument encourages students to personally reflect on the process, and state what they will do to improve their performance the next time. CALLA was developed by Chamot and O’Malley as a metacognitive strategy training model. It helps teachers to combine language, content, and learning strategies in a carefully planned lesson. In the CALLA model, students’ prior knowledge and their habit of evaluation of their own learning seem to be the major principles. This model has five instruction phases as explained below (Chamot and O’Malley ,1994, p. 43-44):
1. Preparation: Students prepare for strategies instruction by identifying their prior knowledge about and the use of specific strategies.
e.g.: Setting goals and objectives, identifying the purpose of a language task, over-viewing and linking with already known materials
2. Presentation: The teacher demonstrates the new learning strategy and explains how and when to use it.
e.g.: Explaining the importance of the strategy, asking students when they use the strategy
3. Practice: Students practice using the strategy with regular class activities.
e.g.: Asking questions, cooperating with others, seeking practice opportunities
4. Evaluation: Students self-evaluate their use of the learning strategy and how well the strategy is working for them.
e.g.: Self-monitoring, self-evaluating, evaluating their leaning
5. Expansion: Students extend the usefulness of the learning strategy by applying it to new situations or leaning for them.
e.g.: Arranging and planning their learning
Another tool utilized in this
study to incorporate metacognitive strategies into the lesson is MALQ, a 21
item questionnaire developed by Vandergrift et al. (2006), which has been used
in different contexts as a consciousness-raising tool to raise students’
awareness of the process of listening, to positively influence students’
approach to listening tasks, and to increase self-regulated use of
comprehension strategies. The items in MALQ are related to five metacognitive
factors that are listed below with related strategies (see Appendix A for
MALQ):
Problem-solving: As I listen, I
compare what I understand with what I know about the topic..
Planning
and evaluation:
Before I start to listen, I have a plan in my head for how I am going to
listen.
Directed
attention: I
focus harder on the text when I have trouble understanding.
Personal
knowledge: I
find that listening in English is more difficult than reading, speaking or
writing in English.
Mental
translation:
I translate in my head as I listen.
Need for the Study and Research
Question
In Turkish university preparatory schools, metacognitive strategy training is not an internal part of many listening course books or curricula and listening teachers do not seem to pay attention to these strategies while designing their lessons. Listening does not receive its due importance and students do not seem to be sufficiently trained about the listening strategies (Seferoglu and Uzakgoren, 2004). Indeed, in the program of the preparatory school involved in the current study, listening and speaking constitute only 10% of the overall evaluation. Although there have been a number of studies like this one in different contexts, Goh (2008) emphasizes that more research is needed to investigate the role of metacognitive instruction in listening performance in different contexts. Considering the purpose of this study and in an attempt to trigger more research in the field of L2 listening in Turkey, the research question for this study has been formulated as follows:
What is the effect of
metacognitive strategy training on beginner level students’ English listening
performance?
Research Design
This study was based on quasi-experimantal design in which two groups are involved with one group receiving treatment. After the treatment, the test scores of two groups are compared to see the effectiveness of the treatment in the experiment group. The independent variable in this study is the metacognitive strategy use of a group of beginner preparatory students and the dependent variable is the listening performance of the experimental and the control group students.
The participants, data collection instruments, reliability
and validity of these instruments, the data analysis methods in addition to the
analysis and the discussions of the findings will be dealt with in the
following sections.
Participants
The participants of the study were 40 beginner-level
students, 20 in the experimental group and 20 in the control group, at the
preparatory school of a Turkish state university. Students in both classes were
placed as beginner students either because of their low proficiency/placement
exam scores they took at the beginning of the academic year or because of the
fact that they did not take this exam as they thought that their English was
beginner anyway. The number of female students in both classes is 27 while
there are 13 male students. Their age range is between 17 and 21.
Data Collection
and Training Instruments
At
the beginning and the end of the training, two comprehension tests that
were similar to the listening activities into which the strategy training was
embedded were selected from the teacher’s manual and test booklet of
the listening course book. The first part of both exams was guessing
what the main topic of the text will be about by
choosing the best prediction after listening only to the beginning of the
recording. The second part required student to listen to the entire text and
answer related multiple choice questions. See Results
for reliability and validity issues in addition to the analysis of the test
scores.
