My implementation of Phase I was very challenging and messy, yet it also yielded rich learning experiences for me as an instructor and researcher. Additionally, I gained insight into students’ listening process and what listening strategies they were able to report using. The second administration of the MALQ showed some changes in metacognitive strategy use among all participants, though some were unexpected. Follow-up interviews provided additional insight into how the students perceived their progress in listening skills and allowed respondents to elaborate on their MALQ responses.
Despite the challenges, Phase I yielded several positive and useful findings. Students began to show more original thinking and experimentation in their predictions and notes. Through the MALQ and interviews, students showed progress in metacognitive awareness and use of strategies. Observational data indicated a reduction in nervousness that was partially reflected in the questionnaire results and strongly reported in the interviews. Interestingly, some students reported increased anxiety. Language proficiency appeared to be an important factor in the use of metacognitive strategies and the ability of students to describe their own strategy use.
Experimentation
Over the course of the four lessons, I observed positive experimentation among several of the students. There were five students who chose not to take notes during the first listening. For example, starting from the second lesson, student four would close his eyes and concentrate during the first listening, write an outline for his notes during the first adjustment, then fill it in during the second listening. I also began to see experimentation in student notes such as the inclusion of abbreviations and symbols, fewer attempts to write in full sentences, and messiness. This latter development was positive because students were no longer focusing on a perfect product at the expense of actual listening comprehension and experimentation. For instance, in the first lesson, student twelve wrote her notes and then tried to copy them all neatly onto a separate sheet of paper during the times for adjustment and discussion. In the second lesson, student twelve wrote on a single sheet of paper, but erased any mistakes made while writing notes, thus limiting her ability to keep up with the listening. During the discussion period, her partner, student one, asked her why she was trying to make her notes look like a perfect paragraph. Student one then presented her own notes, a maze of words, circles, arrows and other conceptual representations followed by a brief summary. She suggested that student twelve try out her own style of notes that would be faster and show the relationship of ideas. This interaction had an impact because by the fourth lesson, student twelve had started choosing only key words and ideas to write and was making an effort to incorporate conceptual organization.
Reduced Anxiety
In my observation of students' external listening behaviors, the most noticeable difference by the second intervention was that students were exhibiting fewer signs of nervousness during listening lessons. During the initial diagnostic and first lesson, most students had visibly tensed when the listening started and were hunched over their notes trying to write as much as possible as quickly as possible. In addition, students were not giving as many non-verbal signals of anxiety (e.g. sharp intake of breath when listening started, tense hunched posture, loud sighs). By the end of Phase I, the atmosphere during listening lessons was much more relaxed and students seemed to feel comfortable asking questions, sharing their struggles, and providing feedback on the lessons.
Reduction in anxiety was partly confirmed by the MALQ 2 scores, shown in Figure 7, which revealed that seven students reported decreased nervousness listening to English in response to the questionnaire item “I don’t feel nervous when I listen to English.” Three students reported the same level of agreement. However, eight students reported a higher level of nervousness. The most extreme change was student eleven whose response changed from 6 (strongly agree) to 3 (slightly disagree).
Despite the challenges, Phase I yielded several positive and useful findings. Students began to show more original thinking and experimentation in their predictions and notes. Through the MALQ and interviews, students showed progress in metacognitive awareness and use of strategies. Observational data indicated a reduction in nervousness that was partially reflected in the questionnaire results and strongly reported in the interviews. Interestingly, some students reported increased anxiety. Language proficiency appeared to be an important factor in the use of metacognitive strategies and the ability of students to describe their own strategy use.
Experimentation
Over the course of the four lessons, I observed positive experimentation among several of the students. There were five students who chose not to take notes during the first listening. For example, starting from the second lesson, student four would close his eyes and concentrate during the first listening, write an outline for his notes during the first adjustment, then fill it in during the second listening. I also began to see experimentation in student notes such as the inclusion of abbreviations and symbols, fewer attempts to write in full sentences, and messiness. This latter development was positive because students were no longer focusing on a perfect product at the expense of actual listening comprehension and experimentation. For instance, in the first lesson, student twelve wrote her notes and then tried to copy them all neatly onto a separate sheet of paper during the times for adjustment and discussion. In the second lesson, student twelve wrote on a single sheet of paper, but erased any mistakes made while writing notes, thus limiting her ability to keep up with the listening. During the discussion period, her partner, student one, asked her why she was trying to make her notes look like a perfect paragraph. Student one then presented her own notes, a maze of words, circles, arrows and other conceptual representations followed by a brief summary. She suggested that student twelve try out her own style of notes that would be faster and show the relationship of ideas. This interaction had an impact because by the fourth lesson, student twelve had started choosing only key words and ideas to write and was making an effort to incorporate conceptual organization.
