|
UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Full Text : |
| Language educators tend to focus extensively on reading and writing skills. Listening activities are often carried out only to test the students’ abilities which may lead to their anxiety and apprehension (Vandergrift, 1999). Generally, many students face difficulty in their listening assessments. Students need to apply certain mental steps or operations in listening to encounter their listening problems. These mental steps are referred to as strategies to assist the learners to achieve a reasonable listening comprehension (Goh, 2002).This study is designed to identify the students’ levels of Metacognitive Awareness Strategies in performing their listening tasks and to examine the influence of the strategies on their test scores. The study was conducted in two stages of Pre-test and Post-test, where 100 participants were selected based on a convenience sampling. After submitting their Pre and Post-tests, they were required to complete a Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ), developed by Vandergrift et al. (2006). Overall, the findings show an increase in the percentage of correct answers for the listening comprehension task, based on the MCQ given. The findings reveal that metacognitive strategy awareness has a positive effect on students’ test scores. ESL teachers can enhance the use of MALQ strategies for listening comprehension. Further research is necessary to study how metacognitive strategies affect the students’ listening performance, as well as, to conduct interventions that will encourage metacognitive awareness. |
| References |
1. Abdullah Coskun. (2010). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on the listening performance of beginner students. Novitas-ROYAL, 4(1), 35-50.
2. Ferris, D., & Tagg, T. (1996). Academic listening/speaking tasks for ESL students: Problems, suggestions, and implications. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 297-320.
3. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. Resnick, (Ed.), The Nature of Intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Chang, C. W. (2013). Metacognitive awareness in English listening: A study of Taiwanese non-English majors. Journal of National Natural Science and Technology, 31(3), 75-90.
5. Goh, C. C. M. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns. System, 30(2), 185-206.
6. Goh, C. C. M. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28(1), 55-75.
7. Goh, C. C. M. (1997). Metacognitive awareness and Second Language Listeners. ELT Journal, 51(4), 361-369.
8. Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal interaction: Research, theory, and practice. London: Routledge.
9. Huang J., & Finn, A. (2009). Academic listening tests for ESOL students: Availability, concerns, and solutions. International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 6(1), 46-55.
10. Nair, S., Koo, Y. L., & Abu Bakar, K. (2014). Exploring the listening processes of Pre-University ESL students. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 118, 475-482.
11. O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. 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(1), 73-90.
13. Oxford, R. L. (1993). Research update on teaching L2 listening. System, 21 (2), 205–211.
14. Parviz Birjandi., & Amir Hossein Rahimi. (2012). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on the listening performance of EFL Students. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), 495-517.
15. Rahimi, M., & Katal, M. (2012). Metacognitive strategies awareness in learning English as a foreign language: A comparison between university and high school students. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 31, 82-89.
16. Rahimirad, M., &Moini, M. R. (2015).The challenges of listening to academic lectures for EAP learners and the impact of metacognition on academic lecture listening comprehension. SAGE Open, 5(2), 1-9. DOI: 10.1177/2158244015590609
17. Selamat, S., & Sidhu, G. K. (2011). Student perceptions of metacognitive strategy use in lecture listening comprehension. Language Education in Asia, 2(2), 185-195.
18. Thompson, I., & Rubin, J. (1996). Can strategy instruction improve listening comprehension? Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 331-342.
19. Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension: Acquiring successful strategies. ELT Journal, 53(3), 168-176.
20. Vandergrift, L. (1997). The strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 387-409.
21. Vandergrift, L. (2002). It was nice to see that our predictions were right: Developing metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(4), 555-575. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.58.4.555
22. Vandergrift, L. (2003). From prediction through reflection: Guiding students through the process of L2 listening. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3), 425-440. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.59.3.425
23. Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60(2), 470-497. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00559.x
24. Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C. M., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. Z. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431-462. |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |