1

EFL Learners’ Achievement Goals in Relation with their Metacognitive Listening Strategy Use

Mehrdad Nazarieh (M.A) (Corresponding Author)

Kerman Institute of Higher Education

Mehrdad.nazarieh@gmail.com

TEL: +989133435567

Mohammad Shariati (PhD)

Kerman Institute of Higher Education

mohammad_shariati@hotmail.com
 2

Abstract

The present study aimed at finding the relationship between the subscales of
achievement goals and the frequency of metacognitive listening strategies (MLS)
Iranian EFL learners use, and tried to explore any significant differences between
males and females regarding achievement goals and metacognitive Listening
strategy use. 104 senior and junior students majoring in English Literature and
English Translation in Shahid Bahonar and Azad Universities of Kerman
participated in this study. In order to obtain the required data, two questionnaires
were administered: Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ) developed by Elliot
and McGregor (2001) to measure the participants’ achievement goal orientations,
and Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) developed by
Vandergrift et al. (2006) to measure the participants’ frequency of metacognitive
listening strategy use. Results demonstrated that concerning the relationship
between achievement goals and the frequency of metacognitive listening strategies,
a significant positive relationship was found. The findings of this study also
discovered that regarding the performance-approach and MLS use, no significant
relationship was found. Performance-avoidance had a significant negative
relationship with MLS use, mastery-approach had a significant positive one, and
mastery-avoidance had no significant relationship with MLS use. Additionally,
gender did not have any effects on the learners’ MLS use.

Keywords: Metacognition, Listening Strategies, Achievement Goals, English as a

Foreign Language (EFL)

Introduction

It is proposed that many second language (L2) programs have been including listening as an
indispensable part of their classroom activities (Brown, 1987; Devine, 1978; Dunkel, 1991). Listening is
considered as a recurrently mode of communication in the field of learning milieu and should render some
authentic achievements (Goh, 2008). According to some of the recent researchers, authenticity is an
outcome of evidence-based approaches that are among the advanced trends in the field (e.g., Flowerdew
& Miller, 2005; Lynch, 1998; Macaro, Graham & Vanderplank, 2007; Rubin 1994). Evidence-based
approaches are delineated in some related facets, one of which is metacognitive approach (Chamot, 1995
 3

& Vandergrift, 2004). In fact, most of the successful learners use metacognitive knowledge as one of their
main mental characteristics (Birjandi, 2006). Metacognition, as called the seventh sense by Nisbet and
Shucksmith (1986) is profoundly influenced by the achievement goals, a factor that has an impact on
strategy use (Vrugt & Oort, 2008), but there has been a dearth of studies examining metacognitive listening
strategies use and its relationship with the achievement goals. Therefore, this study aims at investigating
the Iranian English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ achievement goals and its subscales in relation
with their metacognitive listening strategy (MLS) preferences, considering gender differences in MLS
use.