Reduced Anxiety
In my observation of students' external listening behaviors, the most noticeable difference by the second intervention was that students were exhibiting fewer signs of nervousness during listening lessons. During the initial diagnostic and first lesson, most students had visibly tensed when the listening started and were hunched over their notes trying to write as much as possible as quickly as possible. In addition, students were not giving as many non-verbal signals of anxiety (e.g. sharp intake of breath when listening started, tense hunched posture, loud sighs). By the end of Phase I, the atmosphere during listening lessons was much more relaxed and students seemed to feel comfortable asking questions, sharing their struggles, and providing feedback on the lessons.
Reduction in anxiety was partly confirmed by the MALQ 2 scores, shown in Figure 7, which revealed that seven students reported decreased nervousness listening to English in response to the questionnaire item “I don’t feel nervous when I listen to English.” Three students reported the same level of agreement. However, eight students reported a higher level of nervousness. The most extreme change was student eleven whose response changed from 6 (strongly agree) to 3 (slightly disagree).
While I did not have the opportunity to interview all of the students whose responses lowered, I was able to talk with two, student three and student eleven, who had participated in the interviews. While student three did not indicate any change in her confidence, student eleven described feeling frustrated when she could not understand English and used two experiences to explain what she meant. The first was an experience she had with the Listening Focus content:
We can’t find main idea, we are only beginners. It’s difficult to write main points because I write everything I what I hear and understand…I put everything that I know, but I didn’t put main idea. Maybe this is my mistake…Is like again when in the listening class lecture on rock climbing, yes I understand about some kind of rock climbing like traditional and free solo climbing, but I lose my attention when [the speaker] started to explain about…about numbers. Sixty, sixteen, six thousand, I lose my attention again…I heard one number, another number, what is the point of number? I lose my attention. What is my problem? (Student three)
Student eleven also described an experience with a job interview which took place outside of class:
I [had an interview last week] and when people see that I can speak, I can discuss, they started to speak with me more-more-more-more-more faster! I say what? [Should] I ask him? I think what is my answer now because he started talking to me with so faster…Yes. I tried to be-to be good in my knowledge and my English- it broke me, broke me when they use speed is like as native person. (Student eleven)
In both instances, student eleven had lost her confidence and seemed to feel more anxious about English listening as a result. However, when I asked her about the change in her questionnaire response, she said “I don’t feel nervous when listening to English. It’s change. Now I am enjoy listening English because…now I could understand more, yeah, from our class,” which seemed to indicate her response may have been related to external factors. Or possibly she did not wish to directly express negative feelings about the lessons to me. The higher scores on this by student eleven and others may indicate that previous course listening content had not been as cognitively challenging for them as the Listening and Speaking three content. In other words, previous course content may not have exceeded their level of listening comprehension. All of the students who gave a less positive response on MALQ 2 had a high level proficiency relative to the other students in the class. The amount of information in their notes also seemed to indicate that they were comprehending and able to record more content than many of the students whose scores in this area increased.
One student whose score did not change, student six, also participated in the interviews. Despite giving the same answer on the questionnaire, he described himself as feeling less nervous: “Now, I’m very comfortable than before” and “I think now I changed. I am more hopeful about myself [that] if I lose something, I can…focus on that and understand it.” Another interview respondent, student eighteen, did report less nervousness on the questionnaire. When asked where he perceived changes in his listening, he indicated the question about nervousness on his questionnaire and explained, “I think I am better than before. Before maybe I will nervous but when we have like more listening I think its help me not nervous.” On the whole, the results were mixed. The data did not create a cohesive picture or reveal a clear pattern.