The CALLA
model explained in detail in the Introduction was applied for metacognitive
strategy training in this study. Robbin’s (2000) lesson plan (see Appendix B) that includes the CALLA
strategy training phases, such as preparation, presentation, practice, evaluation and expansion was adapted for each
listening task. To make sure whether the teacher is following the steps of the
model and to maintain consistency, a teacher checklist
(Appendix C) prepared by National Capital
Language Resource Center (NCLRC) was also completed by the
teacher for each lesson.
As there seems to be a shift from teaching strategies as a separate entity to integrating strategies into the language curriculum (Chamot et al., 1994), the strategy training for this study was embedded into the listening curriculum of the experimental group. Part A of the “focus on listening” parts of units 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 in the listening-speaking course book were used to teach the metacognitive strategies listed by Vandergrift (1997) as planning, monitoring, evaluation and problem identification strategies. In this section of each unit, a variety of listening genres such as radio reports, interviews and lectures are presented. The section starts with a prediction question such as “what will the speakers talk about in this radio program?” after giving students the chance to listen to the beginning of the conversation or think about their earlier knowledge in order to make guesses. The teacher encourages students to predict the answers not only for this prediction question, but also for all the other following exercises. Following the first part, there is a “listening for main ideas” section that generally includes a true/false or sentence ordering exercise done after the first listening of the whole listening text. In the next section, “listen for details”, students listen again to answer more specific questions mostly in the form of multiple choice questions. Later, in the “make inferences” section, students listen to short excerpts from the same text and make inferences about relevant multiple choice questions. In the last section, “express opinions”, students are asked to work with a partner and discuss general personal questions related to the listened content.
To fit the above mentioned part
of the course book to Vandergift’s(1997) metacognitive
strategies, his performance checklist for listening (Appendix D) was referred
to by participating students before and after each listening task into which
metacognitive strategy training is incorporated. By working on the checklist
regularly, students learn how to plan (e.g. I have attempted to recall all that
I know about the topic), monitor (e.g. I used background noises, tone of voice,
and other clues to help me), evaluate (e.g. I attempted to verify my
predictions) and identify problems for next listening exercises (e.g. In order
to improve my performance, next time I will…). The checklist was translated
into Turkish as students are only beginner students
and might have difficulty comprehending the checklist in English. In
addition to the listening tests, the CALLA model, related teacher checklists,
relevant course book sections and student checklists mentioned above; the
Turkish translation of MALQ that overlaps with Vandergift’s model was used as a
strategy training instrument. The items in the MALQ
were discussed with students in reference to each listening task to keep
students’ metacognitive strategy awareness fresh throughout the training
and to help learners to use, identify and develop learning strategies in a
systematic way.
It is important to note
here that there was no mention of strategies in the control group. The first
parts of the book explained above were skipped in this class and only the
second part of the listening was covered with them without any strategy
training as in the experiment group. The speaking part of the curriculum in the
program was kept as it was in both groups.
Validity
and Reliability of the Instruments
Considering validity as one of the most important characteristics of a
test, the listening tests were selected from the teacher’s manual of the course
book that has been used since the strategy training started. Jamieson et al.
(2008) carried out a study on the content validity of these tests. They investigated the test performance and
attitudes of both teachers and student through test scores, a questionnaire,
and interviews in an intensive English program at a public university in the US
including 13 students, three of whom are of Turkish origin. It was found that
the materials reflect the content of the course book and they are perceived as
helpful and useful both by students and teachers. The Cronbach’s
alpha of the current scale was .74, indicating satisfactory reliability. In
terms of the validity of the training instruments, both CALLA and the MALQ have
been used in different contexts successfully. It is claimed on the website of
the CALLA model that it is being implemented in approximately 30 school
districts in the United States as well as in several other countries.
Vandergrift et al. (2006) also used rigorous statistical processes to validate
the items in the MALQ.
Data Analysis
Independent-samples t-test was applied using SPSS to analyse possible differences in listening performance between the two groups involved in two listening tests. Participant scores in the listening pre-test were analyzed to determine the homogeneity of the groups in terms of listening performance level before the training although participants in both groups had been replaced as beginner at the beginning of the term by the administration in accordance with their proficiency exam results. The post-test was administered to find whether the metacognitive strategy training in the experiment group led to any significant difference in participants’ listening performance in the experimental group.
