The Relationship between Metacognitive Awareness and EFL Listening Performance: Focusing on IELTS Higher and Lower Scorers

Year 2012, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 24 - 37, 14.07.2016

Mansoor Tavakoli Sara Hashemi Shahraki Mohsen Rezazadeh

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the relationship between the learners' metacognitive awareness (Planning and Evaluation, Problem Solving, Directed Attention, Mental Translation and Person Knowledge) and their performance on the listening section of IELTS. The study employed both quantitative and qualitative data analyses. Based on their performance on the IELTS test, the participants were identified as less (N=34) or more-proficient (N=32) listeners. The listeners' perceived use of metacognitive strategies was measured using Vandergrift, Goh, Mareschal, and Tafaghodtari (2006) Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire. Two less- and two more-proficient listeners were randomly selected from among the participants to participate in a stimulated recall session on their IELTS responses. The results suggested that (1) listeners' metacognitive awareness had a positive relationship with the listening test performance; (2) more-proficient listeners reported significantly higher use of Problem Solving and Directed Attention strategies than the less-proficient listeners; (3) less-proficient listeners tended to use Mental Translation strategy; and (4) there was no difference between the more-proficient and the less-proficient listeners in Planning and Evaluation and Person Knowledge.

Keywords

listening test performance, metacognitive awareness, metacognitive strategies

References

• Abanomey, A. A. (2002). The effect of texts’ authenticity on reading-comprehension test-taking strategies used by adult Saudi learners of English as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
• Alderson J. C. & Banerjee J. (2002). Language testing and assessment (Part 2). Language Teaching, 35, 79–113.
• Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bachman, L. F. (1991).What does language testing have to offer? TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 671–704.
• Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Baker, L. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.) Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.
• Bernhardt, E. B. (2000). Second language reading as a case study of reading scholarship in the 20th century. In M.
• Kamil & P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr, editors, Handbook of reading research, Vol. III (pp. 791–811).
• Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In L. F. Bachman & A. D. Cohen, editors, Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 32–70).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Chemers, M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 55–64.
• Cohen, A. D. (2006). The coming of age of research on test-taking strategies. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(4), 307–331.
• Cohen, A. D., & Aphek, E. (1979). Easifying second language learning. Jerusalem: Jacob Hiatt Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED163753).
• Cohen, A. D., & Upton, T. A. (2006). Strategies in responding to the new TOEFL reading tasks. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
• Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Forster, D. E., & Karn, R. (1998). Teaching TOEIC/TOEFL test-taking strategies. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Conference of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Seattle, WA, March 17–21, 1998. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED427543)
• Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274.
• Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28, 55– 75.
• Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: Theory, practice and research implications. RELC Journal, 39, 188–213.
• Goh, C., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal, 60, 222–232.
• Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Liu, N. F. (2003). Processing problems in L2 listening comprehension of university students in Hong Kong. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
• Mackey, A. & Gass S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London and New York: Longman.
• Metcalfe, J., & Shimamura, A. P. (Eds). (1994). Metacognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, 102–116.
• Nisbet, J., & Shucksmith, J. (1986). Learning strategies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Osada, N. (2001). What strategy do less-proficient learners employ in listening comprehension? A reappraisal of bottom-up and top-down processing. Journal of the Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 5, 73–90.
• Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20 (1), 26–56.
• Phakiti, A. (2008). Construct validation of Bachman and Palmer's (1996) strategic competence model over time in EFL reading tests. Language Testing, 25 (2) 237–272.
• Purpura, J. E. (1997). An analysis of the relationships between test-takers’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and second language test performance. Language Learning, 47(2), 289–325.
• Purpura, J. E. (1998). Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language test performance with highand low-ability test-takers: A structural equation modelling approach. Language Testing, 15(3), 333–379.
• Robinson, M. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.
• Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching listening. London: Longman. Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt, (Ed.) Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63).
• Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sparks, R., & Ganschow, L. (2001). Aptitude for learning a foreign language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 90–112.
• Song, X. (2004). Language learning strategy use and language performance for Chinese learners of English. Unpublished master’s thesis. Ontario: Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada.
• Song, X. (2005). Language learner strategy use and English proficiency on the Michigan English Language Assessment Battery. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 3, 1–26.
• Storey, P. (1997). Examining the test-taking process: A cognitive perspective on the discourse cloze test. Language Testing, 14(2), 214–231.
• Taguchi, N. (2001). L2 learners’ strategic mental processes during a listening test. JALT Journal, 23(2), 176–201.
• Tian, S. (2000). TOEFL reading comprehension: Strategies used by Taiwanese students with coaching-school training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
• Tsagari, C. (1994). Method effect on testing reading comprehension: How far can we go? M.A. Thesis, University of Lancaster, 96 pp. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED424768)
• Van Patten, B. (1994). Evaluating the role of consciousness in second language acquisition: Terms, linguistic features and research methodology. AILA Review, 11, 27–36.
• Vandergrift, L. (2002). “It was nice to see that our predictions were right”: Developing metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 555–75.
• Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Towards a model of the skilled L2 listener. Language Learning, 53, 461–494.
• Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive awareness and proficiency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics, 26, 70–89.
• Vandergrift, L., Goh, C., Mareschal, C., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ): Development and validation. Language Learning, 56, 431–462.
• Yoshida-Morise, Y. (1998). The use of communication strategies in language proficiency interviews. In R. Young & A. W. He (Eds.), Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency (pp. 205–238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Yoshizawa, K. (2002). Relationships among strategy use, foreign language aptitude, and second language proficiency: A structural equation modeling approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
• Zhang, S., & Goh, C. (2006). Strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use: Singaporean learners’ awareness of listening and speaking strategies. Language Awareness, 15, 119–219.
• Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Mahwah, NJ: E