International Journal of Listening

ISSN: 1090-4018 (Print) 1932-586X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hijl20

A Task-based Language Teaching Approach to

Developing Metacognitive Strategies for Listening
Comprehension

Mu-Hsuan Chou

To cite this article: Mu-Hsuan Chou (2016): A Task-based Language Teaching Approach to
Developing Metacognitive Strategies for Listening Comprehension, International Journal of
Listening

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2015.1098542

Published online: 17 Feb 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hijl20

Download by: [Flinders University of South Australia] Date: 19 February 2016, At: 00:38
 The Intl. Journal of Listening, 00: 1–20, 2016
Copyright © International Listening Association
ISSN: 1090-4018 print / 1932-586X online
DOI: 10.1080/10904018.2015.1098542

A Task-based Language Teaching Approach to Developing

Metacognitive Strategies for Listening Comprehension
Mu-Hsuan Chou
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

Department of Foreign Language Instruction, Wenzao Ursuline University of Languages

In second (L2) or foreign language (FL) learning, learning strategies help learners perform tasks,
solve specific problems, and compensate for learning deficits. Of the strategy types, metacognitive
strategies manage and regulate the construction of L2 or FL knowledge. Although learning
strategies are frequently taught via teacher demonstration, an alternative but underresearched
approach is through embedded instruction in tasks. To develop strategy awareness in language
learning, the present study aimed to investigate how well a task-based teaching framework was
able to develop intermediate Chinese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) university students’
metacognitive awareness of listening comprehension. Eighty-eight sophomores participated in the
study, which used a quasi-experimental design. The experimental group received strategy-
embedded task-based listening instruction for 18 weeks, whereas the control group received
only strategy-based instruction. Listening tests and questionnaires were used in the pretest and
posttest stages. The results showed that the experimental group improved their metacognitive
awareness of strategies for listening and outperformed the control group in the listening test. The
students in the experimental group considered tasks to be an important medium of input enhance-
ment for improving listening ability.

INTRODUCTION

Listening plays an important communication role in most people’s daily lives; however,
pedagogically, it has received less research attention than the other three language skills
(Field, 2008; Macaro, Graham, & Vanderplank, 2007; Vandergrift, 2007; Vandergrift &
Goh, 2011). Traditionally, listening has been considered a passive language skill that was
not taught in class but rather developed naturally with speaking and reading (Flowerdew &
Miller, 2005; Rost, 2011; Vandergrift & Goh, 2011). Over the past few decades, the focus of
listening methodologies has shifted from an emphasis on repetitive pattern drills or guided
question-and-answer exchanges between teachers and students to an emphasis on more com-
municative approaches, such as communicative (CLT) or task-based language teaching
(TBLT), which focus on using interactive listening and spoken discourse to complete a task
(Flowerdew & Miller, 2005; Rost, 2011). In particular, TBLT, offering a basic pedagogical

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mu-Hsuan Chou, Department of Foreign Language
Instruction, Wenzao Ursuline University of Languages, 900 Mintsu 1st Road, Kaohsiung, Taiwan 807. E-mail:
mhchou@gmail.com
 2 M.-H. CHOU

sequence of pretask, during-task, and posttask, focuses on using structured tasks to elicit
tangible learning outcomes from learners. When accomplishing tasks in second (L2) or foreign
language (FL) learning, there is a general agreement that learning strategies can be used to
effectively and efficiently facilitate and enhance learning (Cohen, 2007; O’Malley, Chamot, &
Küpper, 1989; Oxford, 2011). Accordingly, strategy-based instruction (SBI) on listening
comprehension has been widely investigated for its ability to raise learners’ awareness of
the value of adopting appropriate strategies to cope with pedagogical activities. Research has
shown that SBI is carried out either through explicit instruction in and demonstration of
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

strategy use (e.g., Graham & Macaro, 2007; Imhof, 2001; Rahimirad & Shams, 2014; Seo,
2005) or through embedded instruction, wherein strategies are incorporated into listening tasks
(e.g., Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). Most classroom-based research to date has focused
on the extent to which SBI with teacher demonstration is beneficial to L2 learner competence;
however, more studies need to be conducted to ascertain the effect of the TBLT approach on
developing strategies for listening comprehension in different English learning contexts.
English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP) courses in Taiwanese higher education have
been established for many years and aim to develop university students’ four language skills:
listening, reading, speaking, and writing (Chou, 2011, 2013, 2015). In Chen and Tsai’s (2012)
review of English teaching and learning in Taiwan, research on English listening in higher
education merited little discussion. Listening to English as a Foreign Language (EFL) has been
found to be most effective with multiple repetition of inputs (Chang & Read, 2006; Iimura,
2007; Sakai, 2009). However, listening goals pertaining to meaningful engagement with learner
strategic competence, topical contexts and the effective use of linguistic and strategic knowledge
need to be emphasized. The purposes of this study were (1) to ascertain the effect of TBLT on
developing metacognitive strategies for listening comprehension and (2) to investigate the
effectiveness of tasks on listening performance. Its ultimate aim is to contribute to the under-
standing of how different types of task use can develop metacognitive strategies and enhance
listening ability in an EFL context.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Task-Based Teaching and Learning of Listening Comprehension

There are various definitions of TBLT; however, in general, a ‘task’ is considered to be an

outcome-based activity for engaging learners in accomplishing activities and motivating learners
to develop linkages between what they learn from the instructional content and how that learning
can be put to use beyond the classroom. (Norris, 2011; Skehan, 1996, 2003). A ‘task’ is viewed
as different from an ‘exercise’ in that, while propositional content and pragmatic communicative
meaning are primary in a task, linguistic form and semantic meaning are stressed in an exercise
and linguistic skills are internalized for future use (Ellis, 2000; Skehan, 1998; Widdowson,
1998). A number of earlier task-based studies were conducted to focus on how aspects of
performance, such as complexity of language, accuracy, and fluency, affected the use of
attentional resources during task completion (e.g., Bygate, 1999; Ellis, 2000; Foster &
Skehan, 1996; Skehan & Foster, 1997) or how types of focused tasks, such as structure-based
production tasks, comprehension tasks, or consciousness-raising tasks, affected L2 acquisition
 A TBLT APPROACH TO DEVELOPING METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY FOR LISTENING 3