Results and Discussion
The independent-samples t-test analysis
of the pre-test revealed that there was no significant difference (t=-.238; p
>.05) between the mean scores of the participants in the two groups. In
other words, the groups were homogenous in terms of their listening performance
at the beginning of the training. The calculated p-value is below the threshold
value that is .05, which means that the groups are homogenous in terms of their
listening performance (see Table 1 after References for the descriptive
statistics, t and P values). Thus, the researcher started to apply the
metacognitive strategy training to the experimental group, but not to the
control group. To be able to compare any
improvement in the experimental group’s listening performance with that in the
control group at the end of the training, both the experimental
and the control group were administered a post-testat the end of the training. The analysis of the scores using the independent samples
t-test statistical procedure showed that the mean scores of the experimental
group (M = 81.5) were significantly different (t=-3.107; p < .05) from
the control group (M = 68). In other words, the experimental group surpassed
the control group in terms of listening performance at the end of the experiment
(see Table 2 after References for the t-test results of the post-test). This finding seems to corroborate with the
reviewed studies revealing that metacognitive strategy training facilitated L2
listening comprehension and is useful for L2 listening improvement (Vandergrift,
2003; O’Malley and Chamot 1990; Thompson and Rubin; 1996; Anderson, 2002;
Vandergrift, 1997; Goh, 2008). The training program
followed in this study which included Vandergift’s (1997) strategy
training phases, the CALLA model and MALQ incorporated
into the listening course book had a positive impact on the listening
performance of EFL students. The
findings of the study have a number of implications for teachers, and thus
teacher trainers whose classroom practices are interconnected. As stated at the
beginning of the study, listening skills are not generally
considered as skills requiring the use of strategies by most L2 learners
and there seems to be a lack of awareness that these strategies facilitate the
listening process (Oxford et al., 1990; Cohen, 2000; Vandergrift, 1999).
Therefore, English teachers need to incorporate strategy training into their
skills lessons and train students systematically about what metacognition
is, what role metacognition plays in learning, and how these strategies can be
transferred to other listening tasks and even skills. For successful training of listeners,
teachers should themselves be aware of the importance of strategy training in
listening comprehension and their awareness about the role training plays in
learning English can be increased by teacher trainers who are aware of the
benefits of metacognition.
As it is
indicated by Seferoglu
and Uzakgoren (2004), Turkish students do not seem to be sufficiently trained
in the listening strategies in the EFL context of preparatory English
education and as pointed out by
Rasekh and Ranjbary (2003), most course books and curricula, especially
in the context of EFL, do not contain enough information on learning
strategies. Considering these
facts within the Turkish context, the idea of strategy
training separately should be replaced by the integration of strategies into
the listening curriculum (Chamot et al., 1994).
Conclusion and Suggestions
The main objective of this study was to explore the effect of metacognitive strategy training on beginner preparatory students’ listening performance by comparing the test scores of experimental and the control group at the end of the training program. The training in the experimental group was limited to the planning, monitoring, evaluation and problem identification strategies embedded in the lessons for five weeks in the first half of the academic year at the preparatory school of a university in Turkey. The post-test scores of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the control group, which shows that strategy instruction on the basis of the CALLA model, the MALQ, teacher and student checklists increases students’ listening performance.
Although
this study sheds some light on the usefulness of metacognitive strategy
training in listening classes, the findings cannot be generalized to all EFL
contexts in Turkey as the number of participants, the duration of the strategy training program and different variables can easily
change the results of such studies. Therefore,
further studies should explore the effectiveness of metacognitive
strategy training with higher number of students and allocate a longer period
of time than only five weeks that is the time spent on the training for the
current study. In addition, more comprehensive research on different variables
such as participants’ cultural background and proficiency levels of English is
necessary. Different strategy training models and test types should also be
used in future research studies to come to the sound conclusion that
metacognitive strategy training does actually matter as far as L2 listening
comprehension is concerned. More research is needed on a possible cause and
effect relationship between some other learning strategies (e.g. cognitive and
socioaffective) and listening performance as well. As this study is only about
the influence of metacognitive strategy training on L2 listening, more research
should be carried out to investigate
the effect of certain metacognitive strategies on different language skills or
sub-skills performance in order to claim that metacognitive strategy training
is effective in learning English in general. English teachers in different
local settings should take such studies as their starting point and engage in
classroom research in order to come to more sound conclusions about the effectiveness of strategy
training on students’ performance in their classrooms. By reflecting upon their
teaching experiences, they can even develop their own strategy training models
suitable for their local context.
