L2 and L4 listeners’ metacognitive awareness: which strategies are reported? A cross-cultural comparative study

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

L2 and L4 listeners’ metacognitive awareness: which strategies are reported? A cross-cultural comparative study

Naouel Zoghlami University Paris 8, France

Abstract During the last few decades, understanding the processes and strategies involved in SL/FL listening comprehension has received a firmly increasing attention. Grounded in cognitive theory of learning, the present paper focuses on metacognition and its significant role in foreign-language (FL) listening comprehension. Metacognition refers to thinking about one’s own cognition and its regulation. Awareness and control of cognitive processes have proved to be necessary for successful listening. A validated 23-item questionnaire designed to investigate listeners’ metacognitive knowledge, and to examine the degree of FL students’ metacognitive awareness while listening and report on the strategies commonly used was administered to two groups of different cultural backgrounds: French (L2) and Tunisian (L4) students of English. The findings showed that the participants were generally aware of their difficulties as listeners. Yet, not all of them were fully conscious about the cognitive processes involved in listening comprehension. The analysis of strategy use demonstrated that metacognitive awareness is bound to linguistic and cultural constraints. Some differences between the groups were discovered. French learners believed more in the usefulness and importance of two kinds of strategies; those pertaining to the metacognitive processes of directed attention and planning and evaluation. Tunisians were more self-knowing and seemed to rely basically on top-down processing. The paper ends by outlining the importance of metacognitve instruction for successful foreign language listening and self-regulated learning and pointing that this instruction needs to be culturally bound. The paper also considers the limitations of the study and offers some suggestions for future research.

421

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

1. Introduction and Background

During the last decades, the field of foreign language (FL) listening comprehension has witnessed an increasing focus on the role of the awareness of one’s mental processes while listening. In fact, researchers concur that this knowledge a learner has about his personal cognitive processes along with the ability to control them and monitor comprehension constitute the basis for skilled listening. Several recent studies have actually demonstrated that foreign and second language listeners differ in the degree of this awareness and that this complex construct of metacognition is very often synonym of successful learning. Within the same perspective, the present study attempted to identify what constitutes metacognitive awareness and what distinguishes L2 from L4 listeners of English. Grounding their research on work in cognitive psychology (e.g. Flavell, 1979, 1987; Pintrich 1999, 2002; Shimamura, 2000; Fernandez-Duque et al., 2000a, 2000b), L2 specialists (e.g., Anderson, 2002, 2005; Bolitho et al., 2003; Chamot et al. 1999; Graham, 1997; Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002; Wenden, 1987, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2002; Rivers, 2001; Schoonen et al., 1998 and Goh and Taib, 2006) have applied the concept of metacognition to language learning and pointed to its potential in understanding the complexities of the learning process. In simple terms, metacogniton refers to thinking about thinking. As such, it relates to the perception and understanding of the impact of some factors on cognitive enterprises (Goh, 1997; Graham, 2006b, Wenden 1991, 2002; Zhang and Goh, 2006). It is about “what learners know about language learning: the nature of the task, how best to approach it, and personal factors that may inhibit or facilitate the process” (Wenden, 2002:46). Learners’ metacognition, then, directly influences the process and outcome of their learning, helping them become active participants in their own performance. It follows that learners who are metacognitively aware are successful in reflecting upon their learning, thus using strategies for finding out what to do when there is a comprehension problem and making conscious decisions to develop their learning. Accordingly, “strong metacognitive skills empower language learners” (Anderson, 2008:99). This awareness is actually the real key to learning and is important for distinguishing between skilled and unskilled students. O’Malley and Chamot (1990, p. 8) were among the first to assert that “students without metacognitive

422

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

approaches are essentially learners without direction or opportunity to plan their learning, monitor their progress, or review their accomplishments and future learning directions.”

