چکیده
در این مطالعه کیفی،
تأثیر راهبردهای شناختی و فراشناختی بر درک شنیداری زبان‌آموزان بررسی شده است. نخست ده دانش‌آموز انتخاب شدند و طی
پنج جلسه تمرین مهارت شنیداری به آن‌ها راهبردها آموزش داده شد. این آموزش براساس مدل CALLA اومالی و دیگران (1999) انجام گرفت. پس از جلسات آموزشی، جهت پیدا
کردن میزان افزایش سطح آگاهی دانش‌آموزان نسبت به
راهبردها و پیشرفت سطح دانش شنیداری آنان، از آن‌ها مصاحبه به عمل آمد. دانش‌آموزان اظهار داشتند
که یادگیری راهبردهای شناختی و فراشناختی به‌طور مؤثری در کنترل فرایند شنیداری به
آن‌ها
کمک کرده است. دانش‌آموزان
همچنین ذکر کردند که مهارت‌های ارزشیابی آن‌ها بهبود پیدا کرده و بهتر می‌توانند توانایی شنیداری خود را مدیریت
کنند. در واقع، راهبردها دانش‌آموزان را نسبت به مشکلات شنیداری‌شان آگاه کرده و به آن‌ها آموخت که چگونه بر
مشکلاتشان غلبه کنند. رایج‌ترین و کم استفاده‌ترین راهبردهای شناختی و فراشناختی هم مورد بحث قرار گرفت. اینک
کاربردهای آموزشی این مطالعه برای معلمان، دانش‌آموزان و تولیدکنندگان محتوا ارائه می‌شود.
کلید‌واژه‌ها: درک شنیداری،
راهبردهای شناختی، راهبردهای فراشناختی، روش کیفی
Abstract
This study was an attempt to examine the contribution of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies to EFL learners’ listening comprehension performance.
Ten EFL students participated in this study and received five sessions of
listening practice and strategy training based on O’Malley and Chamot’s
(1990-1995) classification of learning strategies using CALLA model proposed by
Chamot et al. (1999). After strategy training, the learners were interviewed to
gain insights into their mind as to the contribution of strategies to raise
their awareness and improve their listening comprehension. They reported that
cognitive and metacognitive strategies helped them regulate their listening
process more efficiently. They also mentioned that their evaluation skills
improved and they could manage their listening ability in a more directed
way. The strategies also helped the
students to become aware of their listening problems and to learn how to
overcome them. The most frequent and the least frequent cognitive and
metacognitive strategies are presented and discussed. Pedagogical implications
for teachers, language learners, and material developers are presented in the
end.
Key Words: listening comprehension, cognitive strategies,
metacognitive strategies, qualitative method
Introduction
Listening comprehension is a keystone in language acquisition and
instruction; it is also known as the main prerequisite for language acquisition
and instruction. It may play a dominant role in determining whether a person
will ultimately succeed in mastering a foreign language. As mentioned by Morley
(1991, P. 82) "We can expect to listen twice as much as we speak, four
times more than we read, and five times more than we write." . Despite the
importance of the listening skill, L2 learners are rarely taught how to listen
effectively (Mendelsohn, 2001; Vandergrift, 2007). As developing the listening
skill can lead to developing other skills it is necessary to conduct research
in L2 listening to enlighten its pedagogy (Vandergrift, 2007).
A plethora of studies have indicated that listening is the most
important skill for language learning, because it is the most widely used
language skill in normal daily life (Dunkel, 1986; Harmer, 2007; Morley, 2001;
Richards, 2008; Rost, 2001). According to Nunan (2003), among the four major
communication skills, i.e., listening, speaking, reading, and writing, the one
that is the most essential is listening.
Literature Review
A myriad of studies have investigated the effect of learning strategies
on different language skills (Goh, 2008; Holden, 2004; Liu, 2008; Long &
Richards, 1994; Martinez, 1996; Mendelsohn, 1995, 1998; Oxford, Lavine &
Crookall, 1989; Vandergrift, 1997, 2004).
With regard to the effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategies in
listening comprehension skill a research was conducted by Boroujeni, Hesabi,
and Serri (2015) to explore the relationship between learners’ listening
strategy use, cognitive, metacognitive, and social/affective strategies, while
they listened to the texts. The results suggested that there was a significant
relationship between the level of motivation and the listening strategies.
In another study, Jacobsen (2015) attempted to investigate the impact of
listening strategy instruction on learning English and an additional foreign
language. The results showed that the highest scoring metacognitive factors
were Planning and Evaluation, Directed Attention, and Problem Solving
strategies.
