This art icle was downloaded by: [ 202.156.11.

240]
On: 07 March 2013, At : 03: 58
Publisher: Rout ledge
I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered
office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK

Language Awareness
Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and
subscript ion inf ormat ion:
ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ rmla20

Exploring the relationship between

metacognitive awareness and listening
performance with questionnaire data
a a
Christ ine C. M. Goh & Guangwei Hu
a
English Language and Lit erat ure Academic Group, Nat ional
Inst it ut e of Educat ion, Nanyang Technological Universit y,
Singapore
Version of record f irst published: 19 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Christ ine C. M. Goh & Guangwei Hu (2013): Exploring t he relat ionship bet ween
met acognit ive awareness and list ening perf ormance wit h quest ionnaire dat a, Language Awareness,
DOI: 10. 1080/ 09658416. 2013. 769558

To link to this article: ht t p: / / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09658416. 2013. 769558

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE

Full t erm s and condit ions of use: ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm s- and-
condit ions

This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any
subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing,
syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warrant y express or im plied or m ake any represent at ion
t hat t he cont ent s will be com plet e or accurat e or up t o dat e. The accuracy of any
inst ruct ions, form ulae, and drug doses should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, act ions, claim s, proceedings,
dem and, or cost s or dam ages what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or
indirect ly in connect ion wit h or arising out of t he use of t his m at erial.
 Language Awareness, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.769558

Exploring the relationship between metacognitive awareness

and listening performance with questionnaire data
Christine C.M. Goh∗ and Guangwei Hu

English Language and Literature Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore
(Received 1 June 2012; final version received 11 January 2013)

This study sought to provide a nuanced understanding of the relationship between

metacognitive awareness and listening performance by eliciting from 113 English-as-a-
second-language (ESL) Chinese learners their metacognitive awareness with regard to
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

knowledge of listening strategies used and perceptions of difficulty and anxiety following
a listening lesson. Data were collected through the Metacognitive Awareness Listening
Questionnaire (MALQ) and an official sample IELTS listening test. Responses were ex-
amined for how different aspects of metacognitive awareness represented by the MALQ
factors related to listening performance and for individual differences in metacognitive
awareness across these factors. The results showed a significant positive relationship
between learners’ metacognitive awareness scores and listening performance and that
their metacognitive awareness accounted for 22% of the variance in listening perfor-
mance. Analysis of individual factors showed a significant relationship between listening
performance and the strategies of directed attention and problem solving as well as an
overall moderate-to-low sense of confidence among the participants in the study. It
also revealed considerable intrapersonal variation in different aspects of metacognitive
awareness. The paper discusses the results as well as the use of the questionnaire as
an instrument for eliciting and interpreting learners’ metacognitive awareness about
listening.
Keywords: comprehension; listening; metacognitive awareness; metacognition; ESL;
strategies

Introduction
Metacognition has been widely recognised to have an important role in a child’s cogni-
tive development (Flavell, Miller, & Miller, 1993), academic learning (Alexander, 2008;
Borkowski, 1996) and language development (Victori & Lockhart, 1995; Wenden, 1991).
It is also a powerful predictor of learning, accounting for approximately 17% of vari-
ance in learning, compared to 10% that is accounted for by intelligence (Veenman, Van
Hout-Wolters, & Afflerbach, 2006). This high percentage of variance that is linked to
metacognition further suggests that some of students’ limitations in learning may be partly
compensated for by metacognition. In spite of the importance of metacognition for learning,
its manifestation as a construct in second language (L2) listening has only been examined in
recent years (see e.g. Cross, 2010; Goh, 1997; Mareschal, 2007; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari,
2010). There is also a growing number of studies that provided empirical support for the
efficacy of instruction that raises learners’ awareness of the listening process through strat-
egy training and process-oriented reflections (Cross, 2011a; Graham & Macaro, 2008; Liu
& Goh, 2006; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010; Zeng, 2012).

∗
Corresponding author.Email: christine.goh@nie.edu.sg

C 2013 Taylor & Francis
 2 C.C.M. Goh and G. Hu

The focus on the theoretical conception of listeners’ metacognitive awareness has also
influenced recent principles for learner-centred listening instruction, shifting the focus from
predominantly strategy training (Mendelsohn, 1995) to a comprehensive metacognitive ap-
proach that addresses not only strategies but also the development of learners’ metacognitive
knowledge of themselves as L2 listeners and the mental and social processes of listening
(Goh, 2008; Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). As focus on metacognitive awareness is a relatively
new endeavour in research and teaching of L2 listening, there is a need to research the
relationship between the two constructs further in order to evaluate the theoretical bases for
such a focus.
This study was planned therefore with the broad aims of investigating this relationship,
but particularly on the impact different aspects of metacognitive awareness may have on
listening performance. It was conducted in the context of an English-as-a-second-language
(ESL) programme for a group of adolescent learners from China studying in a tertiary
institution in Singapore where English is the medium of instruction and social interaction.
The Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire, or MALQ for short, (Vandergrift,
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

Goh, Mareschal, & Tafaghodtari, 2006) was used to uncover the learners’ knowledge of
their use of listening strategies and perceptions of themselves as L2 listeners.
Using MALQ, a validated instrument for eliciting learners’ self-reports, would draw on
the strength of statistical inferences to offer further insights into patterns of metacognitive
awareness reported in qualitative studies. Although some studies have used the MALQ for
similar purposes, this study would provide a more nuanced understanding of the relationship
between metacognitive awareness and L2 listening as well as variations in metacognitive
awareness within individual learners. To our knowledge, a focus on the intrapersonal
differences in metacognitive awareness as they relate to listening performance is the first
of its kind.

Conception of metacognitive awareness

To review the construct of metacognitive awareness investigated in this study, we need
to review the concept of metacognition, a term first coined by psychologist, John Flavell.
According to Flavell (1976), metacognition is ‘one’s knowledge concerning one’s own
cognitive processes and products or anything related to them’, and the capacity for ‘active
monitoring and consequent regulation and orchestration of these processes in relation to
the cognitive objects or data on which they bear, usually in the service of some concrete
goal or objective’ (p. 232). It also includes momentary feelings of difficulty during a task.
Metacognition, therefore, has two important components: knowledge about cognition and
control of cognition, thus encompassing the dimensions of knowing and doing. Attempts
at refining the concept of metacognition have since been made, but researchers continue to
recognise the fundamental conceptualisation of the construct that was articulated by Flavell
(1979) and complemented by Brown’s (1978) work on the executive function of cognition
(see Paris & Winograd, 1990; Veenman et al., 2006, for further discussions).
Knowledge about cognition – better known as metacognitive knowledge – refers to ‘that
segment of your (a child’s, an adult’s) stored world knowledge that has to do with people as
cognitive creatures and with their diverse cognitive tasks, goals, actions, and experiences’,
and ‘consists primarily of knowledge and beliefs about what factors or variables act and
interact in what ways to affect the course and outcome of cognitive enterprises’ (Flavell,
1979, pp. 906–907). Flavell identified three types of metacognitive knowledge: person, task,
and strategy knowledge. Person knowledge refers to knowledge about oneself as a learner.
It includes knowing how one reacts to a learning situation, the challenges that one faces,
 Language Awareness 3

and one’s feelings of anxiety or confidence. In general, an expression of person knowledge

could potentially offer insights into the individual’s confidence and beliefs regarding his or
her learning. Task knowledge is knowledge about the nature and demand of a learning task,
and it enables an individual to consider internal and external factors that may contribute
to the difficulty of a task. Strategy knowledge refers to knowledge about the strategies that
one uses or can use to achieve learning goals. It also includes knowledge about ways of
learning that may not help in achieving a learning goal. Metacognition enables learners to
understand the processes involved in reaching a learning goal and gives them a sense of
personal agency (Bandura, 2001), thus helping learners to develop positive self-concept
and motivating them towards greater success (Hacker, Dunlosky, & Graesser, 2009).