(e.g., Fotos, 1993; Newton, 2001; Samuda, 2001). In subsequent years, an increasing number of
publications and empirical studies have addressed how teachers have designed, implemented,
and applied TBLT theories in diverse FL settings or how learners have planned to prepare tasks
(e.g., Calvert & Sheen, 2014; Gass, Mackey, & Ross-Feldman, 2011; Shintani, 2011; Skehan,
Bei, Li, & Wang, 2012; Zheng & Borg, 2014). To date, however, although numerous studies
have been conducted on the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar and the performance in
speaking and writing, research that has empirically documented the links between types of task-
based listening and their effect on FL learners’ listening performance remains scant.
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

To research task-based listening, tasks first need to be identified. Listening tasks are broadly
categorized into two types: one-way and two-way listening. One-way listening tasks require
minimal teacher intervention or learner interaction with a speaker. The goal is to understand the
discourse that learners hear based on specified communicative purposes (Vandergrift & Goh,
2012). The listening outcomes should reflect the ways that people use the information obtained
through listening in real-life situations as much as possible, such as taking notes and messages or
completing missing information (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). While one-way L2 listening is
perhaps more familiar to language learners, both listening and speaking are common in recipro-
cal interactions in real-life situations. In interactive listening, the role of listener not only
alternates, as the speaker and the listener are both under time constraints, but he or she also
needs to make links between short turns while simultaneously paying heed to the speaker’s
words. Interactive listening reflects the contextual conditions involving communication purposes
and goals to ensure that meaning is delivered and shared appropriately and successfully (Rost,
2011; (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Nevertheless, in two-way interactive listening in the class-
room, more attention is usually paid to speaking performance than to actual listening (Field,
2008). Rost (2011) argues that not all interaction (or collaborative tasks) is guaranteed to
improve listening ability. Thus, there is a need to investigate the relationship between one-
way and two-way listening tasks, and their effects on listening performance.
The process of a typical task-based listening lesson consists of three parts—the prelistening
activity (pretask), the listening task (during-task), and the postlistening activity (posttask). However,
Norris (2011), summarizing from several TBLT accounts (e.g., Chaudron, Doughty, & Kim, 2005;
Long & Crookes, 1993; Skehan, 1996; Willis, 1996), suggests that a task-based lesson typically
has, but is not restricted to, four principal phases: task input, pedagogical task work, target task
performance, and task follow-up. The task input introduces a task that learners encounter in real-
world communication by using visual and/or audio stimuli to motivate them, activate content
schemata and establish linkages between the target language and the contexts. This is followed by
the pedagogical task work, wherein tasks are segmented into steps, elaborated, and manipulated by
the teacher with the objective of raising learners’ cognitive awareness of new language forms and
their use for particular communicative functions (Ellis, 2006; Norris, 2011). Input enhancement,
such as intensive listening or textual emphasis, can be emphasized during this phase. Norris notes
that, to keep learners on the right track, teachers must ensure that learners understand the frame-
work, scaffolding, and goal of the task. Teachers need to monitor both task processes and learner
language use and provide feedback when necessary. In the target task performance phase, learners
practice the use of language for meaningful communication. In the case of listening tasks, listening
comprehension can be practiced through communicative transactions such as role-play simulation
or debate, or oral presentation can be implemented. Learners integrate their linguistic and topical
knowledge, cognitive and strategic competence, and other resources to perform the task (Bachman
 4 M.-H. CHOU

& Palmer, 1996; ibid.). Finally, the task follow-up phase, involving reflection on tasks, performance
reinforcement regarding gaps that remain in language, content, and task knowledge, can be
provided to refine the task (Ellis, 2006; Norris, 2011).

Metacognitive Strategies for Listening

Learning strategies consist of two major types—metacognitive and cognitive. According to Oxford
(2011, p. 44), metacognitive strategies are regarded as the “construction manager,” whose job is to
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

focus, plan, obtain resources, organize, coordinate, monitor, and evaluate the process of one’s L2
knowledge. Vandergrift, Goh, Mareschal, and Tafaghodtari (2006), in developing the
Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) to assess L2 listeners’ metacognitive
awareness and their perceived use of strategies for listening, classify metacognitive strategies into
five categories: (1) planning-evaluation, (2) directed attention, (3) person knowledge, (4) mental
translation, and (5) problem-solving. Metacognitive strategies involve a large degree of cognitive
processing to comprehend the target language and solve tasks. Recently, there has been a shift in
attention from a focus on the best strategy to use in successful listening comprehension (e.g., Goh,
1998; Jurkovič, 2010; O’Malley et al., 1989; Osada, 2001; Vandergrift, 1997) to an emphasis on
strategy-based instruction (SBI) in the listening classroom (e.g., Graham & Macaro, 2007; Imhof,
2001; Rahimirad & Shams, 2014; Seo, 2005). To this end, Field (2008) suggests that strategy
training be carried out via two approaches. One strategy, which has been implemented in the
majority of the SBI research, is raising awareness through teacher instruction and strategy selection
demonstration from a series of short, authentic extracts. An alternative approach is to introduce and
practice strategies as part of a larger listening task, which is what O’Malley and Chamot (1990,
p.153) called “embedded instruction.” In other words, metacognitive instruction is embedded
within the task-based lesson to help learners develop their own metacognitive knowledge about
listening (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). With the incorporation of the task-based pedagogical frame-
work into English listening lessons, the sequences of task implementation, from the prediction of
topics, strategic planning, cognitive processing of linguistic input, strategy use, and monitoring to
feedback and evaluation of one’s learning, offer a model that is in line with metacognitive
processing in strategy development.
Despite the extensive literature on SBI in listening, comparatively little research has focused
on using a task-based approach to raise awareness and develop metacognitive strategies for
listening comprehension. Given this situation, the present study aimed to provide an answer to
the following question: To what extent did the task-based approach help develop intermediate
Chinese EFL learners’ metacognitive awareness for listening strategy use?

METHOD

Participants

Eighty-eight second-year university students from two intact classes taking the English for
General Academic Purposes (EGAP) courses in a university in Taiwan participated in the
project. The participants were required to take compulsory EGAP courses in the first three
years of their academic study. The lesson contents of the EGAP courses focused on general
 A TBLT APPROACH TO DEVELOPING METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY FOR LISTENING 5

topics commonly encountered and/or discussed in everyday life, including personal interests,
sports and recreation, world cultures, movies, social life, friendship, and technology. Prior to
participation in this study, the students had already taken the EGAP courses of their freshman
year. According to their scores in the General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) taken at the end
of the first-year EGAP courses, all 88 students’ English proficiency levels were at the B1
Threshold Level (LTTC, 2015). The experimental and control groups comprised different intact
classes of 44 students each. The participants did not know which group they were placed in; they
only knew that they were taking a compulsory “EGAP for listening” course offered by the
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

university.