In this regard, a study was conducted by Liu (2008) to find out about
the interrelationship between learners’ listening strategy use across listening
abilities, and learning styles. The results suggested that there was a
statistically significant difference between the strategy use and the
attainment levels. It was also indicated that listening strategy use was
significantly associated with learning styles.
Vandergrift (2003) conducted a study on listening strategy application.
The participants were 36 grade 7 students who were learning French. Significant
differences were found in the use of the category of metacognitive strategies
as well as in the individual strategies for comprehension monitoring,
questioning for elaboration, and translation.
Researchers have advocated raising awareness in terms of metacognitive strategies
(Mendelsohn, 2006). Also, applying metacognitive strategies through a process
approach can enhance listening comprehension (Vandergrift, 2007). However, most
of the previous studies have focused on the use of metacognitive strategies in
L2 listening comprehension through a quantitative approach (Metcalfe &
Shimamura, 1994; Nisbet & Shucksmith, 1986; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari,
2010).Referring to this gap, Goh (2008) suggests that more research should be
conducted in order to investigate the role of metacognitive listening
strategies in improving learners' listening comprehension.
In line with the points mentioned above, scarcity of research on how
metacognitive strategies can contribute to better performance of EFL learners'
listening comprehension on the one hand, and lack of sufficient research on how
listening ability can be influenced by different listening tasks on the other
hand, justify this study which aimed at investigating the impact of cognitive
and metacognitive strategies on listening and also the identification of the
most frequent strategies used by learners through a qualitative method.
This study was conducted through a qualitative method in order to gain
better insights into EFL learners' minds in terms of listening comprehension processes
involved. To the best of the researchers' knowledge, few studies have delved
into EFL learners' mind to examine the effectiveness of using cognitive and
metacognitive strategies to improve listening comprehension through a
qualitative approach. The following questions the present study:
1. To what extent do cognitive and metacognitive strategies contribute
to better performance of EFL learners in listening comprehension?
2. What cognitive and metacognitive strategies are used most frequently
by EFL learners in a listening task?
Methodology
Participants
The total number of the participants for this study were 10 male and
female intermediate EFL learners studying in a language institute in Qazvin,
Iran. They ranged in age from 16 to 20 years. The participants were native
speakers of Persian and were chosen non-randomly based on convenient sampling.
They had passed 8 terms in the institute and were approximately homogeneous.
Instruments
To collect data for the present study and to answer the research
questions, the following instruments were utilized.
A Semi-structured Interview
In order to ellicit the participants' perspectives and understanding of
the cognitive and metacognitive strategies and the way the learners thought these strategies could contribute to
their listening comprehension success, a semi-structured interview consisting
of six questions was devised and coducted.
Procedure
Ten EFL learners participated in this study. Before the start of data
collection all of the participants were
asked to sign a consent form to indicate their approval to participate in the
study. Then, they received the instruction about cognitive and metacognitive
strategies during the treatment sessions. In their treatment sessions, one of
the researchers instructed the learners how to use cognitive and metacognitive
strategies (based on O'Malley and Chamot's classification of learning
strategies in their studies in 1990-1995) using CALLA model proposed by Chamot
et al. (1999).
The learners were also asked to tally the Cognitive and Metacognitive
Frequency List to indicate what kinds of strategies were used more frequently
by them during the treatment sessions. Then, they were asked to participate in
an interview to talk about their experiences using the strategies and how the
strategies helped them to improve their listening comprehension.
Results
This section presents the results of data analysis the two research
questions and the relevant discussion.
Investigating the First Research Question
In order to answer the first research question dealing with the
contribution of cognitive and metacognitive strategies to the listening
comprehension performance of EFL learners, a semi-structured interview was
conducted to gain more insights into the learners’ minds and see how they
actually thought these strategies helped them to perform better in listening
comprehension tasks.
All the ten participants in the study participated in the interview. It
took each of them 10 to15 minutes to answer the questions.
The participants all pointed out that the strategy training was
extremely useful for them. They believed that metacognitive strategies helped
them regulate their listening process more efficiently. They all reported that
their evaluation skills improved and they could manage their listening ability
in a more directed way. For example, Mahshad, one of the participants said:
In all the sections, I could manage myself well despite the noise in the
institute, I could listen to the details. Using the pictures, first I tried to
make a guess, and then I evaluated my guess and rechecked my answer. I could
easily manage and observe myself during the listening.
This excerpt from Mahshad’s interview indicates that the strategies
helped her to have better control over her thought processes and direct her
attention to the required task at hand. This was actually an example of
‘directed attention’ and ‘self-monitoring’. As a result of strategy
instruction, some students could control and direct their attention to the task.