Metacognitive Strategies
The MALQ data showed improvement in each strategy category, although not among all students. Looking at the summed category scores, there were some increases, but not many clear patterns. As with the first questionnaire, I analyzed the patterns in more detail by comparing how students had responded to each question between MALQ 1 and 2, which provided a more nuanced picture. Some of the areas showing greatest change were mental translation, planning, and problem solving. Even so, these changes in aggregate amounted to increases of 3%, 2% and 3% respectively. Although the MALQ results showed that students were applying metacognitive strategies, I wanted to know more about the students’ deployment of their strategies while engaged in the listening tasks. Through the interviews, I was able to ask students to recall their listening experience from previous lessons. Several patterns emerged from my analysis: a connection between language proficiency, strategy use and reporting (described in a separate section below); few conscious connections between strategies students were able to explicitly identify and metacognitive strategies revealed in their descriptions of listening processes; and the application of strategies across language skills.
Analysis of interviews also showed that students were deploying multiple strategies during the listening task sequence. In her explanation of her listening process during listening tasks, student three revealed use of multiple strategies. An example is shown in Table 1 with the metacognitive listening strategies she is indirectly describing on the right.
We can’t find main idea, we are only beginners. It’s difficult to write main points because I write everything I what I hear and understand…I put everything that I know, but I didn’t put main idea. Maybe this is my mistake…Is like again when in the listening class lecture on rock climbing, yes I understand about some kind of rock climbing like traditional and free solo climbing, but I lose my attention when [the speaker] started to explain about…about numbers. Sixty, sixteen, six thousand, I lose my attention again…I heard one number, another number, what is the point of number? I lose my attention. What is my problem? (Student three)
Student eleven also described an experience with a job interview which took place outside of class:
I [had an interview last week] and when people see that I can speak, I can discuss, they started to speak with me more-more-more-more-more faster! I say what? [Should] I ask him? I think what is my answer now because he started talking to me with so faster…Yes. I tried to be-to be good in my knowledge and my English- it broke me, broke me when they use speed is like as native person. (Student eleven)
In both instances, student eleven had lost her confidence and seemed to feel more anxious about English listening as a result. However, when I asked her about the change in her questionnaire response, she said “I don’t feel nervous when listening to English. It’s change. Now I am enjoy listening English because…now I could understand more, yeah, from our class,” which seemed to indicate her response may have been related to external factors. Or possibly she did not wish to directly express negative feelings about the lessons to me. The higher scores on this by student eleven and others may indicate that previous course listening content had not been as cognitively challenging for them as the Listening and Speaking three content. In other words, previous course content may not have exceeded their level of listening comprehension. All of the students who gave a less positive response on MALQ 2 had a high level proficiency relative to the other students in the class. The amount of information in their notes also seemed to indicate that they were comprehending and able to record more content than many of the students whose scores in this area increased.
One student whose score did not change, student six, also participated in the interviews. Despite giving the same answer on the questionnaire, he described himself as feeling less nervous: “Now, I’m very comfortable than before” and “I think now I changed. I am more hopeful about myself [that] if I lose something, I can…focus on that and understand it.” Another interview respondent, student eighteen, did report less nervousness on the questionnaire. When asked where he perceived changes in his listening, he indicated the question about nervousness on his questionnaire and explained, “I think I am better than before. Before maybe I will nervous but when we have like more listening I think its help me not nervous.” On the whole, the results were mixed. The data did not create a cohesive picture or reveal a clear pattern.
Metacognitive Strategies
The MALQ data showed improvement in each strategy category, although not among all students. Looking at the summed category scores, there were some increases, but not many clear patterns. As with the first questionnaire, I analyzed the patterns in more detail by comparing how students had responded to each question between MALQ 1 and 2, which provided a more nuanced picture. Some of the areas showing greatest change were mental translation, planning, and problem solving. Even so, these changes in aggregate amounted to increases of 3%, 2% and 3% respectively. Although the MALQ results showed that students were applying metacognitive strategies, I wanted to know more about the students’ deployment of their strategies while engaged in the listening tasks. Through the interviews, I was able to ask students to recall their listening experience from previous lessons. Several patterns emerged from my analysis: a connection between language proficiency, strategy use and reporting (described in a separate section below); few conscious connections between strategies students were able to explicitly identify and metacognitive strategies revealed in their descriptions of listening processes; and the application of strategies across language skills.