Course Design

The EGAP course lasted for 18 weeks (i.e., a semester), with 100 minutes focusing on listening
training every week. The study employed a quasi-experimental pretest–posttest design. The
pretest was conducted in the first week, and the posttest was conducted in the last week of the
semester, leaving 16 weeks for pedagogical instruction. The two groups received different types
of instruction:
1. The experimental group (EG) received strategy-embedded task-based instruction, follow-
ing the theoretical framework by Norris (2011).
2. The control group (CG) received strategy-based instruction in listening skills.

Pretest

In the first week, both groups of participants took a listening pretest. The test items were taken
from Sections 1 and 2 of the IELTS listening test bank to measure English listening profi-
ciency in general; the techniques involved consisted of multiple choice, short answer, fill-in-
the-blank, and information transfer. The reason for choosing Sections 1 and 2 was that,
according to the IELTS official website (IELTS, 2015), the topics involve “everyday, social
situations” that relate to the teaching materials of the EGAP courses in the present study. An
independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the pretest listening scores for the CG
and the EG. There was no significant difference in scores between the CG (M = 62.55;
SD = 11.39) and the EG (M = 62.30; SD = 9.31; t (86) = .11, p = .910, two-tailed). The
magnitude of the differences in the means (mean difference = .25, 95% CI:—4.16 to 4.66) was
very small. This result suggested that the listening proficiency of the CG and the EG was
similar. After taking the pre-test, the participants completed Part 1 of the questionnaire, which
was modified from the Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) by
Vandergrift et al. (2006) (Appendix 1). Research has shown that listening strategies can be
elicited via a variety of methods: questionnaires, think-aloud protocols, retrospective verbal
reports, interviews, and diaries (e.g., Goh, 1998, 2002; Lynch & Mendelsohn, 2010; Macaro
et al., 2007; O’Malley et al., 1989). Of these, questionnaires provide a more comprehensive
list of strategies that may be used in listening tests. The questionnaire items were piloted on
another group of students with the same year of study and English proficiency level as the CG
and EG. The reliability of the questionnaire was .86 by Cronbach’s α, which was considered
adequate for the purposes of the present study.
 6 M.-H. CHOU

Experimental Group

Phase 1: Task Input

Starting in the second week, the EG received task-based instruction. In the first lesson, the
strategies in the MALQ were again presented to the participants to raise their awareness of
metacognitive strategies that could be used in listening. The topics of each lesson in the textbook
were designed following the four TBLT phases of task input, pedagogical task work, target task
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

performance, and task follow-up proposed by Norris (2011). In the task input stage of a lesson,
the teacher first gave a brief introduction to the topic, and then photos or short videos, along with
questions for discussion related to the topic, were presented as pre-tasks. The participants were
expected to establish linkages between the relevant target vocabulary, the contexts, and their past
learning experiences through sharing ideas, expressing opinions, providing examples, or giving
reasons first to group members and later to the whole class and the teacher.

Phase 2: Pedagogical Task Work (One-Way Listening)

After the pretask, a one-way pedagogical listening task was given to the participants. Two
important factors to consider from a research point of view were the authenticity of the listening
texts and the design of the tasks. As a general principle, it is beneficial to use authentic materials
that display authentic and natural language use in real-life situations. However, natural speech can
be problematic to intermediate language learners. It has been suggested that semi-authentic texts
can be used as long as certain features are retained, such as normal speech rate, hesitations, pauses,
fillers, redundancies, or a range of accents (Field, 2008; Lynch & Mendelsohn, 2010; Vandergrift &
Goh, 2012). In the present study, the teaching materials chosen incorporated all of the above
features of semi-authentic materials. According to Vandergrift and Goh (2012), one-way listening
tasks include a number of types: restoration, sorting, comparison, matching, jigsaw task, narrative
completion, embellishment, evaluation, and reconstruction. Although these tasks are designed for
one-way listening, the complexity of each task and the demands on learners’ cognitive processing to
produce the outcome vary. As the participants in the current study only understood intermediate
level English, the tasks needed to be carefully selected. Of the nine task types listed above, sorting,
comparison, matching, and evaluation, which appeared to be less demanding on cognitive loads
(Vandergrift & Goh, 2012), were considered to be more suitable for the participants. For example,
first, in the sorting tasks, the participants used information from a text to sequence, categorize, or
rank items. Second, the students identified similarities and differences in the contents of a number
of short listening texts in the comparison tasks. Third, in the matching tasks, they listened to a series
of short texts and matched each one with the most appropriate topic given. In the evaluation tasks,
they assessed the information or message contained in what was heard by checking for accuracies,
inconsistencies, or contradictions. One or two of the four tasks were selected for each lesson, and
worksheets were designed with a variety of formats such as note-taking, form-filling, flow chart,
table, and sentence completion (Appendix 2).
Using the format of the worksheet, the participants were guided to use strategies to preview
the format of the task, set goals as to how much information they needed to determine and make
predictions about listening content by linking key words given in the worksheets. The listening
passages were played twice for pedagogical purposes. The first time, the tasks were to listen to
 A TBLT APPROACH TO DEVELOPING METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY FOR LISTENING 7

the main ideas, write down key words, and establish the relation between the context and the
target language used by the interlocutors. The second time, participants listened to details,
adjusted their interpretations, revised their answers, and reflected on their comprehension.
After the participants had finished the task, their listening outcomes, as produced on the work-
sheet, were checked against the model outcome from the teacher. Form-focused grammatical
instruction relating to the topical context was then taught by the teacher. The total process of
one-way listening lasted for approximately 25 minutes.
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

Phase 3: Target Task Performance (Two-Way Listening)