Another example of the strategies used by the learners was ‘delayed
production’. For example, Mobina reported that:
Before the listening task, I decided to listen to details and prepare
myself in advance. I considered all the alternatives and then I chose the
correct answers. When I listened to the tasks at home, the TV was very loud and
my mom was cooking, but I could manage myself not to get distracted and after
the task I rechecked the answers.
In Mobina’s interview, the use of the strategies ‘self-monitoring’,
‘directed attention’, ‘selective attention’, and ‘delayed production’ could be
observed. Some of the students created special conditions for themselves on
purpose to challenge themselves. For example, Mobina reported that “by making
noise and listening to background music I tried to challenge myself and improve
my concentration.” She mentioned that “sometimes I lost track of the audio file
and I had to listen several times, but it was nice to challenge myself.” In
this regard, Asal, one of the participants, mentioned that:
This challenge was very helpful to me because I always had my brothers’
crying in the background. Before learning these strategies, I got frustrated
very often, but now it’s nice to know how to self-direct my attention. I learned
how to listen selectively and not to get distracted by background noise.
The serious case of the use of ‘selective attention’ and ‘directed
attention’ was reported by Mohammad. He said that he tried to challenge himself
by doing a listening task while his father was drilling and his mother was
vacuuming.
It was very nice to know that I could direct my attention to the
listening task while everyone was making noise. The strategy instruction made
me a better listener and a better learner. Now I can study everywhere and in
every condition.
When the participants were asked which metacognitive strategies they
used more frequently, most of them said that ‘directed attention’ and ‘advance
organizers’ helped them to have better listening comprehension. For example,
Mohammad used ‘directed attention’ 21 times, Amir Reza used it 31 times, and
Kianoosh used it 19 times during the treatment sessions. Hosna used ‘selective
attention’ 20 times, and Amir Reza and Mahshad used it 26 times. Very few
participants used ‘functional planning’ in their treatment sessions.
With regard to cognitive strategies, the participants reported that
these strategies helped them to comprehend the audio texts better. With the
help of cognitive strategies such as ‘translation’, ‘note-taking’, ‘auditory
representation’ and ‘inferencing’, the participants mentioned that they had a
better grasp of the aural input. For example, Mohanna, one of the participants
mentioned that:
When I used translation, I could hold more information in my short term
memory and I could keep it longer. It helped me in answering the questions. In
most of the completion questions I had to use inferencing because the
information was not literally stated in the passage.
Note-taking helped the participants to remember the information given in
the passage. Sara mentioned that she used her notes when she wanted to answer
the questions. She also mentioned that she used “elaboration” to use her
previous knowledge to understand the new information. She mentioned that:
Whenever I didn’t understand a text, I tried to use my previous
knowledge and experience to get the gist, and then I could integrate the new
knowledge into my already established knowledge. This way I could expand my
knowledge structure and improved my experience.
Maryam said that after the strategy training she had a better view
towards listening comprehension. She used ‘note-taking’ and ‘imagery’ to
compensate for her lack of memory, and mentioned that she became a better
listener with the help of strategies. She said that:
Before strategy training, listening comprehension was a very difficult
skill for me. I was always afraid of it. But now I think I enjoy listening
comprehension, I have a better experience, and I understand more details.
Among all the cognitive strategies, the participants maintained that
they used ‘translation’ and ‘inferencing’ more frequently. For example, Mahshad used ‘translation’ 50
times during the treatment sessions, Kianoosh used it 27 times and Hosna used
it 26 times. Mobina used ‘inferencing’ 28 times, and Kianoosh, Hosna, Mohammad,
Mohanna and Mahshad used it 27 times. They reported that they used ‘auditory
representation’ and ‘recombination’ very rarely, and they never used
‘grouping’, ‘deduction’ and ‘contextualization’.
Investigating the second Research Question
To investigate the second research question, that is, the frequency of
cognitive and metacognitive strategies, descriptive statistics and the relevant
graphs are presented to provide a better image of the EFL learners’ mind
processes in listening comprehension. Table 1 presents the descriptive
statistics of the frequency of the metacognitive strategies used by the
learners during the treatment sessions.
As can be seen in the table 1, among all the metacognitive strategies,
‘advance organizer’ and ‘directed attention’ were the most frequently used
strategies by the students with the average of 14.20 and 15.40, respectively.
After that there is ‘self-management’ with the average of 8.10. ‘Functional
planning’ is the least frequently used metacognitive strategy used by the
participants in this study (M= .30). The other strategies are used fairly often
with the average of approximately 2 to 4.