A metacognitive framework for L2 listening

Drawing on Flavell’s (1979) conception of metacognition, Vandergrift and Goh (2012)
proposed a metacognitive framework for L2 listening and posited that the latent features
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

of metacognition are manifested in three ways: metacognitive experience, metacognitive

knowledge, and strategy use. They applied the term ‘metacognitive awareness’ to refer
broadly to these manifestations revealing a person’s consciousness of personal thoughts
and conscious actions. Metacognitive experience is a thought or feeling about thinking and
learning. Unless an individual acts on this thought or feeling, metacognitive experience
may not contribute to the positive effects that researchers have observed about metacog-
nition. Following Flavell (1979), Vandergrift and Goh asserted that a key dimension of
an individual’s metacognitive awareness is metacognitive knowledge, which is a form of
declarative or stored knowledge about learning to listen that can be elicited through the use
of appropriate prompts and developed. It is crucial to the learning process as metacognitive
knowledge can influence the way an individual plans, manages, and directs his/her own
learning.
Another important dimension of metacognitive awareness in this framework is the use
of strategies or special techniques, which can facilitate listening comprehension and help
learners cope with listening difficulties (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990). Strategy
use is a conscious process involving recognition of a problem and attempts at solving it
through the use of special facilitating actions, and requires conscious application of strategy
knowledge. Listening strategies have been broadly categorised as cognitive, metacognitive,
and social-affective based on their functions and the type of mental, social, and affective
processes involved (e.g. Cross, 2009; Goh, 1998; Gu, Hu, & Zhang, 2009; O’Malley,
Chamot, & Küpper, 1989; Vandergrift, 1997; Young, 1996). Cognitive strategies are used to
manipulate listening input directly in order to arrive at meanings of words and interpretations
of a message, while metacognitive strategies are used to manage these cognitive processes
by influencing their operations through processes of planning, monitoring, problem solving,
and evaluation. Social interactional strategies involve getting the help and input of other
participants in an interaction, while affective strategies are needed to help learners manage
some debilitating emotions such as nervousness and anxiety (Elkhafaifi, 2005; Vogely,
1999).

Research on metacognitive awareness and L2 listening

The past two decades have seen growing research interest in L2 listeners’ metacognitive
awareness. Research on strategy use has focused mainly on examining learners’ verbal re-
ports to elicit the strategies they use, and to a lesser extent on analysing learners’ recall notes
 4 C.C.M. Goh and G. Hu

and answers to comprehension questions. For example, Gu et al. (2009) elicited verbal pro-
tocols from 18 primary school students in Singapore to identify differences in the listening
strategies used by good and poor listeners. They found that good listeners consciously used
their existing real world and linguistic knowledge to reconstruct, interpret, and summarise
their understanding, as well as making inferences and predictions to understand listening
input. The weaker ones, on the other hand, expended a lot of energy on decoding without
giving much time to monitoring their understanding.
The observation that weak listeners focused on decoding was also made by Osada (2001)
in a study of Japanese university language learners. Graham, Santos, and Vanderplank
(2008) also found that weak listeners were misled by words they had predicted before a
listening activity and did not evaluate their comprehension using their contextual knowl-
edge. Other studies on strategy use also found that better listeners used a wider range of
appropriate strategies (see Chen, 2009; Chien & Wei, 1998; Goh, 1998; O’Malley et al.,
1989; Vandergrift, 1997; Vogely, 1995; Young, 1996) and in an orchestrated manner (Goh,
2002; Vandergrift, 2003b). Macaro, Graham, and Vanderplank (2007) advised caution in
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

claiming a correlation between strategy use and listening success because of their concern
that different measurements of listening proficiency had been used. They recommended
control for linguistic knowledge (i.e. grammar and vocabulary) so as to get further insights
into this as well as the direction of causality. Nevertheless, they concluded that their ex-
tensive review of listening strategy research showed that more successful listeners did use
different strategies.
Research that examined L2 learners’ introspection of their learning has shown that
learners possess explicit and implicit metacognitive knowledge about the listening process
and themselves as L2 listeners (Cross, 2010; Goh, 1997; Graham, 2006; Vandergrift,
2003a; Zhang & Goh, 2006). Variations, however, have been observed among learners, as
knowledge about one’s own learning and use of strategies can be influenced by factors such
as sociocultural practice (Cross, 2011b), age (Goh & Taib, 2006), motivation (Vandergrift,
2005), exposure to process-based instruction (Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010), nature of
peer dialogues (Cross, 2010), and listening ability (Goh, 1999). Goh (1999) reported that
low-ability listeners were generally less aware of strategies that could facilitate listening
comprehension and of how factors such as speakers’ characteristics might affect their
listening. Her findings were based on an analysis of the listening diaries of a group of
Chinese ESL learners.

The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire (MALQ)

Several recent studies investigating metacognitive awareness about listening have made use
of the MALQ as an instrument for eliciting learners’ knowledge about strategy use and
the demands from listening (Baleghizadeh & Rahimi, 2011; Bozorgian, 2012; Mareschal,
2007; O’Bryan & Hegelheimer, 2009; Rahimi & Katal, 2012; Zeng, 2012). According
to its developers, the MALQ was grounded in research and theory about L2 listening,
most significantly the findings of research on strategy use and metacognitive knowledge
based on Flavell’s (1979) conception of metacognition (see Vandergrift et al., 2006, for
the development and validation of the questionnaire). Following an exploratory and a
confirmatory factor analysis during the validation process, 21 randomly ordered items
related to five distinct factors emerged: directed attention, mental translation, planning and
evaluation, problem solving, and person knowledge.
The first four factors measure metacognitive knowledge of strategic behaviours related to
the regulation of the listening process, while the fifth measures learners’ person knowledge.
 Language Awareness 5

Directed attention strategies are needed to focus attention on the task; mental translation
strategies help learners translate what they hear into their first language; planning and
evaluation strategies assist listeners to plan and prepare for listening, as well as evaluating
their performance after listening; and problem-solving strategies enable learners to make
inferences when they are unable to hear or understand a certain word. Person knowledge
reveals what learners know about themselves as L2 listeners, particularly in terms of their
confidence.
In addition to validating the questionnaire, Vandergrift et al. (2006) found a mod-
erately significant correlation between listening comprehension ability and the overall
MALQ scores of the 966 respondents. They reported that 13% of the variance in listen-
ing performance could be explained by learners’ metacognitive awareness. Zeng (2012)
also reported a significant relationship between metacognitive awareness and listening test
performance among 1044 EFL learners in China. He found that 15% of the variance in
the learners’ listening performance could be explained by their reported metacognitive
knowledge in listening through the MALQ. The results that have emerged thus far are con-
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

sistent with the findings in other disciplines concerning the importance of metacognition in
learning.
Although few in numbers, these MALQ studies have provided noteworthy insights into
the relationship between metacognitive awareness and listening performance. There is a
lack of attention, however, to how different types of metacognitive knowledge represented
by the MALQ factors relate to learners’ listening success. In addition, no study has as
yet examined intraindividual differences in metacognitive awareness about L2 listening
across these factors. The present study sought to provide insights into these facets of
the relationship between metacognitive awareness and listening performance through the
following research questions:

(1) Is there a relationship between learners’ metacognitive awareness of L2 listening

and their L2 listening performance?
(2) How do the various aspects of the learners’ metacognitive awareness as measured
by each of the five MALQ subscales (directed attention, mental translation, person
knowledge, planning and evaluation, and problem solving) relate to L2 listening
performance?
(3) Are there significant intrapersonal differences among the different aspects of
metacognitive awareness of L2 listening?