After completing the one-way listening task, a two-way listening task ensued. Vandergrift and
Goh (2012) recommend six types of interactive listening tasks: creative dictation, description,
role-play simulation, discussion, role-play interview, and debate. Of the six task types, discus-
sion had been used in the task input stage and would occur repeatedly while the participants
were carrying out their interactive tasks. Accordingly, the role-play problem-solving simulation
task was selected to be the target task because it required the vocabulary and grammar knowl-
edge gained from the one-way listening to accomplish a task by exchanging ideas with equals.
The instruction for the task comprised four parts: a description of a situation/problem (the topics
were related to the one-way listening contents), the goal of the task (requirements that needed to
be met), key grammar points (learned in the one-way listening), and suggested communication
strategies. The participants were divided into pairs and given 15 minutes to prepare a two-minute
conversation that would be presented in front of the class. These problem-solving simulation
tasks provided the participants with opportunities to plan, organize, and evaluate the information
of the conversation through the processes of discussing, listening closely to each other’s views,
making notes, and responding to views. The pairs also monitored each other’s responses while
practicing their conversations. Meanwhile, the teacher acted as a facilitator who walked around
giving strategic and linguistic help to the pairs. After the preparation, pairs of students were
encouraged to volunteer or were nominated to present their conversation to the class. Other
students listened to them, observed the language performance, and responded to the content
(e.g., laughing at a joke). The teacher gave quick feedback to each pair when they finished the
conversation. The total process of two-way listening (preparation and presentation) lasted for
approximately 45 minutes.

Phase 4: Task Follow-Up

In the final stage, the pairs were given time to discuss and reflect on their performance. The
teacher then analyzed the task successes and failures of some of the pairs; she also encouraged
the class to learn from successful simulation models and/or demonstrated a better pattern of
information exchange to the whole class. The task cycle repeated in every session. Figure 1
summarizes the task-based teaching sequence for the EG.

Control Group

Unlike the EG, the CG only received the SBI through teacher instruction and demonstration of
strategy use from the semi-authentic extracts in the teaching material. The SBI followed a
 8 M.-H. CHOU

recommended sequence of four steps: (1) the teacher raised awareness of the strategies learners
were already using, (2) the teacher presented and demonstrated the strategies from the listening
extracts, (3) multiple practice opportunities were provided to the students, and (4) the students
evaluated the effectiveness of the strategies (Graham & Macaro, 2007; Rubin, Chamot, Harris, &
Anderson, 2007). The textbook selected for the EG and the CG was the same. To differentiate the
SBI in the CG from the strategy-embedded TBLT in the EG, the listening exercises for both one-
way and two-way listening in the CG did not take the form of structured tasks such as those in the
EG. Instead, the CG participants completed the exercise questions provided in the textbook.
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

FIGURE 1 Task-based Lesson Design for the Experimental Group.

Note*: The implementation time of the target task performance in the
two-way task appeared to be longer than in the one-way listening since
there were 22 pairs taking turns practicing.
 A TBLT APPROACH TO DEVELOPING METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY FOR LISTENING 9

Post-test

In week 18, the participants in both the EG and the CG groups took the posttest. As with the
pretest, the posttest content was taken from Sections 1 and 2 of the IELTS listening test bank, but
the specific test items were different between the two tests. After the posttest, both groups
answered Part 1 of the questionnaire (MALQ) again. Additional two-way listening questionnaire
items (Q22 to Q29), based on the metastrategies and strategies in the Strategic Self-Regulation
model of L2 learning presented by Oxford (2011), were answered by the EG participants in the
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

post-test (Appendix 1, Part 2).

Data Collection and Analysis

Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected in the present study. Quantitative data
included the pretest and posttest listening scores and the questionnaires. A MANOVA in SPSS
version 22 was adopted to compare the questionnaire responses in the pre- and post-tests of the
CG and the EG. MANOVA was used to identify the significant differences between the groups
in terms of composite (overall) dependent variables and separate dependent variables, as based
on the univariate results. Paired-samples t-tests were adopted to compare the listening test scores
in the pre- and post-tests.

RESULTS

Developing Metacognitive Strategies for Listening Comprehension via Tasks

A one-way between-groups multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to

investigate the influence of the SBI only and the strategy-embedded TBLT on the participants’
use of metacognitive strategy questionnaire (MALQ) in the pretest. The independent variable
was the group (CG and EG), and the five dependent variables were the five types of metacog-
nitive strategies. Preliminary assumption testing was conducted to check for normality, linearity,
univariate and multivariate outliers, and the homogeneity of the variance-covariance matrices; no
violations were noted. Specifically, a Box’s M value of 27.86 was associated with a p value of
.037. This value is larger than the .001 value suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) and
thus is interpreted as non-significant (Pallant, 2013). Therefore, the covariance matrices between
the groups were assumed to be equal for the purposes of the MANOVA. Additionally, based on a
series of Levene tests, the homogeneity of variance assumption was not violated (Table 1). There
was no statistically significant difference between the CG and EG in terms of the combined
variables in the pre-test (F (5, 82) = 1.48, p = .205; Wilks’ Lambda = .92; partial eta
squared = .08).
Compared with just the SBI, the TBLT design in the EG classes had a much more positive
effect on developing the intermediate Chinese EFL learners’ metacognitive strategies for listen-
ing. A similar one-way between-groups MANOVA was performed to investigate the influence of
the SBI only and the strategy-embedded TBLT on the participants’ answers on the metacognitive
strategy questionnaire (MALQ) in the posttest. The five dependent variables from the factor
analysis were again used, and the abovementioned preliminary assumption testing was
 10 M.-H. CHOU

TABLE 1
MANOVA results of MALQ pre-test between control and experimental groups

Levene’s MANOVA

Variables F (1, 82) p Group N Mean SD F-value p η2

1. Planning-evaluation .000 .99 Control Experim 44 16.84 3.29 .00 .974 .00
44 16.86 3.34
2. Directed attention 1.99 .16 Control Experim 44 16.00 2.42 4.40 .039 .05
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

44 15.16 1.10
3. Person knowledge .18 .68 Control Experim 44 10.02 2.14 .00 .961 .00
44 10.05 2.23
4. Mental translation .06 .81 Control Experim 44 11.23 2.93 .26 .259 .02
44 11.95 3.07
5. Problem-solving .94 .33 Control Experim 44 23.09 2.69 .41 .524 .01
44 23.26 2.29

Note. η2 = partial eta squared; in the case of one-way ANOVA, eta squared and partial eta squared yield the same
results in effect sizes (Levine & Hullett, 2002). Experim = Experimental.