Table 2 provides the descriptive statistics of the cognitive strategies
used by the participants in the treatment session. As the table 2 shows, the
most frequently used cognitive strategies are ‘translation’ and ‘inferencing’
with the average of 22.60 and 21.80, respectively. ‘Keyword’ is the next
frequently used cognitive strategy with the average of 9.40 followed by
‘imagery’ and ‘elaboration’ with the average of 7.60 and 6.40, respectively.
‘Recombination’ and ‘resourcing’ were very rarely used with the average of .80
and .90, respectively. Because ‘grouping’, ‘deduction’ and ‘contextualization’
were never used by the participants they are not reported in the table 2.
Discussion
No other qualitative study has attempted to investigate the role of
strategies in listening comprehension in the literature. The qualitative
investigation indicated the significant role cognitive and metacognitive
strategies can play in improving the listening comprehension performance of the
participants. This finding was corroborated by the findings of other studies
(Bozorgian, 2012; Thompson, 1996). However, Li (2013) found a weak correlation
between listening comprehension performance and metacognitive awareness. This
weak correlation can be accounted for by the conditions of the study or the
participants.
One of the findings of the study is that the students’ awareness of
metacognitive strategies was raised as a result of strategy training. This was
shown by their better performance in the MALQ questionnaire after the treatment
sessions. This finding is in line with a number of studies (Al-Alwan, Asassfeh
& Al-Shboul, 2013; Jacobsen, 2015; Amirian & Ratebi, 2013). For
example, Al-Alwan, Asassfeh and Al-Shboul’s (2013) results indicated that the
students possessed a general moderate, satisfactory level of metacognitive
awareness. However, the findings are in contrast with Li’s (2013) findings. She
found non-English majors did not show high level of metacognitive awareness.
But she found a significant difference between high score and low score
listeners in metacognitive awareness.
In this study it was found that the most frequently used cognitive
strategy was ‘translation’. This finding is in contrast to the findings of
Al-Alwan, Asassfeh and Al-Shboul (2013) and Jacobsen (2015). This discrepancy
in the findings of this study may lie in the importance Iranian students attach
to translation as a routine activity. Iranian students use translation in their
English classes a lot. If the students always engage in translating the
information into their mother tongue, the speed of processing information will be
very slow. Consequently, they will miss a lot of information and fail to
comprehend the listening texts completely (Li, 2013). Apparently, these
participants still rely a lot on their mother-tongue, which should be overcome
in their English learning process. Also ‘planning’ and ‘evaluation’ were the
least frequent factor used by the students in this study. This can also be
attributed to Iranian students’ lack of planning for their studies and tasks.
The frequency of the cognitive and metacognitive strategies was
investigated in this study. It was found that ‘advance organizer’ and ‘directed
attention’ were the most frequent metacognitive strategies and ‘functional
planning’ was the least frequent strategy used by the learners. Yang (2009)
also found that ‘directed attention’, ‘selective attention’ and
‘self-management’ were the most frequent metacognitive strategies used by the
participants in his study.
It was also found that ‘translation’ and ‘inferencing’ were the most
frequent cognitive strategies used in this study. ‘Grouping’, ‘deduction’ and
‘contextualization’ were never used by the learners in this study. To date, to
the best of the researchers’ knowledge, no study has examined the contribution
of cognitive strategies to listening comprehension, nor has a study
investigated the frequency of the cognitive strategies used by learners in
listening comprehension or any other skills.
Conclusion
The results indicated that strategy training was effective. It can be
concluded that strategy training was very helpful in improving the listening
comprehension of the participants. The students mentioned in the interview that
the strategy training helped to regulate their thought processes, focus their
attention, and monitor their own success. The strategies also helped the
students become aware of their listening problems and learn how to overcome
them. It can be concluded that they found strategy training a good contributor
to their listening comprehension success.
Learners can take advantage of the findings of the study and try to
improve their listening comprehension by building up their own strategies. They
can find the most effective strategies that contributed most to their listening
comprehension success and made a list of the best suited strategies to help
them self-monitor, self-manage, and self-evaluate their own learning process.
Curriculum designers and material developers can also make use of the
findings in this study and design English courses with due attention to
cognitive and metacognitive strategies. They should include some sections in
the course books to familiarize students with the effectiveness of these
strategies in developing the listening comprehension skill. According to Yang
(2009), material developers should design activities where listeners are given
opportunities to practice these strategies.
The findings of this study can also be significant for English teachers.
Teachers should familiarize students with these strategies and help them to
build their own repertoire of strategies. They should attempt to allocate a
part of the class time to introducing the strategies to learners and make sure
that they apply these strategies in their listening task thereby encouraging
learner autonomy.