The study
Participants
A total of 113 (male = 40; female = 73) Chinese ESL learners participated in this study.
Ranging in age between 18 and 20 years, these participants were attending a six-month,
full-time English communication skills programme at a university in Singapore. They had
completed their secondary school education in the People’s Republic of China and had been
admitted into the university soon after. As part of their formal education in China, they
had studied English for a minimum of six years in junior and senior secondary schools. At
the time of data collection, they were close to completion of the aforementioned intensive
programme, which was aimed at improving their English proficiency for their English-
medium undergraduate studies at the university.
 6 C.C.M. Goh and G. Hu

Table 1. MALQ subscales and items.

MALQ subscales MALQ items

Directed attention 2, 6, 12,16

Mental translation 4, 11, 18
Planning and evaluation 1, 10, 14, 20, 21
Problem solving 5, 7, 9, 13, 17, 19
Person knowledge 3, 8, 15

Instruments
Listening questionnaire
The MALQ was used in this study to assess the participants’ metacognitive awareness
concerning their perceived use of strategies while listening to oral texts. It also elicited some
information on their person knowledge with regard to confidence. The questionnaire invites
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

learners to respond to statements describing some strategies for listening comprehension

and their perceptions about themselves as learners learning to listen in another language,
thus revealing their metacognitive knowledge (see Vandergrift et al., 2006, p. 462). The
MALQ authors recommended that the MALQ be completed after learners have engaged
in an authentic listening task, ‘so that [they] would have a specific task on which to base
their responses’ (Vandergrift et al., 2006, p. 441). Given the context-sensitive and task-
embedded nature of listening strategy use (Graham & Macaro, 2008; Vandergrift, 2003b),
this task-questionnaire combination was expected to anchor and facilitate the respondents’
self-reporting of metacognitive awareness about L2 listening.
Responses to the MALQ are selected from a six-point Likert scale indicating agreement
(1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = partially disagree, 4 = partially agree, 5 = agree,
and 6 = strongly agree). Table 1 shows how the items correspond to the five factors (i.e.
subscales) in the questionnaire. The first four factors are groups of strategies that serve
a common function. For example, the four directed attention strategies are used when
learners realise that they need to maintain their focus on the listening input so that their
comprehension will not suffer from lack of attention. A response indicating ‘strongly agree’,
‘agree’, ‘disagree’, and ‘strongly disagree’ for the four strategy subscales suggest that the
respondent is certain about their use of a particular strategy when introspecting on the
processes involved in an earlier listening task. On the other hand, when ‘partially agree’
or ‘partially disagree’ is selected, it would suggest lack of certainty. The scores on the
higher (i.e. 5 and 6) and the lower (i.e. 1 and 2) ends of the Likert scale should therefore be
interpreted as (1) reflecting use of more or fewer of the strategies in question and (2) greater
certainty (as opposed to ‘3’ and ‘4’) about the use of a particular strategy. Responses on
different points in the scale for the person knowledge factor would indicate a respondent’s
confidence in listening.

Listening proficiency test

The participants also completed a listening proficiency test as part of programme-wide
progress assessment. This test was the listening component of an IELTS (International
English Language Testing System) official sample test (University of Cambridge Local
Examinations Syndicate, 2001). The listening component consisted of 40 items in four
sections and took about 30 minutes to complete. The four sections were based, respectively,
on the recordings of a dialogue, a monologue, a multi-party conversation, and a mini lecture
 Language Awareness 7

that increased in difficulty. The recorded texts were concerned with situations related to
students’ social and educational needs. The participants listened to the recordings only
once but were given time to read the questions and write down their answers. Instead of
bands, each of the participants was given a score, which was the total number of test items
answered correctly. The internal consistency of the test was acceptable (α = 0.87).

Data collection and analysis

The participants responded to the questionnaire at the end of a listening class in which they
practised listening to several short information texts, took notes, and completed missing
information. Cronbach’s alphas were calculated for the MALQ scale and its five subscales.
The results of the internal consistency analyses were very close to those reported for the
validation study of the MALQ (Vandergrift et al., 2006): 0.67 for directed attention; 0.78
for mental translation; 0.73 for person knowledge; 0.71 for planning and evaluation; 0.73
for problem solving; and 0.76 for the overall MALQ scale. These reliability coefficients
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

indicated that the MALQ scale and its subscales had acceptable reliability for the learners
involved in the study.

Data coding
For 18 of the 21 MALQ items, the Likert-scale points chosen by the participants were coded
as their scores for the items. The remaining three items (#3 and #8 for person knowledge,
and #16 for directed attention) were reverse coded (see Vandergrift et al., 2006). After the
MALQ data were coded, scores for the five subscales and the overall MALQ scale were
computed. A participant’s scores for all the items on a subscale were averaged to obtain
his/her score for the subscale. An overall MALQ scale was derived by averaging each
participant’s scores for all the five subscales. Because the mental translation strategies were
negatively related to the other subscales (see Vandergrift et al., 2006), the mental translation
subscale was reversed before the averaging was done. This composite MALQ score was
an overall measure of learners’ metacognitive awareness of L2 listening. Such an overall
MALQ measure has been used in previous studies (e.g. Baleghizadeh & Rahimi, 2011;
Vandergrift et al., 2006; Zeng, 2012).

Data analysis
To assess the relationship between the participants’ metacognitive awareness of L2 listening
as measured by the overall MALQ scale and their L2 listening proficiency as measured by
the IELTS sample listening test, a bivariate regression analysis was conducted. To further
determine how various aspects of metacognitive awareness of L2 listening would relate
to L2 listening competence, a simultaneous multiple regression was then run with the
participants’ scores for the five MALQ subscales serving as predictor variables and their
listening scores as the outcome variable. Finally, the participants’ scores for the five MALQ
subscales were submitted to a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA to explore whether
there were significant within-subjects differences between the different aspects of their
metacognitive awareness. All the statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS (Version
19). The alpha level was set at 0.05 for each statistical test.

Results and discussion

Descriptive statistics for the listening scores, the five MALQ subscales, and the overall
MALQ scale are presented in the last two rows of Table 2. On average, the participants
 Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

8
C.C.M. Goh and G. Hu
Table 2. Simultaneous multiple regression of MALQ subscales on L2 listening proficiency (N = 113).