Achievement Goals Orientations

Research in the area of human motivation has developed during the last century and considering
the last two decades a great deal of attention has been paid to achievement goal orientations (Dweck, 1986;
Nicholls, 1984). Achievement goal theory was first introduced in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s (Elliot
& Harackiewicz, 1996; Shih, 2005).Achievement goals are moderately established orientations that the
learners bring to the learning environment (Lehmann, 2002). The theory of achievement goal describes
general goal orientations that involve the outcomes, reasons and purposes learners are going after when
approaching and participating in a specific task (Gutman, 2006; Sins Vanjoohngen, Saveisbergn, & Hout-
Wolters, 2008; Bipp Steinmayr & Spinath, 2008). This theory primarily emphasized on two frames of
reference related to achievement: namely, mastery and performance goals (Ames, 1992; Dweck &
Leggett, 1998). While performance goals focus on demonstrating competence, or ability, mastery goals
concern learning and understanding the task, and improving the competence skills (Elliot & Harackiewicz,
1996; Church & Elliot, 1997; Pintrich, 2000; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Pintrich, Conley & Kemper,
2003; Shih, 2005). This initial distinction of mastery versus performance goals established from studies
signifying that more positive results are associated with mastery goals while less desired outcomes are
related to performance goals (Ames, 1992; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). According to Vrugt and Oort (2008),
opposite motives are involved with performance goals, to be exact, the aim at an optimal performance and
the avoidance of an undesired one. Considering these opposite factors, different researchers (e.g., Elliot,
1997; Elliot & Church, 1997) have set forth a framework in which the performance goal concept is
diverged into two subparts called approach and avoidance types of regulation. Vrugt and Oort (2008)
continued that, “A performance-approach goal orients the student towards achieving higher levels than
others and demonstrating high ability. With a performance-avoidance goal the student is concerned with
avoidance of the demonstration of low ability or appearing stupid” (p. 125). In other words, concerning
Elliot and McGregor’s (2001) 2 × 2 achievement goal framework, two primary dimensions, including
definition (performance vs. mastery) and valence (approach vs. avoidance) are combined together to form
achievement goals. Several studies have been carried out to find the importance of each of these goals in
this 2 × 2 model (Conroy, Elliot, & Hofer, 2003; Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Finney, Pieper, & Barron,
2004; Van Yperen, 2003).
Another kind of motivation in the field of educational studies, namely, work avoidance has also been
added to the previously discussed four factor model (Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997;
Pieper, 2003).

Metacognitive Listening Strategies

According to Chamot (2004) different learners use different strategies and approaches to improve
their learning. In fact, learning strategies are those actions used by different learners to have a more
flourishing, autonomous and pleasant language learning (Oxford, 1989). One of these learning strategies
 4

which was first introduced by Flavell in the 1970s and has extensively appealed to the educational field is
metacognition (Baker, 2005; Brown, 1987; Samuels, Ediger, Willcut & Palumbo, 2005). It was first in
1990 when Oxford classified language learning strategies (LLS) into six rudimentary types. Regarding
the six types, Metacognitive strategies, the individual’s stages of consciousness (Wenden, 1998), is
comprised of independent processes of planning, monitoring, problem-solving and finally evaluating
(Chamot, 2004). Metacognitive listening strategies include directing and thinking about the listening
course. That is to say, metacognitive listening strategies consist of planning before commencing a listening
task and dealing with problem-solving, monitoring, and self-assessment actions during a listening activity.
A great deal of research has been conducted in certain areas considering the practicality of metacognitive
strategies in distinct language skills (e.g., Brown, 1978; O’Malley & Chamot 1990; Oxford, 1990;
Wenden, 1998; Winne, 1995 as cited in Goh, 2008). Listening has not been an exception. For instance, a
metacognitive listening cycle was proposed by Vandergrift in 2004 to help the learners make a proper use
of listening strategies so that they could regulate their listening comprehension abilities (Goh, 2008). It
was then in 2006 when Vandergrift along with Goh, Mareschal, and Tafaghodtari revised the suggested
sequence and devised a questionnaire to recognize the metacognitive strategies the learners use in doing
a listening task.

