Exploring the effect of the model of metacognitive instruction on the listening performance of EFL learners

Abstract

This study sought to explore the effect of two different models of metacognitive instruction on the listening performance of EFL learners in Iran. The participants were 90 intermediate EFL listeners in three groups, ranging from 20 to 26 years of age. The participants in experimental group one (n = 30) went through a ten-week intervention program that involved the linear instruction of ten metacognitive strategies, with its focus on planning, monitoring, and evaluation. The participants in experimental group two (n = 30), who were trained through Metacognitive Pedagogical Sequence for ten weeks, went through an intervention program that engaged them in a sequence of tasks to help them develop metacognitive awareness of the processes underlying L2 listening through dialogic interactions. The participants in the control group (n=30), who went through a conventional listening instruction program, were taught by the same teacher and listened to the same materials without any guided attention toprocess. An actual test of language proficiency and a listening comprehension test were also used to collect data and to track changes in listening performance of learners after the intervention. The results of the study showed that metacognitive instruction led to a considerable variance in the overall listening performance of learners. The results also revealed that the model of metacognitive instruction and the manner through which metacognitive strategies were orchestrated led to a difference in the listening performance of EFL learners in this study.

Examining the Effects of Metacognitive Instruction in Oral Communication for EFL Learners

“…Compared to the students in the contrast group, the learners in the treatment group also became more proactive learners by watching movies in English, downloading the audio materials, listening to them, and reading the texts aloud outside the classroom, for example. Discussions through special sessions seemed to play a significant role for developing their awareness and learning (e.g., Fahim & Fakhri Alamdari, 2014;Vandergrift & Goh, 2012).…”

“…Although very few studies on metacognitive instruction in oral communication have been conducted, several researchers have examined the effectiveness of metacognitive instruction in listening classes in both English as a Second Language (ESL) and EFL contexts (e.g., Chen, 2010;Cross, 2011;Goh & Taib, 2006;Graham & Macaro, 2008;Fahim & Fakhri Alamdari, 2014;Rahimi & Katal, 2013;Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). Research shows that: (1) learning strategies (including metacognitive strategies) influence learning outcomes and self-efficacy (Graham & Macaro, 2008;Rahimi & Katal, 2013); (2) Metacognitive instruction influences listening comprehension (Cross, 2011;Goh & Taib, 2006;Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010); (3) Metacognitive instruction is effective especially for less skilled listeners (e.g., Cross, 2011;Kobayashi, 2018); (4) Metacognitive instruction affects learning outcomes (Goh & Taib, 2006); and (5) Metacognitive instruction improves metacognitive awareness, perceived use of listening strategies, and speaking ability (Rahimi & Katal, 2013).…”

“…To date, several metacognitive instruction studies (e.g., Cross, 2011;Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010) have involved a metacognitive pedagogical sequence and discussions. Fahim and Fakhri Alamdari (2014) also involved a metacognitive pedagogical sequence and dialogic interactions. They found that the learners who received dialogic interactions outperformed their peers who underwent the linear instruction of metacognitive strategies regarding their listening comprehension ability.…”

The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire as a metacognitive-raising tool: Does it work?

“…Now, there is a respectable body of empirical evidence both in EFL (e.g. Fahim & Fakhri Alamdari, 2014;Goh & Hu, 2013;Rahimi & Katal, 2012 and ESL (e.g. Vandergrift, 2002Vandergrift, , 2003Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010) contexts bearing testimony to the effectiveness of L2 listening metacognitive instruction.…”

“…Research into listening from this vantage point is a relatively nascent undertaking (Goh, 2008), however. It has been shown that metacognitive instruction benefits less--skilled L2 listeners more (Cross, 2010;Goh & Tiab, 2006), is positively related to learners' motivational aspects (Baleghizadeh & Rahimi, 2011;Vandergrift, 2003Vandergrift, , 2005, and promotes L2 listening performance (e.g., Al--Alwan, Asassfeh, & Al--Shboul, 2013;Bozorgian, 2012;Coskun, 2010;Fahim & Fakhri Alamdari, 2014;Goh & Hu, 2013;Shirani Bidabadi & Yamat, 2011;Vandergrift, Goh, Mareschal, & Tafaghodtari, 2006).…”