Listening test Directed Mental Person Planning and Problem

Variables (IV) (DV) attention translation knowledge evaluation solving MALQ B SE B β sr2 (unique)

Directed attention 0.30∗∗ 1.417† 0.766 0.175 0.025

Mental translation −0.22∗ −0.06 −0.843 0.574 −0.137
Person knowledge 0.33∗∗ 0.12 −0.33∗∗ 1.309∗∗ 0.480 0.250 0.054
Planning & 0.07 0.20∗ −0.20∗ 0.03 −0.191 0.762 −0.024
evaluation
Problem solving 0.28∗∗ 0.41∗∗ 0.09 0.08 0.41∗∗ 1.896∗ 0.925 0.207 0.031
Intercept 2.975 4.798
R2 = 0.220a
Means 24.58 4.54 3.06 3.22 3.68 4.41 3.96 Adjusted R2 = 0.184
Standard 5.47 0.68 0.89 1.04 0.68 0.60 0.43 R = 0.469∗∗∗
deviations
a Unique variability = 0.11; shared variability = 0.11, 95% confidence limits from 0.07 to 0.33.† p < 0.10. ∗ p < 0.05, ∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.
 Language Awareness 9

scored 24.58 out of a maximum 40 in the IELTS sample listening test, indicative of their
intermediate listening proficiency. The sizeable standard deviation of 5.47 showed that
there was considerable variability in listening proficiency among the participants. The mean
MALQ score was 3.96 on a six-point scale, showing that the participants reported a moderate
level of strategy use and confidence regarding listening. Of the five MALQ subscales, the
participants scored considerably higher for directed attention and problem solving than for
mental translation and person knowledge, with the mean score for planning and evaluation
falling in between. The markedly higher standard deviation for person knowledge showed
much inter-learner variation on this subscale. In the following sections, we present and
discuss the results of the aforementioned inferential analyses in relation to the research
questions we formulated for this study.

Is there a relationship between metacognitive awareness of L2 listening and L2

listening performance?
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

To ensure the validity of the planned bivariate regression analysis to answer our first research
question, statistical assumptions underlying bivariate regression were assessed. First, the
adequacy of the sample size was evaluated with Green’s (1991) formula for analysing a
medium-size relationship between individual predictor variables and an outcome variable:
N ≥ (8/ f 2) + (m −1), where f 2 = 0.13 for a medium effect size and m = number
of predictor variables. Cohen’s (1988) criterion for the medium effect size was adopted
because a recent analysis of 27 meta-analyses of second language research by Oswald
and Plonsky (2010) has found the mean effect sizes falling between Cohen’s criteria for
medium and large effect sizes. Based on the formula, the minimum sample size required
for the bivariate regression would be 62, which was well exceeded by our sample size of
113. Second, the two variables involved (i.e. scores for the overall MALQ scale and for the
IELTS sample listening test) were screened for potential univariate outliers. No cases with
z scores exceeding 3.29 (p < 0.001) were found. Next, Mahalanobis distances and Cook’s
distances were examined to detect potential multivariate outliers and influential cases. No
cases with Mahalanobis distances significant at 0.001 were found (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). Cook’s distances, which measure the impact of specific cases on the regression
coefficients, were all well below 1.00, the criterion typically adopted to identify influential
cases (Field, 2009). In addition, the assumption of independence of errors was assessed
with the Durbin–Watson test (Field, 2009) and was not violated. Finally, assumptions
of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity of residuals were evaluated by examining
the plot of standardised residuals against standardised predicted values as well as the
histogram and normal probability plot of the residuals (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). No
clear deviations from the assumptions were identified. Taken together, these results indicated
that the regression model fitted the observed data well and was generalisable (Field, 2009).
The bivariate regression run to test the relationship between metacognitive awareness
and L2 listening proficiency was statistically significant, F (1, 111) = 27.00, p < 0.001.
The participants’ overall MALQ scores were found to be significantly related to their
scores in the IELTS official sample listening test (M = 24.58, SD = 5.47). The higher
the participants scored on the MALQ scale, the higher they scored on the listening test.
Metacognitive awareness of L2 listening as measured by the MALQ scale accounted for
20% of the variance in L2 listening proficiency as measured by the listening test (r = 0.44,
r2 = 0.20). Compared with the criteria proposed by Cohen (1988), the effect size observed
in the analysis well exceeded the suggested value (i.e. r = 0.30) for a medium effect and
approached the value (i.e. r = 0.50) for a big effect.
 10 C.C.M. Goh and G. Hu

By relating learners’ overall MALQ scores to their listening scores, we sought a better
understanding of how learners’ metacognitive awareness about listening may be a fac-
tor in their listening proficiency without suggesting a causal effect (see Macaro et al.,
2007). The significant relationship identified by the bivariate regression analysis provided
a further measure of support for metacognition as contributing to variance in learning
performance (Veenman & Spaans, 2005; Veenman et al., 2006). More specifically, the
amount of variance in listening performance accounted for by the MALQ scores was con-
sistent with but greater than previous reports of 13% (Vandergrift et al., 2006) and 15%
(Zeng, 2012) variance. The results of the bivariate regression analysis also corroborated
evidence from a number of descriptive studies using think-aloud protocols, listening diaries
and post-listening reflections, which found that higher proficiency listeners reported more
strategies than did listeners at lower levels of proficiency (e.g. Smidt & Hegelheimer, 2004;
Vandergrift, 1997). Although learners who scored higher on the MALQ also scored higher
in the listening test, details of the results showed only an overall moderate level of strategy
use and confidence even for these higher performing listeners. The overall mean was a mere
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

3.96 out of a possible maximum of 6, approximating only a ‘partially agree’ response. The
standard deviation of 0.43 indicated that differences among learners, though noticeable,
did not seem substantial. The moderate level of metacognitive awareness revealed in the
present study bore some similarities to the profile of strategy use and confidence by Chinese
ESL learners in Liu and Goh’s (2006) study who reported using more strategies and greater
confidence after a period of metacognitive instruction. These learners had earlier shown
some use of listening strategies and revealed anxiety about their listening.
These features of the participants’ metacognitive awareness were likely to have been
influenced by the context in which they learnt listening. These students were enrolled in
an intensive academic English course, which focused on listening and note-taking practice.
The curriculum did not have a strategy instruction component, so their exposure to listening
strategies depended on the extent of any incidental learning of listening strategies or first
language listening experience. Thus, their strategy knowledge would have been limited.
In addition, they had never been asked to use any prompts to evaluate their listening
performance or reflect on the mental processes that they engaged in. The administration
of the MALQ was the first time when they had been presented with a ‘checklist’ and it is
conceivable that some participants could not identify some of the processes when thinking
about their own listening. For participants who had clearly applied a strategy, we would
expect them to respond with ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’. On the other hand, those who
had not consciously approached the listening task strategically, we would expect them to
express tentativeness and select a ‘partially agree’ or a ‘partially disagree’ response. A close
examination of individual participants’ responses to the 21 items on the MALQ revealed
that for 12 of the items, at least 40% of the 113 participants selected ‘partially agree’ or
‘partially disagree’, indicating considerable uncertainty about the processes in question.
For other participants, however, a moderate MALQ score may not have reflected certainty
about, but the extent of use of, the target strategies: they reported the use of some strategies
with certainty (i.e. ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’) and the non-use of other strategies with
equal certainty (i.e. ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’).