Review of Literature

There has been few research conducted on the relationship between metacognition and
achievement goals with the emphasis on listening. However, there are some relevant researches available
in the literature regarding the relationship between metacognition and achievement goals. Vrugt and Oort
(2008) in a study investigated metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic
achievement as pathways to achievement. Their study showed a positive relationship of mastery goals and
a negative relationship of performance-avoidance goals with metacognition. Metacognition also positively
affected the use of the four study strategies. The findings also indicated positive effects of mastery and
performance-approach goals on the use of metacognitive strategies. It was also reported that the use of
metacognitive and resource management strategies had a positive effect on exam scores.
Deyreh and Banijamali (2009) carried out a research to study the effect and contribution of
motivational factors (self-efficacy, mastery goals, and instrumentality) on cognitive and metacognitive
strategies used in learning processes. They found that cognitive and metacognitive strategies were
influenced by perceived instrumentality, mastery goals, and self-efficacy.
Pintrich and DeGroot (1990), and Pintrich and Garcia (1991) found that the learners who select
mastery goal orientations show higher levels of cognitive and metacognitive strategies than those who
focus on proving their abilities to others or avoiding the perception of incompetence. Moreover, a
moderate to strong positive relationship was found between learners’ use of metacognitive strategies and
their academic achievement. A lot of research has been carried out on metacognition in relation with the
subscales of achievement goal. According to Schraw, Horn, Thorndike-Christ and Burning (1995), those
learners who strongly take on mastery goals reported more metacognitive knowledge than students with
less strong mastery goals. With performance approach subscale Schraw et al. (1995) found that there was
no relation between performance approach and metacognitive knowledge. Moreover, the results of
Sperling, Howard, Staley and DuBois (2004) demonstrated that there is no significant relation between
extrinsic goals and the participation in metacognitive activities. Luwel, Torbey, and Verschaffel (2003)
implemented interviews to gather data about six grade metacognitive knowledge and regulation. In the
study of Sperling et al. (2004) first-year students completed the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory
 5

(MAI). Both studies reported that the engagement in metacognitive activities was highly related to the use
of all related strategies.
Research Questions
This study aimed to address the following research questions:
1) Are there any significant relationships between achievement goals and the frequency of metacognitive
listening strategies Iranian EFL learners use?
2) Are there any significant relationships between the subscales of achievement goals and the learner’s
overall metacognitive listening strategies use?
3) Are there any significant differences between males and females regarding their metacognitive listening
strategy use?

Methodology
Participants
The subjects chosen for this study were 104 male and female senior and junior EFL students
majoring in English at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman and Kerman Institute of Higher Education.
Since the present study took gender and two levels of junior and senior students into account, the
participants were selected by random stratified sampling.
The underlying principle behind selecting freshman and sophomore students was due to this
study’s aim at identifying the EFL learners’ metacognitive strategies in listening and finding the
relationship between students’ metacognitive listening strategy preferences and achievement goals.
Junior and senior students were selected due to the fact that students at higher levels of proficiency
are likely to have more experiences of involving in listening tasks. In addition, Vandergrift (1997)
proposed that intermediate listeners use a higher percentage of metacognitive strategies than do beginners.
Likewise, O’Malley, Chamot, and Küpper (1989) and also Goh (2002) concluded that students with higher
levels of proficiency make better use of metacognitive strategies.

Instruments
Two separate instruments were used to collect the required data for this study:
1) Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ) developed by Elliot and McGregor (2001)
2) Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) developed by Vandergrift et al. (2006)
Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ) which is a 12-item questionnaire devised by Elliot and
McGregor (2001), was used to assess the students’ achievement goals in the classroom context. AGQ
provides responses ranging from 1 (not at all true of me) to 7 (very true of me) and demonstrate four
possible goal orientations: that is to say, performance-approach, performance-avoidance, mastery-
approach and mastery-avoidance. According to Wang, Liu, and Chye (2010), the internal consistency
coefficients of the performance-approach (α = .88), mastery-approach (α = .79), mastery-avoidance (α =
.79), and performance-avoidance goal orientation (α = .73) were satisfactory.
Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) devised by Vandergrift et al. (2006)
is based on a likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 6 (strongly disagree). This 21-item instrument
was used to assess the students’ metacognitive listening strategy use. This questionnaire includes five
distinctive subscales, namely problem-solving, planning and evaluation, mental translation, person
knowledge, and directed attention. In order to validate the subscales in the instrument, the developers used
the questionnaire with nearly 1,000 learners from different countries including Iran. According to them,
reliabilities of the subscales were as follows: problem-solving: 0.74, planning and evaluation: 0.75, mental
translation: 0.78, person knowledge: 0.74, 10 and directed attention: 0.68. Moreover, Al-Alwan1,
Asassfeh1, and Al-Shboul1 (2013) reported a high reliability of .79 for the overall MLS. In the present
 6

study, the two subscales of mental translation and person knowledge were scored reversely. In the original
form of MALQ, the proposed language is French. The researcher replaced the word French with English.