To conclude, it should be noted that the traditional idea of only exposing EFL students to listening texts in listening classes should be challenged by an approach in which strategies can effectively and successfully be embedded to the listening course by means of strategy training program. It is hoped that this study will trigger more research exploring the effect of different strategy training models on students’ performance in different basic skills. Studies proving the effectiveness of strategy training are likely to convince English teachers, teacher trainers, course book writers and curriculum designers to be more aware of the benefits of strategy training and include these strategies in their lessons, course books and curricula.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my
gratitude to Prof. Dr. Hüsnü Enginarlar for his invaluable advice in the
process of writing this paper, to Assist. Prof. Dr. Ayşegül Amanda Yeşilbursa
for her careful proofreading of this study and the anonymous reviewers of Novitas-ROYAL
as well as the editors.
References
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.
Anderson,
N.J. (2002). The role of metacognition
in second language teaching and learning. ERIC Digest, April 2002, 3-4.
Chamot, A. U., & O`Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Chamot, A.U., & Rubin, J. (1994). Comments on Janie Rees-Miller's 'A critical appraisal of learner training: theoretical bases and teaching implications': Two readers react. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 771-776.
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P . B., Robbins, J. (1999). The learning strategies handbook., NY: Longman.
Chamot, A.U. (2005). Language
learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 25, 112–130.
Cohen, A. D. (2000). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second
Language. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Goh, C. C.M. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction
patterns. System, 30(2), 185-206
Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive Instruction for Second Language Listening Development: Theory, Practice and Research Implications. Regional Language Centre Journal, 39(2), 188 - 213.
Goh, C., & Yusnita, T. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal 60(3), 222–232
Hauck, M. (2005). Metacognitive
knowledge, metacognitive strategies and CALL.
In J. Egbert and G. Petrie (eds.), CALL research perspectives. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 65–86.
Jamieson, J., Grgurovic, M., & Becker, T. (2008). Using diagnostic information to adapt traditional textbook-based instruction. In C. A. Chapelle, Y.R. Chung, & J. Xu (Eds.), Towards adaptive CALL: Natural language processing for diagnostic language assessment (25-39). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
Luo-xian, S. (2005). Metacognitive
Awareness and Second Language Listeners. Media in Foreign Language Instruction,
6, 55-59.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R., & Kupper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 285-296.
O' Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System, 17, 235-247.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language
learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Rasekh, Z. E. & Ranjbary,
R. (2003). Metacognitive strategy
training for vocabulary learning. Retrieved May 18, 2007 from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej26/a5.html
Ridley, D.S., Schutz, P.A., Glanz, R.S. & Weinstein, C.E. (1992). Self-regulated learning: the interactive influence of metacognitive awareness and goal-setting. Journal of Experimental Education 60 (4), 293-306.
Seferoglu,G. & Uzakgören, S. (2004).
Equipping learners with listening strategies in English language classes. Hacettepe University Faculty of
Education Journal, 27, 223-231.
Thompson, I., & Rubin, J.
(1996). Can strategy instruction improve listening comprehension? Foreign Language Annals,
29(3), 331-342.
Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 387-409.
Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension: Acquiring successful strategies. ELT Journal, 54, 168-176.
Vandergrift, L. (2003). From prediction through reflection: Guiding students through the process of L2 listening. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 425-440.
Vandergrift, L. Goh, C.C.M., Mareschal, C., &
Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The Metacognitive
Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ): Development and Validation. Language
Learning, 56(3), 431-462.
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19,
515-37.
Yang, C.
(2009). A
study of metacognitive
strategies employed by English listeners. International
Education Studies. 2(4), 134-139.
http://www.nclrc.org/guides/HED/chapter1.html
http://eslstrategy.elitebridge.net/metacognitionInstruction.html
National Capital Language Resource Center (NCLRC): http://www.nclrc.org/
Tables
Table 1: Results of the independent-samples t test in the listening test before the training
|
Group
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
t
P |
|
Experimental Group (Metacognitive)
20
64,5
24,1
-,238 ,813 Control Group(None) 20 66,5 28,7 |
Table 2: Results of the independent-samples t test in the listening test after the training
|
Group
N
Mean
Std. Deviation t P |
|
Experimental Group (Metacognitive)
20
81,5
13,6
-3,107
0,04 Control Group(None) 20 68 13,8 |
Appendix A
MALQ Items
1.
Problem-solving strategies:
- I
use the words I understand to guess the meaning of the words I don’t understand.
- As
I listen, I compare what I understand with what I know about the topic.