How do various aspects of metacognitive awareness of L2 listening relate to L2

listening performance?
To answer our second research question, a simultaneous multiple regression was performed
to explore the relationship between L2 listening performance (measured by the IELTS
 Language Awareness 11

sampling listening test) and various aspects of metacognitive awareness of L2 listening

(measured by the MALQ subscales), viz. directed attention, mental translation, person
knowledge, planning and evaluation, and problem solving. As was the case with the bivariate
regression, statistical assumptions underlying multiple regressions were evaluated. The
sample size was adequate compared with the minimum required sample size of 66 estimated
with Green’s (1991) formula. One possible univariate outlier (z > 3.29) was found for two
subscales: directed attention and problem solving. Given the sample size, one or two z scores
in excess of the critical value were expected. Consequently, the two cases were retained. No
multivariate outliers were identified. Cook’s distances were all well below 1.00, indicating
that there were no cases that had an undue influence on the regression coefficients. The
Durbin–Watson test indicated that the assumption of independence of errors was met. So
were the assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity of residuals. Finally,
tolerance values, ranging between 0.72 and 0.87, were well above the conventional cut-off
of 0.10, indicating no cause of concern for multicollinearity and singularity (Cohen, Cohen,
West, & Aiken, 2003).
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

Following the reporting format recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), the
results of the multiple regression are summarised in Table 2. The results include the zero-
order correlations between the predictor and outcome variables, the means and standard
deviations for the variables, the unstandardised regression coefficients (B), standard error
for Bs (SE B), the standardised regression coefficients (β), R, R2, adjusted R2, and the
squared semi-partial correlations (sr2) representing the unique contribution of individual
predictors to the R2. The overall regression model was statistically significant, F (5, 107) =
6.05, p < 0.001. The R2 value of 0.22 (95% confidence limits = 0.07 and 0.33) indicated
that 22% of the variance in listening proficiency was predicted by the 5 MALQ subscales.
The strength of association (i.e. R = 0.47) yielded by the analysis well exceeded the
suggested value for a medium effect and came very close to that for a big effect. Of the 5
MALQ subscales, person knowledge and problem solving were significant predictors for the
outcome measure of L2 listening proficiency. A third subscale – directed attention – fell just
short of statistical significance (p = 0.06). The three predictors contributed 0.054, 0.031,
and 0.025 unique variability, respectively. Together with other predictors, they contributed
another 0.11 shared variability. The size and direction of the relationships suggested that
the participants who reported a lower degree of difficulty and anxiety and greater use of
problem-solving strategies and, to a less extent, strategies for directing attention possessed
greater L2 listening proficiency. Among the three significant predictors, person knowledge
was the most important, as reflected in its squared semi-partial correlation, followed by
problem solving and directed attention.
The finding regarding person knowledge as the most important positive predictor of L2
listening proficiency indicated that the better performing listeners in our study expressed
greater confidence and lower anxiety when listening. This result supported observations
that less successful learners tend to show a lack of confidence and greater concern for their
performance which they find are beyond their control (Graham, 2006; Lynch, 1997). This
is perhaps unsurprising since it stands to reason that learners who are more successful in
achieving their goals will likely report greater confidence. In other related studies (e.g.
Wenden, 1991; Yang, 1999; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001), it has also been shown that
confidence and anxiety were significantly related to learners’ approach to learning and
performance, including strategy use and task persistence. However, the overall mean score
for person knowledge was a mere 3.22 with a relatively large standard deviation (i.e. SD =
1.04), indicating that the learners on the whole were not all that confident and that there
was considerable individual difference in this regard among them. This supports Liu’s
 12 C.C.M. Goh and G. Hu

observation of students in a similar programme who identified listening to be their weakest

skill, which they found most challenging (Liu, 2005; Liu & Goh, 2006). The learners’
reflection on their listening experience could have been a result of various factors, such
as past experiences with listening in their interaction with other speakers of English and
listening activities in class. An absence of explicit metacognitive instruction could have also
limited opportunities for the learners to increase their knowledge about listening processes
and strategies as well as enhancing their listening performance with the help of appropriate
strategies. The lack of curriculum embedded spaces for talking about efforts at learning to
listen could also have reinforced the learners’ feelings of anxiety, inadequacies, and poor
confidence.
As regards the second significant positive predictor of L2 listening proficiency – i.e.
the learners’ reported use of problem-solving strategies, it is relevant to note that three of
these strategies (i.e. items 5, 17, and 19) were for making inferences of meaning of words
or parts of the listening text with familiar words, contexts, and background knowledge.
Inferencing strategies have been widely documented and attributed to listeners of various
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

proficiency levels. Making inferences commonly occurs in first language comprehension

(Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994; McKoon & Ratcliff, 1986, 1992) and such cognitive
processes may be readily activated when listening in an L2 (Mendelsohn, 1995). There
are, however, differences in the way listeners of different proficiency apply the strategy of
inferencing, with higher proficiency listeners using more ways for operationalising it but
low proficiency learners limiting their use to a smaller range of strategies (Goh, 1998).
Thus, even though the lower proficiency listeners in the present study might have also made
inferences of the meaning of words or text, their lower scores for the subscale of problem
solving suggested that they did not use all the different ways for inferencing presented in
the MALQ.
The other three problem-solving strategies (i.e. items 7, 9, and 13) in the MALQ are
used for monitoring and evaluating comprehension during listening with the help of prior
knowledge and other parts of the listening input. These are metacognitive strategies and
involve planning, monitoring, and evaluating as the input is being processed and stored.
Unlike making inferences, which directly manipulates information in the listening text,
metacognitive strategies are part of the executive processes that manage thinking and
comprehension. Learners have to pay attention to the text, process meaning, and think
about the way they are thinking as they try to make sense of what they hear. Lower
proficiency listeners may be so constrained by other listening difficulties that they do not
have the mental capacity to monitor their comprehension in real time. Like participants
in previous research, the lower proficiency listeners in our study might not have used the
more complex metacognitive strategies involving different sources of knowledge to check
their comprehension. To verify this hypothesis, we examined the participants’ scores for
problem solving in relation to their IELTS scores. Our examination showed that 70% of the
learners who scored above the group mean for the listening test scored 4.5 or higher for the
subscale, suggesting that the higher performing listeners were quite certain about using all
or most of the problem-solving strategies. The low performing listeners, on the other hand,
were markedly less certain.
The use of directed attention is noteworthy even though it fell just short of statistical
significance as a positive predictor of L2 listening proficiency in the multiple regression
analysis. In general language learners notice when their attention is waning and many also
feel that in order to improve their comprehension they need to concentrate hard on the input.
They may, however, direct their attention to the input for different purposes. Some may
want to use all the words to construct their understanding or link them together to make
 Language Awareness 13