Data Collection Procedure

MALQ and AGQ scales were distributed among the participants concurrently. Participants were
given (20-25 mins) to answer the mentioned questionnaires and there were accompanying instructions.
They were assured that the information would be kept fully confidential and be used only for research
purposes.

Results
The descriptive statistics of the variables relating to this study, namely metacognitive listening
strategy use and achievement goals as well as the achievement goals subscales have all been presented in
Table 1. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that out of 104 participants, 35 (33.7%) were males and the
remaining 69 people (66.3%) were females.

Table 1. The Descriptive Statistics of the Variables and Subscales of Achievement Goals and
MLS
Minimu Maximu Varianc
N Range m m Mean SD e
Performance 104 14.00 7.00 21.00 16.91 3.41 11.67
Approach
Performance 104 18.00 3.00 21.00 14.26 3.76 14.14
Avoidance
Mastery Approach 104 17.00 4.00 21.00 16.67 3.55 12.63
Mastery Avoidance 104 18.00 3.00 21.00 14.46 4.50 20.29
Achievement Goals 104 52.00 31.00 83.00 62.43 11.46 131.39
MLS 104 75.00 47.00 122.00 79.05 22.50 506.67
Valid N (listwise) 104
Achievement Goals and the Frequency of MLS
Considering the first research question, the relationship between achievement goals and the
frequency of MLS use by the Iranian EFL learners, there was a positive significant relationship (p = .024,
r = .221). In other words, as the scores on achievement goals increase, the EFL learners’ scores on MLS
use increase too (Table 2).
 7

Table 2.The Correlations between MLS and Achievement Goals and its Subscales
Performan Mastery
Performanc ce Mastery Avoidan Achieveme
e Approach Avoidance Approach ce nt Goals
MLS Pearson Correlation .157 -.260** .228* .134 .221*
Sig. (2-tailed) .111 .008 .020 .176 .024
N 104 104 104 104 104
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

MLS Use in Relation with Achievement Goals Subscales

In order to answer the second research question regarding the relationship between the subscales
of achievement goals and MlS use, four Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients were
conducted (Table 2).
Regarding the first subscale of achievement goals, that is performance-approach, and MLS use, no
significant relationship was found (p = .111). Regarding the second subscale, that is performance-
avoidance, and MlS use, a significant negative relationship was found (r = −.260). According to Table 2,
concerning the third subscale of achievement goals, that is, Mastery-approach and MLS use, a significant
positive relationship was found (r = .228). As a final point, concerning the last subscale, mastery-
avoidance and MLS preference, no significant relationship was found (p = .176).

Achievement Goals, MLS Use and Gender Differences

In order to investigate the third question regarding the gender differences and learners’ MLS use,
an Independent Samples T-test was run. According to the results, since P = .46 is not less than α = .05,
there is not a significant difference among males and females regarding their MLS use (Table 3).

Table 3.Independent Samples T-Test for MLS in Two Groups of Males and Females

Gender Male Female t df Sig.

N Mean SD N Mean SD

MLS 35 81.34 23.39 69 77.89 22.13 .73 102 .46

Discussion
Regarding the first research question, concerning relationships between achievement goals and the
frequency of metacognitive listening strategies used by the EFL learners, a significant positive relationship
was found. According to Elliot (2005) and Was (2006), achievement goals as a motivational factor may
have impacts on metacognition. The finding reported in the present study is an empirical justification for
such an impact. Furthermore, Vrugt and Oort (2008) pointed out the direct impacts of achievement goals
on metacognition. Accordingly, metacognition and achievement goals go hand in hand in educational
settings. Consequently, metacognitive strategies as established indicators of metacognition are highly
 8