Analysis of interviews also showed that students were deploying multiple strategies during the listening task sequence. In her explanation of her listening process during listening tasks, student three revealed use of multiple strategies. An example is shown in Table 1 with the metacognitive listening strategies she is indirectly describing on the right.
Describing how he had changed his approach to listening, student six revealed that he was using more metacognitive strategies, detailed in Table 2.
Respondents also described applying strategies across skills. All of the respondents (and all except two of the students in the class) were also enrolled in a reading class. Three of the respondents referenced things they had learned in the reading class that they felt they could apply to listening. Student six described learning to think about similar listening texts before starting to listen from learning about using titles to predict content when reading an article.
Yeah, with Professor A’s help, he help us to be known about the words that used for the title for the beginning that is really connected main idea of that so now I know it’s really connected that. (Student 6)
Student eleven described how the same professor had helped her to stop trying to understand every word while listening.
Before I try to understand every sentence- every sentence because I thought if I didn’t understand first sentence how I could understand second, third sentence- would be problem for me, yes, and I want to back back back I try to understand. But now and in your class and in other class, Professor A, they- you teach us that don’t worry if you don’t understand key words or some sentence. Try to understand the whole idea the main idea maybe of the lecture, of the paragraph. (Student 11)
For student eight, the connection between reading and listening strategies was clear, specifically that she did not need to try to translate or understand all of the words.
But I think before I translate word-by-word, but now, for example, I learned in Professor A class for reading because he told us you don’t need to understand all the words when you read something and I think in listening it’s the same as reading. Because you don’t need to understand all the- all the listening, you just need to find what is the main idea. Yeah. I think it’s the same like reading class. (Student eight)
Students were demonstrating the ability to apply strategies that they had independently recognized to be useful for their listening process. Interestingly, Goh (2008) mentions reading in her discussion of learners transferring metacognitive listening strategies to other skills. As the two receptive skills, Goh suggests further research should be conducted to find if they are positively correlated. Although the findings in this action research project are only indicative of this sample, the transfer of strategies from reading to listening independently by students is intriguing.
Awareness of Strategies. From the interviews, I found that what students were able to identify as strategies was related to the more explicitly structured parts of the listening task cycle. Although their descriptions of their listening processes revealed use of metacognitive strategies, what they identified as strategies were largely related to prediction (explicitly stated in the first part of the Listening Focus cycle) and note-taking (directly observable and explicitly taught by the mentor teacher and myself). The strategies are presented in metacognitive skill categories in the chart shown in Figure 8 below.
When asked what strategies they used when listening, student eleven mentioned learning to use the textbook readings, vocabulary review, and partner discussion to help her understand the listening content; student six described how he was trying to use symbols for writing notes because it was faster; student eight said that she thought her listening skills were better than before because she knew how to organize her notes better; and student eighteen said he learned that using the pictures in the textbook to think about what he would hear helped him understand more of the content. Only student three identified metacognitive strategies when asked what strategies she used while listening to English. She did not name specific strategies, but clearly knew that her approach was strategic and helping her comprehend the listenings.
At first I tried to translate in my head all words, all sentence, from my language to English, um, I have to spend more time for that. It’s not useful I think and now I don’t translate, I just-I just listening and it’s depend on how I feel. I can’t explain that, but I didn’t translate anymore. I think its help me to improve. (Student three)
The connection to the more explicit aspects of the listening lesson also showed in the analysis of the listening notes. Many students’ plans for the next listening lesson centered on how to take better notes – particularly use of symbols and abbreviations. Of these, only prediction was actually a metacognitive listening strategy; although use of metacognitive strategies was involved in note-taking as well (e.g. planning, evaluation, and selective attention).
Language Proficiency
Students’ language proficiency had an influence in several areas including metacognitive strategies reported on the MALQ, strategies described in the interviews, and the extent to which students relied on mental translation. The respondents reflected the range of language proficiency in the course and their responses may be seen as somewhat representative of the participants. Of the respondents, students three, six, and eight were part of the more advanced language proficiency group, student eleven was in the intermediate group, and student eighteen was one of the lower proficiency level students.