some meaningful utterances before interpreting the message. This attempt to ‘summarise’
the main message of the text is not always useful, however, particularly for low proficiency
listeners who may have a problem with recognising some keywords and end up with bits
of inaccurate information, which do not contribute to a coherent interpretation (O’Bryan
& Hegelheimer, 2009; Vandergrift, 1997). Higher proficiency listeners, on the other hand,
may be trying to concentrate on various parts of the text in order to use the new information
to confirm what they have just heard. They may also notice that they have not understood
something and therefore try to listen out to new parts of the text to compensate for it (Goh,
1998). These reasons for the popular use of directed attention strategies would likely explain
the high mean score of 4.54 in the present study, which also happens to be the highest mean
among all the five MALQ subscales.
Interestingly, mental translation, which is normally seen to be a strategy used mainly by
low proficiency listeners (Goh, 1998; Vandergrift, 2003b), was not found to be a significant
predictor of L2 listening proficiency in the multiple regression analysis. However, there
was a significant negative zero-order correlation (p < 0.05) between reported use of mental
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

translation and L2 listening scores (see Table 2). The same direction of the relationship was
also found in the multiple regression analysis. Translating words into their first language
occurs in the listening development trajectory of most language learners, particularly those
who have experienced instruction in bottom-up processes where the focus is on using
words to build up their understanding of a text. Thus, it is not unusual to find many lower
proficiency L2 listeners resorting to translating what they hear either word for word or
as chunks and phrases. This may have to do with their lack of vocabulary knowledge
(Bonk, 2000) as well as their inability to recognise the sounds of words that they may
know in print (Goh, 2000). With time, however, many learners develop greater automaticity
in word recognition and interpretations, as more advanced neural networks are developed
to produce faster parallel processing of text and meaning (Hulstijn, 2003; Segalowitz,
2003). The mean score of 3.06 nevertheless shows that the learners did not find themselves
resorting frequently to translating key words or entire utterances word by word.
Planning and evaluation strategies are important to L2 learning (Wenden, 1998) and
especially so for listening success (Vandergrift, 2003b). The multiple regression analysis
did not identify reported use of such strategies as a significant predictor of L2 listening
proficiency. The mean score of 3.68 indicates that the learners reported an overall moderate
use of strategies for preparing to listen and evaluating listening performance. Planning
strategies prepare learners to approach a listening task and consider how to cope with
problems that may arise in the course of their listening. As the learners had not received
explicit strategy instruction, it is to be expected that they were not familiar with these
metacognitive processes. The participants in the study might have approached their listening
task with the more established practice of guessing the content before listening to activate
their schema or prior knowledge about the topic. The focus of this type of planning,
however, is on the content rather than the listening process, which involves having a
goal in mind, making a plan on how to listen, and thinking about similar texts they have
approached in the past (see items 1, 10, and 21 in the MALQ). Another process-oriented
strategy is evaluation. Unlike comprehension monitoring, which takes place concurrently
with listening, comprehension evaluation can be carried out any time after an individual has
finished listening (see MALQ item 14) or has arrived at some tentative interpretation (see
MALQ item 20). The purpose is to check the extent to which an interpretation is accurate
and acceptable against a number of sources, such as the overall context of the spoken
message and prior knowledge of the topic. The benefit of evaluating comprehension is that
the result could lead to learners’ more active and appropriate planning for the next time they
 14 C.C.M. Goh and G. Hu

listen through a cycle of planning-evaluation-planning in their process of learning to listen

(Vandergrift, 2004). Evaluation strategies are not commonly used by language learners in
general and when they are reported, it is usually the higher proficiency listeners who engage
in more ways of evaluating their interpretation (Goh, 1998). The overall mean score for the
planning and evaluation subscale was the lowest when compared with problem solving and
directed attention. The non-significant relationship between this subscale and L2 listening
proficiency further suggested that the participants regardless of listening ability had not
exploited the full potential of these useful strategies to enhance their listening.

Are there significant intrapersonal differences among the different aspects of

metacognitive awareness of L2 listening?
To address our third research question, a one-way within-subjects ANOVA was run on their
scores for the five MALQ subscales. Mauchly’s test statistic indicated that the assumption
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

of sphericity was not met, χ 2 (9) = 103.57, p < 0.001. The Greenhouse–Geisser correction
was used to adjust the degrees of freedom (ε = 0.67). The ANOVA revealed a significant
effect for the within-subjects variable, F (2.68, 300.38 = 86.80, p < 0.001, ηp 2 = 0.44.
The standardised effect size exceeded the conventional value for a big effect (Cohen, 1988)
and indicated that the within-subjects variable (i.e. aspects of metacognitive awareness of
L2 listening) accounted for over 44% of the total variance in the data.
Post hoc pairwise comparisons with the Bonferroni correction revealed that the partic-
ipants scored significantly higher for directed attention (M = 4.54, SD = 0.68) than for
mental translation (M = 3.06, SD = 0.89), person knowledge (M = 3.22, SD = 1.04), and
planning and evaluation (M = 3.68, SD = 0.68), though the difference was not significant
in the case of problem solving (M = 4.41, SD = 0.60). Their scores for problem solving
were also significantly higher than those for mental translation, person knowledge, as well
as planning and evaluation. In addition, the participants scored significantly higher for plan-
ning and evaluation than for mental translation and person knowledge, but the difference
between the latter two was non-significant.
Taken together, the results reported above revealed considerable intrapersonal variation
with regard to different aspects of metacognitive awareness of L2 listening. In other words,
individual participants did not report similar levels of strategy use (for the four strategy-
related subscales). For example, a learner might have indicated with certainty that he or
she had used directed attention and problem-solving strategies but showed only partial
agreement or disagreement on whether s/he had used mental translation. The same partic-
ipant might also have reported a high level of listening anxiety even though s/he had also
applied some useful comprehension strategies. This scenario is supported by a comparison
of the respective mean scores for the five MALQ subscales. Directed attention and problem
solving, which had the highest and second highest mean scores, respectively, were likely to
have been used by many if not most participants. We have seen earlier that problem-solving
strategies were particularly popular among higher proficiency listeners. In contrast, mental
translation, together with planning and evaluation, had the lowest and second lowest mean
scores, suggesting that participants who had reported using directed attention and problem-
solving strategies might not have used mental translation or some strategies for preparing
to listen and evaluating their comprehension. These patterns of strategy use support our
current understanding from the literature that many language learners still do not use a wide
range of metacognitive strategies that can enhance their listening process through planning
for listening, monitoring comprehension, and evaluating comprehension.
 Language Awareness 15

Conclusions and implications

This study has provided further empirical evidence of language learners’ metacognitive
awareness of L2 listening through the administration of the MALQ to a large group of
learners at the end of a listening class where they had completed their regular listening
practice. The purpose was to get the learners to reflect on their listening process with the
help of the MALQ items acting as prompts and to report if they had used any particular
strategies or felt any difficulty and anxiety. The responses from the 113 participants indicated
that they were aware of their listening processes and of the challenges they faced as L2
listeners. They reported an overall moderate level of strategy use but a closer examination of
the means of each of the four strategy subscales showed that two groups of strategies were
particularly important. These were directed attention and problem-solving strategies. There
was less use of planning and evaluation strategies and even less use of mental translation.
Responses to items on the person knowledge subscale had the second lowest mean, thus
indicating moderate-to-low levels of confidence. Nevertheless there was strong evidence
of a positive relationship between scores in the MALQ and scores in the test of listening
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