related to achievement goals set by EFL learners. Concerning the second research question of this study,
which was the relationships between the subscales of achievement goals and the learner’s overall
metacognitive listening strategies use, there was no significant relationship between the performance
approach and MLS. This finding is in accordance with that of Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, and Salas
(1998), while in contrast with that reported by Schmidt and Ford (2003), which found a significant
negative relationship between the two. It is worth mentioning that some studies have found a weak positive
relationship between metacognition and performance-approach goals (Ames & Archer, 1988; Meece.,
Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Nolen & Haladyna, 1990). Regarding the second subscale, that is
performance-avoidance, and MLS use, a significant negative relationship was found. This finding is in
line with Vrugt and Oort’s (2008).
Barron and Harackiewicz (2001) argued that nondaptive learning processes were mostly related to
performance-avoidance goals. This finding is in contrast with the findings of the present investigation.
Mastery approach as the third subscale of achievement goals was found to have a significant positive
relationship with MLS. This finding supports the ones reported by Ames and Archer (1988), Nolen and
Haladyna (1990), Schmidt and Ford (2003), Vrugt and Oort (2008). Such a finding indicates that high
mastery approach orientations result in a better MLS use by EFL learners and this seems to be because of
the fact that metacognitive strategies are involved in controlling of various cognitive strategies for
learning. Besides, previous research has showed that metacognitive strategies are positively correlated to
achievement mastery goals (Elliot & McGregor, 1999). Mastery avoidance as the last subscale
investigated in this study had no significant relationship with MLS use. However, According to Van
Yperen (2006), it has been argued that mastery avoidance goals have a negative set of outcomes. Such an
argument is not supported by this study. Regarding the third research question of this study, assessing the
gender differences and MLS use, the results did not yield a significant difference between males and
females. Moreover, all the participants regardless of their gender had almost high levels of MLS use. This
finding is in line with that of Zare-ee (2007), Cooper (2004), but is in contrast with that of Sy (1994),
Bacon (1992), and Oxford (1989). Considering the limitations of research, this study was carried out in
two educational contexts, with a limited number of Senior and junior EFL students. It would be useful to
replicate and extend the recent research to larger samples with different proficiency levels in other
educational contexts such as ESL settings. In this study, the only ways of collecting data were two different
self-report questionnaires namely, MALQ and AGQ. However, other researchers could make good use of
an up to standard triangulation of data collection such as valid interviews and reliable observations.
Furthermore, there are different factors affecting the strategy use, such as anxiety, culture, learning styles,
motivation, extraversion, and introversion, to name just a few. Such trends could be within the scope of
the interest of the researchers in the field.

Conclusion
There is no doubt that human beings in the activities, which they go thorough, set some standards
and goals to be achieved, and it seems to be an integral component part of their motivation in specific
tasks (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986). Listening activities as important factors in EFL research pursue some
plausible standards and goals, too. However, setting goals in the realm of listening instruction and learning
does not occur in a vacuum. Some relevant factors in this regard are metacognition and the nature of
strategy use (Elliot et al. 1999). These factors were the issues to be investigated in relation with
achievement goals set by EFL learners in the area of listening comprehension in the present investigation.
Accordingly, in the light of findings of this study, achievement goals are highly related to metacognitive
 9

listening strategies. Such a finding opens the gates for the presence of optimal attention to be spent on
metacognition and achievement goals in an EFL setting if a successful listening proficiency is desired.
Furthermore, the findings in this study imply that the use of metacognitive listening strategies is not a
gender specific trade. The good news is that language learners regardless of their gender can be good
metacognitive listening strategy users, the strategies which guarantee the enhancement of listening
comprehension. The implications of this study are that in educational milieu sufficient attention should be
paid to factors like achievement goals and metacognition. The adoption of metacognitive strategies would
also contribute to the achievement of high scores in exams (Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990; Wolters, 2004).
The findings of this investigation might also lead other researchers to investigation of the influence of
other factors in learning milieu on learners’ metacognitive listening strategy use.
 10