References
Al-Alwan,
A., Asassfe, S., & Al-Shboul, Y. (2013). EFL learners' listening
comprehension and awareness of metacognitive strategies: how are they related?
International Education Studies, 6(9), 31-39.
Amirian,
Z., & Ratebi, Z. (2013). Use of metacognitive strategies in listening
comprehension by Iranian university students majoring in English: a comparison
between high and low proficient listeners. Journal of Studies in Education,
3(1), 140-154.
Boroujeni,
A.J., Hesabi, A., & Serri, F. (2015). Cognitive, metacognitive, and
social/affective strategies in listening comprehension and their relationships
with individual differences. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4),
843-849.
Bozorgian,
H. (2012). Metacognitive instruction does improve listening comprehension.
International Scholarly Research Network, 2012(1), 1-6.
Chamot,
A.U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching.
Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-26.
Dunkel,
P. (1986). Developing listening fluency in L2: Theoretical principles and pedagogical
considerations. Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 99-106.
Goh,
C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening
comprehension problems. System, 28(1), 55–75.
Goh,
C. (2008). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction
patterns. System, 30(2), 185-206.
Harmer,
J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. 4th ed. London: Longman.
Hauck,
M. (2005). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive strategies, and call. In J.
Egbert & G. Petrie (Eds.), Call: Research Perspectives (pp. 65-86). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Holden,
W.R. (2004). Facilitating listening comprehension: acquiring successful
strategies. Bulletin of Hokuriku University, 28, 257-266.
Jacobsen,
C. (2015). The impact of listening strategy instruction on the learning of
English and an additional foreign language. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research:
11(1), 16-39.
Li,
W. (2013). Study of metacognitive awareness of non-English majors in l2
listening. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(3), 504-510.
Liu,
H. (2008). A study of the interrelationship between listening strategy use,
listening proficiency, and learning style. ARECLS, 8, 84-104.
Long,
M., & Richards, J. (1994). Series editors’ preface. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.),
Academic listening: Research perspectives (pp. 27-97). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Martinez,
I. M. (1996). The Importance of Language Learning Strategies in Foreign
Language Teaching. Cuadernos of English Philology, 5(1), 103-120.
Mendelsohn,
D. (1995). Applying learning strategies in the second/ foreign language
listening comprehension lesson. In D. Mendelsohn & J. Rubin (Eds.), A guide
for the teaching of second language listening (pp. 132-150). San Diego, CA:
Dominie Press.
Mendelsohn,
D. (1998). Teaching listening. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18,
81-101.
Mendelsohn,
D. (2001). Listening comprehension: We’ve come a long way, But Contact 27,
33-40.
Mendelsohn,
D. (2006). Learning how to listen using learning strategies. In Us´o, Juan
& Mart´ınez, Flor (eds.), 75–90.
Metcalfe,
J., & Shimamura, A. P. (1994). Metacognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Morley,
J. (1991). Listening comprehension in second/foreign language instruction. In
M. Celce-Murcia (Eds.), Teaching English as a Second Language (pp. 81-106).
Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Morley,
J. (2001). Aural comprehension instruction: Principles and practices. In Celce
Murcia, M. (Eds). Teaching English as a Second Language (pp. 69-85). Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
Nisbet,
J. D., & Shucksmith, J. (1986). Learning strategies. London; Boston:
Routledge& K. Paul.
Nunan,
D. (2003). Practical English language teaching. Singapore: Mc Graw Hill.
O'
Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
O’
Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1995). Learning strategies in second
language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford,
R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle. , 284-297.
Oxford,
R. L., Lavine, R. Z., & Crookall, D. (1989). Language learning strategies,
the communicative approach, and their classroom implication. Foreign Language
Annals, 22, 29-39.
Richard,
J. C. (2008). Teaching listening and speaking: From theory to practice. New
York Cambridge University Press.
Rost,
M. (2001). Listening. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide
to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 7-13). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667206.002.
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(3), 387-409.
Vandergrift,
L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second
language listener. Language Learning, 53(3), 463-496.
Vandergrift,
L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 24, 3-25. Doi:10.1017/ S0267190504000017.
Vandergrift,
L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening
comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40(3), 191–210.
Vandergrift,
L., & Tafaghodtari, M. (2010). Teaching L2 Learners How to Listen Does Make
a Difference: An Empirical Study. Language Learning, 60, 470-467.
Yang,
CH. (2009). A study of metacognitive strategies employed by English listener in
an EFL setting. International Education Studies, 2(4), 134-139.