performance. This relationship was consistent with findings from earlier studies and further
strengthened the observation that variance in listening proficiency can be explained in good
measure by metacognitive awareness. It showed that metacognitive awareness accounted
for 22% of the variance in listening proficiency as measured by an IELTS sample test, thus
further supporting claims in two previous MALQ studies (Vandergrift et al., 2006; Zeng,
2012).
The results also lend support to a process-oriented approach that develops learners’
strategies and metacognitive knowledge about learning to listen (Graham & Macaro, 2008;
Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Learners in this study who performed better in the listening
test were also the ones who reported greater confidence and lower anxiety. While we must
be careful not to attribute any causal relationships between metacognitive awareness and
listening performance, the results do indicate that something needs to be done to help
low-performing listeners improve their confidence. Graham and Macaro (2008) observed
that positive results in listening comprehension were linked to changes in self-efficacy, thus
pointing to a positive role that changes in confidence level could have in progress in listening
comprehension even for the less able listeners. There have been concerns about whether
teaching learners about the process of listening could lead to improvements in listening
performance, and there are even calls to abandon a strategy approach in preference for
more listening practice. In examining the results of our study and those of intervention
studies on teaching learners how to listen, there is empirical support for the place of
metacognitive awareness in listening development. The effect on comprehension may not
always be direct, however. Learners do badly in listening for a variety of reasons, including
affective ones which lead to stress and anxiety during listening because learners feel they
are not in control of their listening process. Nevertheless, teachers can help learners develop
greater confidence in themselves and greater awareness of their learning by getting learners
to deconstruct the various facets of learning to listen. This can be done through teacher
explanations and modelling as well as learner reflections, peer–peer dialogue and experience
with strategy use (Cross, 2010, 2011a). Learners can also be shown how proficient listeners
combine or orchestrate the use of different effective strategies.
There are no quick fixes for language development, which is a multifaceted process re-
quiring among other things direct input, interaction and dialogues, and personal reflection.
We can nevertheless help learners along the path in obtaining greater success with listening
through helping them develop person, task, and strategy knowledge that is rich and person-
ally meaningful. This can potentially help learners know how to self-regulate their thinking
 16 C.C.M. Goh and G. Hu

during listening and foster stronger motivation and greater confidence. Such changes in
their cognition and affect can enable learners to recognise and make use of opportunities to
improve their listening in class, and on their own and with peers outside class. The overall
moderate mean score found in this study for planning and evaluation strategies suggests that
more could have been done to increase the learners’ metacognitive awareness during the
course. Including a process focus in a listening curriculum could create opportunities for
learners to explore their person knowledge by identifying their challenges and finding ways
to overcome them. The explorations of person knowledge coupled with strategy training
could lead learners to feeling more prepared and less anxious.
Apart from exploring the research questions, this study also attempted to offer greater
clarity in the way learners’ metacognitive awareness can be examined through an instrument
such as the MALQ. Questionnaires are a legitimate procedure for helping learners introspect
in their learning processes (Matsumoto, 1993) but their scope tends to be limited, unlike
other introspective methods such as think-alouds, interviews, and diaries which do not
limit what participants can report. While the three ‘open’ elicitation procedures require
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

participants to express their metacognitive knowledge freely and explicitly as if they were
writing on a blank page, a close-ended questionnaire like the MALQ does not require them
to verbalise their knowledge but rather to reflect on the statements, which represent some
aspects of this knowledge. Consequently, it cannot elicit metacognitive knowledge that
an individual may possess but is not included in the questionnaire. Furthermore, because
they are typically used to quantify responses and examine group tendencies in research
studies, close-ended questionnaires are not well equipped to address individual variation.
Questionnaires are nevertheless useful for helping researchers get precisely the kind of
information they are looking for; for example, the five MALQ subscales help to identify
reported use of four groups of strategies and perceptions of difficulty and anxiety. The
MALQ results need to be interpreted in a more nuanced manner, however. The MALQ
scores reflect both the relative level of metacognitive awareness and to some extent the
relative level of certainty. Answers that are partially in agreement or disagreement with the
MALQ items would suggest that the learners are not certain of using a particular strategy.
The scores for the person knowledge items on the other hand would directly reflect the
learners’ levels of confidence and anxiety with regard to listening. These findings are an
important source of information about the learners’ strategy and person knowledge.
Given the recognition that learning is influenced by the social and cultural spaces it
is situated in, future research should also consider using cross-sample comparisons to
understand L2 learners’ metacognitive awareness in these different spaces. The MALQ
may need to be complemented with a questionnaire that elicits information about the
cultural and pedagogical contexts in which L2 listening instruction takes place so that
richer insights could be gained from a comparison of these contexts. It would also be
useful to administer the MALQ each time after learners have completed different kinds of
listening tasks involving different text genres and different listening demands. The results
from a comparison of the different MALQ scores will contribute useful empirical evidence
to discussions about how strategy use and learners’ perceptions of difficulty and anxiety
may be affected by task types.
Through this and other studies, the MALQ has been shown to be a useful and reliable
research instrument for eliciting learners’ metacognitive awareness about their strategy use
and sense of efficacy, but it can also take on important pedagogical roles in at least two
ways. Firstly, the MALQ can be a simple and effective checklist for prompting learners
to reflect on their listening. For most if not all participants in the study, it was probably
only upon referring to the MALQ items that they began to focus on the mental processes
 Language Awareness 17

that they had engaged in. The moderate mean score in the MALQ was therefore likely to
do with an overall lack of strategy knowledge and perceptions of difficulty and anxiety on
their part. Such results would point to the need to include more metacognitive activities.
Responses, which indicate partial agreement or disagreement, are particularly interesting
because they indicate a lack of certainty and these items can be useful talking points in
a discussion about listening processes. Secondly, learners can also use the instrument as
a regular checklist over a period of time for monitoring their own listening development.
The statements in the MALQ items will give learners the language they need to talk about
unseen processes which they experience, thus giving them a tool to further discuss their
learning with their teachers and peers. Such process-oriented discussions are an important
part of a listening curriculum that harnesses the potential of learners’ metacognition.

Notes on contributors
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

Christine C.M. Goh is a professor of linguistics and language education and an associate dean
for higher degree studies at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore. A teacher educator and researcher, she has published several books and many peer-refereed
journal articles and international book chapters on the topics of L2 listening and speaking, and
metacognitive awareness. Her recent book publications are Teaching and Learning Second Language
Listening: Metacognition in Action (with Larry Vandergrift, 2012, Routledge) and Teaching Speaking:
A Holistic Approach (with Anne Burns, 2012, Cambridge University Press).
Guangwei Hu is an associate professor of applied linguistics in the English Language and Literature
Academic Group at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
He has published many peer-refereed journal articles and international book chapters on a wide range
of topics, including second language writing and language policy. His interests include academic
literacy/English for academic purposes, bilingualism and bilingual education, and metalinguistic
awareness and knowledge.