References

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261-271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Goals, structures, and student
motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260
Bacon, S. M. (1992). Phases of listening to authentic input in Spanish: A descriptive study. Foreign
Language Annals, 25, 317-333. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1992.tb00552.x
Baker, L. (2005). Developmental differences in Metacognition: Implications for metacognitively oriented
reading instruction. In S. E. Israel, K. L. Bauserman, C. C. Block and K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.),
Metacognition in Literacy Learning: Theory, Assessment, Instruction and Professional
Development (pp. 61-79). Abingdon: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Barron, K., & Harackiewicz, J. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: testing multiple goal
models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 706–722.
Bipp, T., Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2008). Personality and achievement motivation: Relationship
among big five domain and facet scales, achievement goals and intelligence. Personality and
Individual Differences, 44, 1454-1464. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.001
Birjandi, P., Mirhassani, A. and Abbasian, G. (2006). Setting-based metacognitive strategy use. Journal
of Faculty of Letters and Humanities,49(198), 39-87. Available online: www.sid.ir.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious
mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and
understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, G. (1987). Twenty-five years of teaching listening comprehension. English Teaching Forum,
25(1), 11-15.
Call, M. E. (1985). Auditory short-term memory, listening comprehension, and the input hypothesis.
TESOL Quarterly, 19, 765-781.
Chamot, A. U. (1995). Learning strategies and listening comprehension, in D. Mendelsohn and J. Rubin
(Eds.), A Guide for the teaching of second language listening (pp. 13-130).San Diego: Dominie
Press.
Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of
Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-26.
 11

Conroy, D.E., Elliot, A.J. and Hofer, S.M. (2003). A 2_/2 Achievement Goals Questionnaire for
Sport:Evidence for factorial invariance, temporal stability, and external validity. Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 25, 456_/476.
Devine, J. (1993). The role of metacognition in second language reading and writing. In J. G. Carson & I.
Leki (Eds.). Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 105-127).
Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Deyreh, E., & Banijamali, S. H. (2009). The study of contribution of motivational factors on cognitive
and metacognitive strategies used in learning process. Psychological Studies, 5, 47-62.
Dunkel, P. A. (1991). Listening in the native and second/foreign language: Toward an integration of
research and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 431-457.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1998). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological
Eliot, A.J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychlogist,
34.169-189

Eliot, A.J. & Thrash, T.M. (2001). Achievement goals and hierarchical of achievement motivation.
Educational Psychology Review, 13,139-156

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck
(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation. New York: Guilford Press.

Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam
performance: a mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549–563.
Elliot, A., J. & Harackiewicz, J., M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic
motivation: a mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461-475.

Elliot, A., J. & Reis, H., T. (2003). Attachment and exploration in adulthood. Journal of Personality and
Social Psycology, 85, 317-331.
Elliot, A., J., & McGredor, H., A. (2001). A 2*2 Achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 80, 50-519.

Elliot, A.J. & Church, M.A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.

Finney, S. J., Pieper, S. L., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Examining the psychometric properties of the
Achievement Goal Questionnaire in a general academic context. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 64, 365-382.
 12

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive development
enquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Flowerdew, J., and L. Miller 2005 Second Language Listening: Theory and Practice (New York:
Cambridge University Press).
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of goal
orientation, metacognitive activity and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 218–233.
Goh, C. C. M. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: Theory,
practice and research implications. RELC Journal, 39, 188-213. doi: 10.1177/0033688208092184.
Gutman, L. M. (2006). How student and parent goal orientation and classroom goal structures influence
the math achievement of African Americans during high school transition? Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 31, 44-63. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.01.004
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and
consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the
grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284-1295.
Harakiewicz, J., Barron, K., Pintrich, P., Elliot, A., & Thrash, T. (2002). Revision of achievement goal.
theory: necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 638–645.