Higher language proficiency seemed to relate to a higher number of strategies reported in the interviews (shown in Table 3 below). Of the five respondents, the four with higher language proficiency were able to report more skills than the fifth respondent. The highest number of metacognitive strategies was reported by student three and the lowest by student eighteen. The other three respondents reported similar numbers of strategies, however there was almost no difference between student eleven who was in the intermediate group and student six and student eight who were in the higher proficiency group. Similarly, Cross (2011) conducted a small-scale study of adult EFL learners implementing the pedagogical cycle and found that task type or complexity which exceeded listening ability might account for lack of improvement. It is possible that student eighteen could not engage in metacognitive strategy use due to the cognitive demands of the tasks relative to his proficiency level. In addition, student eighteen was limited in his ability to discuss his learning process, and may apply more skills than he is able to describe. His reported strategy use on the MALQ is quite high and on par in many areas with student three. One exception is in the use of mental translation, which was significantly higher and may also indicate a disparity between the oral texts and student eighteen's language proficiency.
![Picture](/uploads/3/0/3/1/30319677/9843192.png?530)
However, language proficiency is likely not the only factor. The disparity between strategic behaviors described by students three compared with other respondents at a similar proficiency level suggests that personal factors such as disposition and learning preferences are likely also involved.
Student Perception of Progress
While the MALQ findings were not as clear on overall student progress, interviews provided the opportunity to explore this further. Since the interview respondents were volunteers, I was only able to explore the experiences of a few students and could not conduct interviews based on the trends or anomalies I was observing in the questionnaire data. However, the respondents were fairly representative of the range of cultures and language proficiency levels in the course (see Table 4 below). In general, the students expressed the feeling that they were progressing in their listening skills and comprehension through the listening lessons. This may have been influenced by my position as their IA and the teacher for the listening lessons and their need to perhaps impress me. It would have been difficult for respondents to criticize the lessons, even if they felt it was warranted. In addition, their participation likely indicated that they wanted to speak about their listening experience and had a positive view of the listening lessons. Other students may not have found the intervention as effective.
I analyzed the interview transcripts for areas in which respondents’ identified that their listening strategies had improved. I coded these segments according to emergent themes. There were three main themes with several sub-themes: 1) perceptions of progress related to explicit aspects of the intervention lessons, which included the sub-themes predicting, adjustment, note-taking, and vocabulary development; 2) reported progress related to implicit aspects of the listening lessons that included the three sub-themes of mental translation, evaluation and monitoring, and directed attention; and the final category, 3) general improvement related to broader areas of affective factors, efficacy and overall comprehension. In the chart below (Figure 9), interview respondents’ statements in which they directly identified progress related to the lessons is organized according to theme and sub-theme.
Student Perception of Progress
While the MALQ findings were not as clear on overall student progress, interviews provided the opportunity to explore this further. Since the interview respondents were volunteers, I was only able to explore the experiences of a few students and could not conduct interviews based on the trends or anomalies I was observing in the questionnaire data. However, the respondents were fairly representative of the range of cultures and language proficiency levels in the course (see Table 4 below). In general, the students expressed the feeling that they were progressing in their listening skills and comprehension through the listening lessons. This may have been influenced by my position as their IA and the teacher for the listening lessons and their need to perhaps impress me. It would have been difficult for respondents to criticize the lessons, even if they felt it was warranted. In addition, their participation likely indicated that they wanted to speak about their listening experience and had a positive view of the listening lessons. Other students may not have found the intervention as effective.
I analyzed the interview transcripts for areas in which respondents’ identified that their listening strategies had improved. I coded these segments according to emergent themes. There were three main themes with several sub-themes: 1) perceptions of progress related to explicit aspects of the intervention lessons, which included the sub-themes predicting, adjustment, note-taking, and vocabulary development; 2) reported progress related to implicit aspects of the listening lessons that included the three sub-themes of mental translation, evaluation and monitoring, and directed attention; and the final category, 3) general improvement related to broader areas of affective factors, efficacy and overall comprehension. In the chart below (Figure 9), interview respondents’ statements in which they directly identified progress related to the lessons is organized according to theme and sub-theme.