conducted. A Box’s M value of 24.57 was associated with a p value of .084, which is larger than
.001; again, no violation was found. The MANOVA results revealed a statistically significant
difference between the CG and the EG in the combined dependent variables (F (5, 82) = 10.89,
p < .001; Wilks’ Lambda = .60; partial eta squared = .40). When the dependent variable results
were considered separately for the purpose of reducing Type 1 error, the alpha level was adjusted
by dividing the original alpha level of .05 by the number of factors in each component (Pallant,
2013). The cut-off points for the significant levels were as follows: strategy type 1 p = .01 (.05/
5), strategy type 2 p < .02 (.05/4), strategy types 3 and 4 p < .02 (.05/3), and strategy type 5
p < .01 (.05/6). The results also revealed statistically significant differences in all five types of
metacognitive strategies: (1) planning-evaluation (F (1, 82) = 34.88, p < .001), (2) directed
attention (F (1, 82) = 13.44, p < .001), (3) person knowledge (F (1, 82) = 7.95, p = .006), (4)
mental translation (F (1, 82) = 11.99, p < .001), and (5) problem-solving (F (1, 82) = 28.57,
p < .001) (Table 2). The mean scores indicated that the participants receiving strategy-embedded
TBI reported higher levels of metacognitive awareness of listening strategy use than those
receiving only SBI. The eta squared statistic indicated medium to large effect sizes.
The use of tasks in the listening course not only developed the participants’ metacognitive
strategies but also enhanced their listening test performance. There was a statistically significant
increase in the listening scores from the pretest (M = 62.30, SD = 9.31) to the post-test
(M = 71.07, SD = 7.93), t = –7.29, p < .001 (two-tailed) (Table 3). The mean increase in the
listening scores was 8.77, with a 95% confidence interval. Again, the eta squared statistic (.55)
indicated a large effect size. Although there was also a statistically significant increase in the CG
pre-test (M = 62.55, SD = 11.39) and post-test scores (M = 66.07, SD = 11.15), t = –2.66,
p < .05, the magnitude of the differences in the mean (mean difference = 3.52) and the effect size
(eta squared = .14) were smaller than those in the EG. An independent-samples t-test was
conducted to compare the posttest listening scores for the CG and the EG. There was a
significant difference in scores between the CG (M = 66.07; SD = 11.15) and the EG
 A TBLT APPROACH TO DEVELOPING METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY FOR LISTENING 11

TABLE 2
MANOVA results of MALQ post-test between control and experimental groups

Levene’s MANOVA

Variables F (1, 82) p Group N Mean SD F-value p η2

1. Planning-evaluation 2.10 .15 Control Experim 44 19.30 3.73 34.88 < .001 .29
44 23.41 2.72
2. Directed attention .01 .94 Control Experim 44 16.32 2.18 13.44 < .001 .14
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

44 18.32 2.89
3. Person knowledge .49 .49 Control Experim 44 11.80 2.01 7.95 < .01 .09
44 10.55 2.15
4. Mental translation .62 .43 Control Experim 44 10.91 2.32 11.99 < .001 .12
44 12.91 3.05
5. Problem-solving .41 .53 Control Experim 44 25.23 3.37 28.57 < .001 .25
44 29.11 3.45

Note. η2 = partial eta squared; Experim = Experimental.

TABLE 3
Pre- and post-test scores

Mean Time 1 Mean Time 2 N1/ t- Effect size

Variable 95% CI (SD1) (SD2) N2 value p (eta squared)

Control group pre- & post- −6.20,-.85 62.55 (11.39) 66.07 (11.15) 44 −2.66 p < .05 .14
test
Experimental group pre- & −11.20,-6.35 62.30 (9.31) 71.07 (7.93) 44 −7.29 p < .001 .55
post-test

(M = 71.07; SD = 7.93; t (86) = –2.42, p < .05, two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in
the means was 5.00 (95% CI: –9.10 to –.90). The eta squared statistic (.06) indicated a medium
effect size. The statistical data showed that the strategy-embedded TBLT listening course
promoted a greater development of metacognitive strategy use and English listening proficiency
than did the SBI alone.
In the case of the two-way listening, the scaffolding of the role-play simulation tasks and
the training in communication strategies also encouraged the EG participants to develop
metacognitive awareness. Table 4 shows the results of the metacognitive strategies used by
the EG participants while preparing and practicing the simulation tasks. The majority agreed
that they paid attention to the lexical choice, planned the conversational content, used the
linguistic and content information learned in the one-way listening tasks during the peda-
gogical task work phase, managed the timing of the discourse flow, organized the structure
of the talk before the performance, monitored how conversation went during the perfor-
mance, and reflected on their performance in the end. Additionally, the relationship between
the two-way (Scale Item 6) and one-way metacognitive listening strategies (Scale Items 1 to
5) was investigated using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients (Table 5).
Preliminary analyses were performed to check for violations of the assumptions of normality,
 12 M.-H. CHOU

TABLE 4
Metacognitive strategy use for two-way interactive listening (Experimental group)

Standard Strongly Somewhat Strongly

deviation disagree Disagree disagree Somewhat Agree agree
(SD) (%) (%) (%) agree (%) (%) (%)

Q22 I paid attention to the .63 0 0 0 13.6 59.1 27.3

appropriateness of language
while designing the task.
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

Q23 I planned what and how my .56 0 0 0 4.5 59.1 36.4

partner and I would say and do
in the conversation.
Q24 I managed the time when talking .73 0 0 0 25.0 47.7 27.3
to my partner in the
conversation.
Q25 I used the information I have .81 0 0 2.3 25.0 43.2 29.5
learned from the listening task.
Q26 I organized the structure of the .92 0 2.3 6.8 6.8 56.8 27.3
conversation.
Q27 When I was having a .81 0 2.3 2.3 13.6 61.4 20.5
conversation, I would follow
the plan.
Q28 I monitored how the conversation .63 0 0 0 13.6 59.1 27.3
went.
Q29 After I finished the conversation .64 0 0 0 11.4 54.5 34.1
test or practice, I thought about
how I performed and what I
could do to improve it next
time.