References
Alexander, P.A. (2008). Why this and why now? Introduction to the special issue on metacognition,
self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 369–372.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Rahimi, A.H. (2011). The relationship among listening performance, metacog-
nitive strategy use and motivation from a self-determination theory perspective. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies, 1, 61–67.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentive perspective. Annual Review of Psychology,
52, 1–26.
Bonk, W.J. (2000). Second language lexical knowledge and listening comprehension. International
Journal of Listening, 14, 14–31.
Borkowski, J.G. (1996). Metacognition: Theory or chapter heading? Learning and Individual Differ-
ences, 8, 391–402.
Bozorgian, H. (2012). Metacognitive strategy instruction in English as foreign language (EFL) lis-
tening skill (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia.
Brown, A.L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition.
In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 77–165). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chen, A. (2009). Listening strategy instruction: Exploring Taiwanese college students’ strategy
development. Asian EFL Journal, 11(2), 54–85.
Chien, C., & Wei, L. (1998). The strategy use in listening comprehension for EFL learners in Taiwan.
RELC Journal, 19(1), 66–91.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
 18 C.C.M. Goh and G. Hu

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cross, J. (2009). Effects of listening strategy instruction on news videotext comprehension. Language
Teaching Research, 13, 151–176.
Cross, J. (2010). Raising L2 listeners’ metacognitive awareness: A sociocultural theory perspective.
Language Awareness. 19, 281–297.
Cross, J. (2011a). Metacognitive instruction for helping less-skilled listeners. ELT Journal, 65,
408–416.
Cross, J. (2011b). Social-cultural-historical contradictions in an L2 listening lesson: A joint activity
system analysis. Language Learning, 61, 820–867.
Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language classroom. Modern
Language Journal, 89(2), 206–220.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Flavell, J.H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of
intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive development
enquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
Flavell, J.H., Miller, P.H., & Miller, S.A. (1993). Cognitive development (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Goh, C.C.M. (1997). Metacognitive awareness and second language listeners. ELT Journal, 51,
361–369.
Goh, C.C.M. (1998). How learners with different listening abilities use comprehension strategies and
tactics. Language Teaching Research, 2, 124–147.
Goh, C.C.M. (1999). What learners know about the factors that influence their listening comprehen-
sion. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 17–42.
Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems.
System, 28, 55–75.
Goh, C.C.M. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns. System,
30, 185–206.
Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: Theory, prac-
tice and research implications. RELC Journal, 39, 188–213.
Goh, C.C.M., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT
Journal, 60, 222–232.
Graesser, A.C., Singer, M. & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text
comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System, 34, 165–182.
Graham, S., & Macaro, E. (2008). Strategy instruction in listening for lower-intermediate learners of
French. Language Learning, 58, 747–783.
Graham, S., Santos, D., & Vanderplank, R. (2008). Listening comprehension and strategy use: A
longitudinal exploration. System, 36, 52–68.
Green, S.B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis? Multivariate Behav-
ioral Research, 26, 499–510.
Gu, P.Y., Hu, G.W., & Zhang, L.J. (2009). Listening strategies of Singaporean primary pupils. In R.E.
Silver, C.C.M. Goh, & L. Alsagoff (Eds.), Language learning in new English contexts: Studies
of acquisition and development (pp. 55–74). London: Continuum.
Hacker, D.J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A.C. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of metacognition in education.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hulstijn, J.H. (2003). Connectionist models of language processing and the training of listening skills
with the aid of multimedia software. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 413–425.
Liu, X.L. (2005). Teaching academic listening. In P.F. Kwah & M. Vallance (Eds.), Teaching English
to Chinese ESL students: Classroom practices (pp. 30–47). Singapore: Pearson Longman.
Liu, X.L., & Goh, C.C.M. (2006). Improving second language listening: Awareness and involvement.
In T.S.C. Farrell (Ed.), Language teacher research in Asia (pp. 91–106). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Lynch, T. (1997). Life in the slow lane: Observations of a limited L2 listener. System, 25,
385–398.
Macaro, E., Graham, S., & Vanderplank, R. (2007). A review of listening strategies: Focus on sources
of knowledge and on success. In E. Macaro & A. Cohen (Eds.), Language learner strategies:
30 years of research and practice (pp. 165–185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Language Awareness 19

Mareschal, C. (2007). Student perceptions of a self-regulatory approach to second language listening

comprehension development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Ottawa, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
Matsumoto, K. (1993). Verbal-report data and introspective methods in second language research:
State of the art. RELC Journal, 24(1), 32–60.
McKoon, G., & R. Ratcliff. (1986). Inferences about predictable events. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 82–91.
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440–466.
Mendelsohn, D. (1995). Applying learning strategies in the second/foreign language listening com-
prehension lesson. In D. Mendelsohn & J. Rubin (Eds.), A guide for the teaching of second
language listening (pp. 132–150). San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
O’Bryan, A., & Hegelheimer, V. (2009). Using a mixed methods approach to explore strategies,
metacognitive awareness and the effects of task design on listening development. Canadian
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 9–37.
O’Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., & Küpper, L. (1989). Listening comprehension strategies in second
language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 10, 418–437.
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

Osada, N. (2001) What strategy do less proficient learners employ in listening comprehension? A
reappraisal of bottom-up and top-down processing. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied
Linguistics, 5(1), 73–90.
Oswald, F.L., & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and chal-
lenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York:
Newbury House.
Paris, S.G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruc-
tion. In B.F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15–51).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rahimi, M., & Katal, M. (2012). Metacognitive listening strategies awareness in learning English as a
foreign language: A comparison between university and high-school students. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 82–89.
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second language. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382–408). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Smidt, E., & V. Hegelheimer. (2004). Effects of online academic lectures on ESL listening com-
prehension, incidental vocabulary acquisition, and strategy use. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 17, 517–556.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Education.
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. (2001). IELTS specimen materials.
Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.
Vandergrift, L. (1997). The Cinderella of communication strategies: Reception strategies in interactive
listening. Modern Language Journal, 81, 494–505.
Vandergrift, L. (2003a). From prediction through reflection: Guiding students through the process of
L2 listening. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 425–440.
Vandergrift, L. (2003b). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language
listener. Language Learning, 53, 463–496.
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
24, 3–25.
Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive awareness and
proficiency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics, 26, 70–89.
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition
in action. New York: Routledge.
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C.C.M, Mareschal, C., & Tafaghodtari, M.H. (2006). The metacognitive aware-
ness listening questionnaire (MALQ): Development and validation. Language Learning, 56,
431–462.
Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M.H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a
difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60, 470–497.
 20 C.C.M. Goh and G. Hu

Veenman, M.J.V., & Spaans, M.A. (2005). Relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills:
Age and task differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 15, 159–176.
Veenman, M.V.J., Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning:
Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.
Victori, M., & Lockhart, W. (1995). Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language learning.
System, 23, 223–234.
Vogely, A. (1995). Perceived strategy use during performance on three authentic listening compre-
hension tasks. Modern Language Journal, 79, 41–56.
Vogely, A. (1999). Addressing listening comprehension anxiety. In J.D. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign
language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom
atmosphere (pp. 106–123). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. New York: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19,
515–537.
Yang, N.-D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use. System,
27, 515–535.
Young, M.-Y.C. (1996). Listening comprehension strategies used by university level Chinese students
learning English as a second language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Essex,
Downloaded by [202.156.11.240] at 03:58 07 March 2013

Essex, United Kingdom.

Zeng, Y. (2012). Metacognition and self-regulated learning (SRL) for Chinese EFL listening devel-
opment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Zhang, D., & Goh, C.C.M. (2006). Awareness about strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use in
English oral communication: A case of Singaporean students. Language Awareness, 15, 199–219.
Zimmerman, B.J., & Schunk, D.H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.