Kahraman, N., & Sungur, S. (2011). The contribution of motivational beliefs to students’ metacognitive
strategy use. Education and Science, 36 (160), 3-10.
Lenmann, R. L. (2002). Enhancing the valuing of commitment to effortful achievement: An achievement
goal approach. Proceeding of the AERA Annual Meeting, University of Minnesota, 1-19.
Luwel, K., Torbey, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2003). The relation between metastrategy knowledge, strategy
use and task performance: findings and reflections from a numerosity judgment task. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 18, 425–447.
Lynch, T. (1998). Theoretical Perspectives on Listening, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics18: 3-9
Macaro, E., S. Graham and R. Vanderplank. (2007). A Review of Listening Strategies: Focus on Sources
of Knowledge and on Success, in E. Macaro and A. Cohen (eds.), Language Learner Strategies:
30 years of Research and Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 165-85.
Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive
engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task
choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328
Nisbet, J., & Shucksmith, J. (1986). Learning strategies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Nolen, S. B., & Haladyna, T. M. (1990). Motivation and studying in high school science. Journal of
Research in Science and Teaching, 27, 115-126. doi:10.1002/tea.3660270204
 13

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 (2), 235-247.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York:
Newbury House.
Pieper, S. (2003). Refining and extending the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework: Another look at work-
avoidance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 4436.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000a). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology,
theory and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92-104.

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing theory
into practice, 41, 219-225.

Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.82.1.33

Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom.
In M. L. Maehr and P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (pp. 371- 402).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory
and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 92-104.

Samuels, S. J., Ediger, K.-A. M., Willcutt, J. R., & Palumbo, T. (2005). Role of automaticity in
metacognition and literacy instruction. In S. E. Israel, K. L. Bauserman, C. C. Block and K.
Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in Literacy Learning: Theory, Assessment, Instruction
and Professional Development (pp. 42-59). Abingdon: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schmidt, A. M., & Ford, K. J. (2003). Learning with a learner control-training environment: the interactive
effects of goals orientation and metacognitive instruction on learning outcomes. Personnel
Psychology, 56, 380–405.

Schraw, G., Horn, C., Thorndike-Christ, T., & Bruning, R. (1995). Academic goal orientations and student
classroom achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 359–368.
Shih (2005). Role of achievement goals in children’s learning in Taiwan. The Journal of Educational
Research, 98, 310-319.
Sins, P. H. M., Vanjoohngen, W. R., Saveisbergn, E. R., & Hout- Wolters, B. V. (2008). Motivation and
performance within a collaborative computer-based modeling task: Relations between students’
 14

achievement goal orientations, self-efficacy, cognitive processing and achievement.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 58-77. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.12.004
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated
learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10, 117–139.
Sy, B. M. (1994). Sex differences and language learning strategies. Paper presented at the 11th
Conference of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages of the Republic of China,
Taiwan.
Van Yperen, N. W. (2003). Task interest and actual performance: The moderating effects of assigned and
adopted purpose goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1006-1015.
Van Yperen, N. W. (2006). A novel approach to assessing achievement goals in the context of the 2 x 2
framework: Identifying distinct profiles of individuals with different dominant achievement goals.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1432-1445.
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24,
3-25.
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C. M., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive
awareness listening questionnaire (MALQ): Development and validation, Language Learning, 56,
431-62.
Vrugt, A., & Oort, F. J. (2008). Metacognition, achievement goals, study strategies and academic
achievement: Pathways to achievement. Metacognition Learning, 30, 123-146. DOI
10.1007/s11409-008-9022-4
Was, C. (2006). Academic achievement goal orientation: Taking another look. Electronic Journal of
Research in Educational Psychology, 4(3), pp.529-550.

Wenden, A. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 515-537.
10.1093/applin/19.4.515.

Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: using goals structures and goal orientations
to predict students’ motivation, cognition and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
96, 236–250.

Zare-ee, A. (2007). The relationship between cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and EFL
reading achievement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2, 105-119.