TABLE 5
Pearson product-moment correlations between one-way and two-way metacognitive listening strategies

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Planning-evaluation – .28 .26 .32* .54** .43**

2. Directed attention – .12 −.02 .13 .13
3. Personal knowledge – .30* .18 .44**
4. Mental translation – .38* .43**
5. Problem-solving – .62**
6. Metacognitive strategy (two-way listening) –

* p < .05 (2-tailed)

** p < .001 (2-tailed)
Note. Scales 1 ~ 5 belonged to one-way listening strategies.

linearity and homoscedasticity. There was a medium to strong positive correlation between
the total two-way metacognitive strategy and one-way listening strategy types: total plan-
ning-evaluation (r = .42, n = 44, p < .01), total personal knowledge (r = .44, n = 44,
p < .01), total mental translation (r = .42, n = 44, p < .01), and total problem-solving
 A TBLT APPROACH TO DEVELOPING METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY FOR LISTENING 13

(r = .61, n = 44, p < .01). The statistical data showed that a high level of metacognitive
strategy use for two-way listening in the simulation tasks was associated with high levels of
one-way listening strategy use.

DISCUSSION

The results of the implementation of the strategy-embedded task-based listening lessons showed that,
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

compared with the CG, the EG participants developed a greater growth of metacognitive awareness
of strategy use for both one-way and two-way listening and outperformed the CG on the posttest.
The deployment of metacognitive strategies and top-down processing has consistently been found
linking to successful listening (Goh, 1998; Jurkovič, 2010; O’Malley et al., 1989; Osada, 2001;
Vandergrift, 1997). Indeed, Yeldham and Gruba (2014), using bottom-up skills and strategies to
teach listening to a group of Taiwanese university students with a low English proficiency level,
discovered that using only bottom-up instruction, without the integration of top-down skills and
strategies, failed to develop the learners’ listening abilities. Although these studies acknowledge the
merits of strategy facilitation in language learning, Ridgway (2000) argues that many listening
strategies, such as making inferences, planning and monitoring, thinking back to a previous part that
was heard, are less available or not available at all when listeners pay attention to listening passages.
Remaining mental and cognitive capacity for additional conscious operations is limited.
Additionally, Chou (2015), in her study of strategy use in listening exercises in an EAP course,
discovered that metacognitive listening strategies were not valued as being equally necessary and
practical as cognitive strategies. In the present study, metacognition was triggered to manage, control,
or adjust the problem-solving strategies and to meet listening needs when the listening activities were
designed in the form of structured tasks. Learners were guided to adopt strategies to plan and set a
goal of what they would focus on in the task, to utilize task information from the tables or forms, to
help link relevant schemata to the task and to direct listener attention to specific items before working
on the tasks. The task-based design of the listening activities in the EG, in other words, reduced the
cognitive load required when using a large number of strategies during listening by offering the
participants opportunities to use/practice strategies before listening, which potentially automatized
the process of strategy retrieval. Field (2008) supports the view that the TBLT approach activates
learners’ procedural knowledge of strategy use (hands-on knowledge of “how”) rather than their
declarative knowledge (knowledge of “what”). From a pedagogical perspective, because the way in
which listening activities are formulated to elicit listening performance and presented to learners
determines how learners process the language and employ strategies to accomplish tasks, it is
suggested that a task-based listening framework with both structured one-way (input enhancement)
and two-way (production) activities along with strategy instruction could be implemented to develop
metacognitive listening strategy use by EFL intermediate-level learners.
At the pedagogical task work phase, the participants were exposed to the one-way listening
tasks, such as sorting, comparison, matching, and evaluation. The input enhancement in one-way
listening helped reinforce the linkage between language and content knowledge, thus focusing
the learners’ cognitive processes (such as making inferences, using general or background
knowledge, or adjusting interpretation) onto solving the tasks. This is supported by Field
(2008), who agrees that one-way listening provided learners with many more opportunities for
noticing and acquiring new language than did face-to-face encounters. Rost (2011, p. 184)
 14 M.-H. CHOU

emphasizes that one-way intensive listening offers “an avenue to language-focused learning,
which is an essential aspect of permanent language acquisition” (see also Nation & Newton,
2009). Compared with one-way listening, researchers have pointed out that during communica-
tive tasks, oral production in connection with target achievement tends to outweigh the role of
listening (Field, 2008; Rost, 2011; Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Nevertheless, in the current study,
the processes of planning and organizing conversations, negotiating meanings, solving pro-
blems, and monitoring turn-takings in the two-way simulation tasks were discovered to be
closely related to the one-way listening strategy use. Pedagogically, Vandergrift and Goh
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

(2012) highlight the importance of practicing listening skills and strategies in interactive listen-
ing tasks. In present case, the participants’ experience of metacognitive strategy use in one-way
listening was reinforced via the two-way interactive listening task.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study explored the contribution of a TBLT approach to developing awareness of
metacognitive strategy use in two groups of intermediate Chinese EFL university students in
Taiwan. The research adopted a quasi-experimental design with the EG receiving the strategy-
embedded task-based lesson and the CG receiving only SBI. The findings revealed that the EG
receiving the task-based instruction better developed their metacognitive awareness regarding
strategy use for listening and outperformed the CG in the listening posttest. The application of
TBLT to listening provided a framework that allowed the learners to develop and practice
several categories of metacognitive strategy, including planning, evaluating, and problem-sol-
ving, to link schemata to information in the worksheet and to direct their attention to relevant or
important parts before completing the listening tasks. This helped complement what Ridgway
(2000) noted as the problem of the unavailability of certain metacognitive strategies during
listening. Moreover, the metacognitive strategies adopted to organize the two-way simulation
tasks also reinforced the strategic competence of the learners. Such strategy development is
important for strengthening listening ability and activating learners’ procedural knowledge of
strategy use (Field, 2008) in the long run.
Although the current study has yielded findings that have both theoretical and pedagogical
implications, the generalization of the results to other populations with different levels of English
listening proficiency may be limited. It is also important to emphasize that the sampling of the
task types, that is, sorting, comparison, matching, and evaluation for one-way listening and role-
play simulation for two-way listening, in the research design limited the interpretation. Further
research might usefully extend the present use of TBLT in listening models with different types
of tasks to examine the effectiveness of the teaching for lower or higher levels of EFL learners.
To conclude, while the majority of research in SBI has proven that explicit instruction and
teacher demonstration of strategy use in listening passages is beneficial to students (e.g., Graham
& Macaro, 2007; Imhof, 2001; Rahimirad & Shams, 2014; Seo, 2005), this study has taken a
step in the direction of adopting an alternative pedagogical approach by incorporating structured
and purposeful tasks into English listening lessons, thus giving intermediate FL learners
opportunities to develop, adopt, and practice metacognitive strategies. Field (2008) notes that
newly acquired language is reinforced by being used in speaking (or writing), and a TBLT
listening lesson fulfills the need for both enhancing language inputs and eliciting outcomes.
 A TBLT APPROACH TO DEVELOPING METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY FOR LISTENING 15