- I
use my experience and knowledge to help me understand.
- As
I listen, I quickly adjust my interpretation if I realize that it is not
correct.
- I
use the general idea of the text to help me guess the meaning of the words that
I don’t understand.
-
When I guess the meaning of a word, I think back to everything else that I have
heard, to see if my guess makes sense.
2. Planning-evaluation
metacognitive strategies:
-
Before I start to listen, I have a plan in my head for how I am going to listen.
-
Before listening, I think of similar texts that I may have listened to.
-
After listening, I think back to how I listened, and about what I might do
differently next time.
- As
I listen, I periodically ask myself if I am satisfied with my level of
comprehension.
- I
have a goal in mind as I listen.
3. Mental
translation strategies:
- I
translate in my head as I listen
- I
translate key words as I listen.
- I
translate word by word, as I listen.
4. Personal
knowledge:
- I
find that listening in English is more difficult than reading, speaking, or
writing in English.
- I
feel that listening comprehension in English is a challenge for me.
- I
don’t feel nervous when I listen to English.
5. Directed
attention
- I focus harder on the text when I have trouble understanding.
- When my mind wanders, I recover my concentration right away.
- I try to get back on track when I lose concentration.
- When I have difficulty understanding what I hear, I give up and stop listening
Appendix B
CALLA Lesson Plan
1.
Preparation phase: Ask students to think of how they
approach a listening task by having small groups fill out a handout like the
one shown. Have a representative from each group report the strategies students
already use in listening. Point out the variety of strategies available and the
element of choice - a strategic learner can make an informed choice of strategy
depending on the requirements of the task and his or her individual learning
style.
Sample Handout
Talk with your classmates. Imagine you have to listen to a news story in English. What do you think about or do at these times? (possible answers given in italics)
Before listening
what the story will be about (from
previews or headlines)
While listening
what the point of the story is
After listening
what I think about the story
(Choose someone from your group to report your answers to the class.)
2. Presentation phase: Model the focus strategy for performing a task similar to
that which the students will tackle in this lesson. "When I am driving and
get stuck in a big traffic jam, I sometimes try listening to the traffic report
on the radio. I don't try to understand everything that's said about all the
places in the city. I just listen casually until I hear the name of the road
I'm on. Then my ears perk up and I listen harder for what's keeping me from
getting where I want to go. This is selectively attending. I know what I need
to hear the most and I decide to only pay attention to that part. I'm listening
for the name of this road I'm on, then I listen harder."
3.
Practice phase: Remind students of the strategies studied previously for
before, during and after listening. In small groups, ask the students to form
groups, and give each group a map with cities marked on it that are in the
weather report. Ask each group to listen for the weather in a specific city.
Students should be reminded to selectively attend while they are listening.
4.
Evaluation phase: Ask each group to present the weather they heard for their
city. If the group was able to get all of the weather information, ask if they
felt selectively attending helped them.
5.
Expansion phase: Ask students to give examples of other times and places
when they selectively attend; for example, when attendance is being taken or
when waiting for a train. Suggest situations in school where selectively
attending can be helpful. Assign an outside listening activity that requires
selectively attending. Keep a poster on the wall as shown in Figure 3 to remind
students of the listening strategies.
Appendix C
Appendix D
Performance
Checklist for Listening
Student name: ___________________________ Date:________________
(Place a check mark in the 'yes' column when verifying each statement)
|
Before listening |
Yes |
|
I understand the task (what I have to do after I have finished listening) |
|
|
I know what I must pay
attention to while I listen |
|
|
I have asked the teacher for clarifications, if necessary |
|
|
I have attempted to recall all that I know about the topic |
|
|
I have attempted to recall what I know about the type of text I will listen to and the type of information I will probably hear |
|
|
I have made predictions on what I am about to hear |
|
|
I am ready to pay attention and concentrate on what I am about to hear |
|
|
I have encouraged myself |
|
|
After listening |
Yes |
|
I concentrated on the task to be accomplished |
|
|
I attempted to verify my predictions |
|
|
I revised my predictions accordingly |
|
|
I focused my attention on the information needed to accomplish the task |
|
|
I used background noises, tone of voice, and other clues to help me guess at the meaning of words I did not understand |
|
|
I used key words, cognates, and word families to understand the text |
|
|
I used my knowledge of the context and of text structure to understand the text |
|
|
I evaluated the logic/plausibility of what I understood |
|
In order to improve my performance, next time I will.................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................