The first theme, statements related to explicit aspects of the lesson, was clear in statements such as student eight's assessment of how her strategies had improved in making predictions before listening: “I think it is better than before…you told us you have to write what is predicting, you can guess what is happening in the listening and I think this one is good.” Prediction was a consistent and explicitly named part of each lesson which was clearly directed and reinforced through the instruction, PowerPoint, pair discussion, and review during the first adjustment portion. The second explicit aspect that students mentioned was note-taking which was explicit and reinforced as students had at least two opportunities to write notes during each lesson. In addition, course exams included a graded section for notes taken during the listening portion of the exam. Student six described how his method for note-taking was changing: “I find out that it’s better if I want to take a note from something that I listen I put it in just one paper and after second time I add some more information to that.”
Another theme emerged in statements relating to aspects of the listening lesson cycle which were implicit, but not directly addressed during the lessons. For instance, mental translation is identified as an inefficient strategy in the L2 listening literature. In the process of listening and taking notes, some students realized that it was no longer one that they found useful. Describing why she had started using predictions to help her understand the listening content, student eight stated, “I think before I translate word by word, but now I didn’t do that I just-I just want to know what is the listening and what is the main idea.” The comments on affective factors and efficacy may have come from the effort to remove the focus on comprehension and testing from the lessons. In addition, higher strategy use is associated with both higher self-efficacy and reduction of affective factors such as anxiety. Student eighteen stated that he was feeling less anxious when listening to English: “Before maybe I will nervous but when we do more- when we have more like listening I think it’s better. Help me not like nervous.” Similarly, student six described a greater sense of efficacy having recognized his own progress, “Like I believe myself. My self-confidence go- coming up.”
As with reporting of metacognitive strategies, these findings indicate that students’ progress may be related to language proficiency. While more skilled or proficient listeners identified specific ways that their listening strategy use had improved, student eighteen was only able to identify improvement from gaining more experience, practicing note-taking, and a general feeling that his listening comprehension was higher. Conversely, constant encounters with listening comprehension problems may have activated more use of metacognitive strategies which would otherwise “run in the background” until cognitive ability was challenged (Veenman, Van-Houton Wolters, & Afflerbach, 2006, p. 6). It is interesting to contrast the reported skill use of student eighteen with student two who had high English language proficiency and reported lower metacognitive strategy use. In her notes, student two consistently reported understanding all of the content during the lessons and mainly focused on her note-taking skills in her reflection and planning. Not encountering problems may have made it less apparent to student two which metacognitive strategies she was applying. As expected, there was a difference in mental translation with student eighteen reporting a 30% higher reliance on that strategy.
Another theme emerged in statements relating to aspects of the listening lesson cycle which were implicit, but not directly addressed during the lessons. For instance, mental translation is identified as an inefficient strategy in the L2 listening literature. In the process of listening and taking notes, some students realized that it was no longer one that they found useful. Describing why she had started using predictions to help her understand the listening content, student eight stated, “I think before I translate word by word, but now I didn’t do that I just-I just want to know what is the listening and what is the main idea.” The comments on affective factors and efficacy may have come from the effort to remove the focus on comprehension and testing from the lessons. In addition, higher strategy use is associated with both higher self-efficacy and reduction of affective factors such as anxiety. Student eighteen stated that he was feeling less anxious when listening to English: “Before maybe I will nervous but when we do more- when we have more like listening I think it’s better. Help me not like nervous.” Similarly, student six described a greater sense of efficacy having recognized his own progress, “Like I believe myself. My self-confidence go- coming up.”
As with reporting of metacognitive strategies, these findings indicate that students’ progress may be related to language proficiency. While more skilled or proficient listeners identified specific ways that their listening strategy use had improved, student eighteen was only able to identify improvement from gaining more experience, practicing note-taking, and a general feeling that his listening comprehension was higher. Conversely, constant encounters with listening comprehension problems may have activated more use of metacognitive strategies which would otherwise “run in the background” until cognitive ability was challenged (Veenman, Van-Houton Wolters, & Afflerbach, 2006, p. 6). It is interesting to contrast the reported skill use of student eighteen with student two who had high English language proficiency and reported lower metacognitive strategy use. In her notes, student two consistently reported understanding all of the content during the lessons and mainly focused on her note-taking skills in her reflection and planning. Not encountering problems may have made it less apparent to student two which metacognitive strategies she was applying. As expected, there was a difference in mental translation with student eighteen reporting a 30% higher reliance on that strategy.