REFERENCES

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Bygate, M. (1999). Task as context for the framing, reframing and unframing of language. System, 27, 33–48.
doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00048-7
Calvert, M., & Sheen, Y. (2014). Task-based language learning and teaching: An action-research study. Language
Teaching Research. doi:10.1177/1362168814547037
Chang, C.-S., & Read, J. (2006). The effects of listening support on the listening performance of EFL learners. TESOL
Quarterly, 40, 375–397. doi:10.2307/40264527
Chaudron, C., Doughty, C., & Kim, Y. (2005). A task-based needs analysis of a tertiary Korean as a foreign language
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

program. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Second language needs analysis (pp. 225–261). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Chen, S., & Tsai, Y. (2012). Research on English teaching and learning: Taiwan (2004–2009). Language Teaching, 45,
180–201. doi:10.1017/S0261444811000577
Chou, M.-H. (2011). The influence of learner strategies on oral presentations: A comparison between group and
individual performance. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 272–285. doi:10.1016/j.esp.2011.04.003
Chou, M.-H. (2013). Strategy use for reading English for general and specific academic purposes in testing and
nontesting contexts. Reading Research Quarterly, 48, 175–197. doi:10.1002/rrq.42
Chou, M.-H. (2015). The influence of topics on listening strategy use for English for Academic Purposes. English
Language Teaching, 8, 44–54. doi:10.5539/elt.v8n2p44
Cohen, A. D. (2007). Coming to terms with language learner strategies: Surveying the experts. In A. D. Cohen & E.
Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 29–45). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4, 193–220. doi:10.1177/
136216880000400302
Ellis, R. (2006). The methodology of task-based teaching. Asian EFL Journal, 8, 19–45.
Field, J. (2008). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2005). Second language listening: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323. doi:10.1017/S0272263100015047
Fotos, S. (1993). Consciousness-raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal
instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385–407. doi:10.1093/applin/14.4.385
Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2011). Task-based interactions in classroom and laboratory settings.
Language Learning, 61, 189–220. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00646.x
Goh, C. C. M. (1998). How ESL learners with different listening abilities use comprehension strategies and tactics.
Language Teaching Research, 2, 124–147. doi:10.1177/136216889800200203
Goh, C. C. M. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns. System, 30, 185–206.
doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00004-0
Graham, S., & Macaro, E. (2007). Designing Year 12 strategy training in listening and writing: From theory to practice.
Language Learning Journal, 35, 153–173. doi:10.1080/09571730701599203
Iimura, H. (2007). The listening process: Effects of question types and repetition. Language Education & Technology, 44,
75–85.
Imhof, M. (2001). How to listening more effectively: Self-monitoring strategies in listening. International Journal of
Listening, 15, 2–19. doi:10.1080/10904018.2001.10499042
International English Language Testing System (IELTS) (2015). What’s in the test? – Listening. Retrieved from http://
www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams/ielts/whats-in-the-test/
Jurkovič, V. (2010). Language learner strategies and linguistic competence as factors affecting achievement test scores in
English for Specific Purposes. TESOL Journal, 1, 449–469. doi:10.5054/tj.2010.234765
Language Testing and Training Center (LTTC) (2015). General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) – CEFR alignment.
Retrieved from https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/E_LTTC/E_GEPT/alignment.htm
Levine, T. R., & Hullett, C. R. (2002). Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication
research. Human Communication Research, 28, 612–625. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00828.x
 16 M.-H. CHOU

Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1993). Units of analysis in syllabus design: The case for task. In G. Crookes & S. Gass
(Eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–54). Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Lynch, T., & Mendelsohn, D. (2010). Listening. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (2nd ed., pp.
180–196). London, England: Hodder Education.
Macaro, E., Graham, S., & Vanderplank, R. (2007). A review of listening strategies: Focus on sources of knowledge and
on success. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 165–185). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Nation, P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. London, England: Routledge.
Newton, J. (2001). Options for vocabulary learning through communication tasks. ELT Journal, 55, 30–37. doi:10.1093/
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

elt/55.1.30
Norris, J. M. (2011). Tasked-based teaching and testing. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of
language teaching (pp. 578–594). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., & Küpper, L. (1989). Listening comprehension strategies in second language
acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 10, 418–437. doi:10.1093/applin/10.4.418
Osada, N. (2001). What strategy do less proficient learners employ in listening comprehension? A reappraisal of bottom-
up and top-down processing. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 5, 73–90.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow, England: Pearson Education
Limited.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (5th ed.). Maidenhead,
UK: Open University Press.
Rahimirad, M., & Shams, M. R. (2014). The effect of activating metacognitive strategies on the listening performance
and metacognitive awareness of EFL students. International Journal of Listening, 28, 162–176. doi:10.1080/
10904018.2014.902315
Ridgway, T. (2000). Listening strategies – I beg your pardon? ELT Journal, 54, 179–185. doi:10.1093/elt/54.2.179
Rost, M. (2011). Teaching and researching listening (2nd ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Harris, V., & Anderson, N. J. (2007). Intervening in the use of strategies. In A. D. Cohen & E.
Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 141–160). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Sakai, H. (2009). Effect of repetition of exposure and proficiency level in L2 listening tests. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 360–
372. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00179.x
Samuda, V. (2001). Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher. In
M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and
testing (pp. 119–140). London, England: Longman.
Seo, K. (2005). Development of a listening strategy intervention program for adult learners of Japanese. International
Journal of Listening, 19, 63–78. doi:10.1080/10904018.2005.10499075
Shintani, N. (2011). A comparative study of the effects of input-based and production-based instruction on vocabulary
acquisition by young EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 15, 137–158. doi:10.1177/1362168810388692
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.
doi:10.1093/applin/17.1.38
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14. doi:10.1017/S026144480200188X
Skehan, P., Bei, X.Li, Q., & Wang, Z. (2012). The task is not enough: Processing approaches to task-based performance.
Language Teaching Research, 16, 170–187. doi:10.1177/1362168811428414
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance.
Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211. doi:10.1177/136216889700100302
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign
Language Annals, 30, 387–409. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb02362.x
Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research.
Language Teaching, 40, 191–210. doi:10.1017/S0261444807004338
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. M. (2011). Teaching and testing listening comprehension. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty
(Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 365–594). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
 A TBLT APPROACH TO DEVELOPING METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY FOR LISTENING 17

Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. M. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C. M., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening
questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56, 431–462. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00373.x
Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical
study. Language Learning, 60, 470–497. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00559.x
Widdowson, H. (1998). Skills, abilities, and contexts of reality. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 323–333.
doi:10.1017/S0267190500003615
Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. Harlow, England: Longman.
Yeldham, M., & Gruba, P. (2014). Toward an instructional approach to developing interactive second language listening.
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

Language Teaching Research, 18, 33–53. doi:10.1177/1362168813505395

Zheng, X., & Borg, S. (2014). Task-based learning and teaching in China: Secondary school teachers’ beliefs and
practices. Language Teaching Research, 18, 205–221. doi:10.1177/1362168813505941

APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR LISTENING STRATEGIES

Part 1: Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (Vandergrift et al., 2006) (Control

and experimental groups: pre- and post-test)
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = somewhat disagree
4 = somewhat agree 5 = agree 6 = strongly agree

Planning- 1. Before I started to listen, I had a plan in my head for how I was going to listen. 123456
evaluation
2. Before listening, I thought of similar texts that I might have listened to. 123456
3. After listening, I thought back to how I listened, and about what I might do differently 123456
next time.
4. As I listened, I periodically asked myself if I was satisfied with my level of 123456
comprehension.
5. I had a goal in mind as I listened. 123456
Directed 6. I focused harder on the text when I had trouble understanding. 123456
attention
7. When my mind wandered, I recovered my concentration right away. 1 23 45 6
8. I tried to get back on track when I lost concentration. 1 23 45 6
9. When I had difficulty understanding what I heard, I gave up and stopped listening. 1 23 45 6
Person 10. I found that listening in English was more difficult than reading, speaking, or writing 1 23 45 6
knowledge in English.
11. I felt that listening comprehension in English was a challenge for me. 123456
12. I didn’t feel nervous when I listened to English. 123456
Mental 13. I translated in my head as I listened. 123456
translation
14. I translated key words as I listened. 123456
15. I translated word by word, as I listened. 123456
Problem- 16. I used the words I understood to guess the meaning of the words I didn’t understand. 1 2 3 4 5 6
solving
17. As I listened, I compared what I understood with what I knew about the topic. 123456

(Continued )
 18 M.-H. CHOU

18. I used my experience and knowledge to help me understand. 123456

19. As I listened, I quickly adjusted my interpretation if I realized that it was not correct. 123456
20. I used the general idea of the text to help me guess the meaning of the words that I 123456
didn’t understand.
21. When I guessed the meaning of a word, I thought back to everything else that I had 123456
heard, to see if my guess made sense.

Part 2: Metacognitive strategy use for two-way interactive listening (Experimental group:
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

post-test)
1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = somewhat disagree
4 = somewhat agree 5 = agree 6 = strongly agree

Metacognitive strategies 22. I paid attention to the appropriateness of language while designing 123456
(two-way interactive the task.
listening)
23. I planned what and how my partner and I would say and do in the 123456
conversation.
24. I managed the time when talking to my partner in the conversation. 123456
25. I used the information I have learned from the listening task. 123456
26. I organized the structure of the conversation (i.e. what information my 123456
partner and I would put in the beginning, the middle, and the end).
27. When I was having a conversation, I would follow the plan. 123456
28. I monitored how the conversation went. 123456
29. After I finished the conversation test or practice, I thought about how I 123456
performed and what I could do to improve it next time.

Items 22 to 29 were based on the metastrategies and strategies in the Strategic Self-Regulation
model of L2 learning in Oxford (2011).

APPENDIX 2 EXAMPLES OF ONE-WAY LISTENING TASKS

Type 1—Sorting
1. First round listening
A. Listen. Stacy is talking to her friend Brandon. Number the events 1–9 they talked about on

the phone in the correct order.

_____ a. She will work late on Friday.
_____ b. She will change clothes in her apartment and meet Brendon.
_____ c. She will continue telling Brendon about her work next time.
_____ d. Brendon wants to meet Stacy tomorrow night.
_____ e. She hopes that she could meet Brendon on Wednesday.
_____ f. She will have an aerobics class.
_____ g. Brendon will be out of town for a few days.
_____ h. She finds that she is free tonight.
_____ i. She will meet and have dinner with Anna.
 A TBLT APPROACH TO DEVELOPING METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY FOR LISTENING 19

2. Second round listening

B. Listen again and answer the following questions.

1. When do they decide to meet?
2. Where are they probably going to meet?
3. What are they probably going to do?

Type 2—Comparison
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

Listen to these people responding to invitations. Complete the chart.

Martin Julia Rachel

What’s the invitation for? a concert

When is it? Monday at 7:00 pm
What are his/her plans?
What does he/she decide to do?

Type 3—Matching
1. First round listening
Listen to the information. How did Christopher meet his friends?
A. What is the friendship between Chris and these people? Match the name with the details of
the people. There is an extra one.

Name Details of the Friends

() 1. Mike an interesting co-worker in the same office.

() 2. Jennifer (B) a friend known from childhood.
() 3. Yuya (C) a friend whom they jog together in the morning.
() 4. Nina (D) his roommate.
() 5. Angela (E) a college friend.
() 6. Charlie (F) a new friend introduced by Mike
(G) a friend he made from a concert

2. Second round listening

B. Listen again and answer the questions.

1. When did Chris and Mike start to run together? Why?
2. What did Jennifer do right now?
 20 M.-H. CHOU

3. Why was living with Yuya great?

4. What kind of company did Nina have in the past?
5. Why did Chris trust and tell Charlie about everything?

Type 4—Evaluation
1. First round listening
A. Listen to four types of diet method suggested by four people. Write down the types they are
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 00:38 19 February 2016

talking about.

2. Second round listening

B. Listen again and write down the advantages and disadvantages of the four diet methods.

Types of diet method Advantages Disadvantages

Portion control
Whole grain food
Exercise
Vegetarian diet