Metacognitive awareness and FL listening comprehension Recently, the essential role of metacognition in FL listening has been put forward specially through the work of Vandergrift and Goh. They concur that the ultimate goal of a top-down approach to the teaching of SL/FL listening is to enhance learners’ metacognitive awareness about listening (Goh, 2008; Vandergrift and Goh, 2012). It is about promoting knowledge about self-as-learner. Metacognitive knowledge actually nurtures autonomy, self-regulation and self-direction in learning. Metacognition, then, encompasses not only knowledge about cognitive states, but also the regulation or monitoring of cognitive processes which refers mainly to the use of metacognitive strategies. Vandergrift et al. (2006) explain that listeners with high degrees of awareness are “better at processing and storing new information, finding the best ways to practice and reinforce what they have learned” (p.435). In listening comprehension, learners need to have a certain basic knowledge about themselves as language listeners, about the listening activity and about potential strategies. Grasping this type of knowledge would, during the performance of a listening task, guide listeners in monitoring their comprehension processes, and in choosing and applying particular strategies that can be effective in successful interpretation of the spoken text. As schematized by Anderson (2008) in the figure below, this entails exercising executive control over one’s listening processes through the interplay of five basic components, including: (1) preparation and planning for listening, (2) selection and use of listening strategies, (3) monitoring of listening comprehension and strategy use, (4) orchestration of different strategies, and (5) evaluation of strategy use and listening comprehension.

423

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching Figure 1. A metacognition model (adopted from Anderson, 2008: 100)

Accordingly, this model of metacognition highlights two fundamental features consisting of a specific knowledge about mental states and processes on one side, and a control over these cognitive aspects on the other side (Flavell, 1979, 1987; Paris and Winograd, 1990; Wenden, 1998, 2002; Anderson, 2002; Goh and Taib, 2006; Goh, 2008). Control is done by applying metacognitive listening strategies while metacognitive knowledge is further subdivided into three basic categories:

person knowledge, task knowledge and strategy knowledge as

summarized in the table below. Table 1. Metacognitive knowledge about listening and examples from L2 listening (adapted from Goh, 2002 and Vandergrift & Goh, 2012) Person knowledge Specific judgements that learners have about themselves as listeners and about cognitive and affective factors influencing the success or failure of their listening

Examples: anxiety and/or specific problems in listening - I am an anxious listener - I dare to take risks - I can improve my listening if I try harder - I always have problems catching the beginning of what other people say

Task knowledge Knowledge about the goal, the requirements, the procedures and the nature of a listening task. It also incorporates aspects contributing to the difficulty of a listening task, such as the characteristics of the oral input

Examples: processes and skills for performing listening activities; factors affecting listening such as type of input and speaker ; ways of perfecting listening - You need to stay calm to hear clearly - Since I now can anticipate, I am more aware of what to listen to and can pick up more of the conversations - The speaker’s accent is different from the one my teacher has and it makes listening challenging for me - I think I should listen to news

Strategy knowledge Knowledge about the most appropriate strategies that are likely to be effective for accomplishing listening tasks and developing comprehension

Examples: strategic approach to cope with listening difficulties (effective and inefficient strategies) - When somebody is speaking too fast, we can ask them to slow down or repeat - I shall make my reaction as quickly as possible as I can. The less translation the better

424

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

These categories of metacognitive knowledge are not applied to a learning task in a linear fashion but do often overlap (Flavell, 1979; Wenden, 1991, 1998; Goh, 1997). Strategy knowledge in particular is of paramount significance for appropriate real-time/online performance. The metacognitive procedural knowledge includes four metacognitive strategies: planning, monitoring, problem-solving and evaluating. Thus, learners engaged in any language task need to plan how to perform and meet the goal of the task, monitor and regulate their comprehension while the task is in progress, identify and resolve possible problems, and finally evaluate their progress and learning once the task is completed.

Recent research in the domain of L2 listening has sought to distinguish between skilled and unskilled listeners and provided evidence for the interplay and mutual influence between metacognitive awareness and strategy use (Goh, 1997; Vandergrift, 2003). For example, using diary studies and questionnaires with Chinese EFL students, Goh (1997, 2000) found that metacognitive knowledge was a factor that differentiated between proficient and less proficient listeners. Her subjects demonstrated an extensive awareness of person, task and strategy knowledge, with skilled listeners being highly aware of the factors affecting their listening and the strategies assisting comprehension. Goh (1997) proposed diary-keeping as a stimulus for students to reflect on their listening process and problems. She also suggested incorporating process-based discussions from a metacognitive perspective during pre- and post-listening tasks. Other studies demonstrated that skilled listeners used meatcognitive strategies extensively, in particular problem identification and comprehension monitoring (O’Malley and Chamot, 1989; Yang, 1999; Goh, 2000, Vandergrift, 1997b, 1998, 2003a). These findings were backed up in 2005, when Vandergrift explored the relationships among motivation, metacognitive awareness and L2 listening proficiency. The study revealed that listeners reporting a greater application of metacognitive strategies also showed stronger motivation and were necessarily high-proficient listeners in the target language. In the same respect and using questionnaires, Goh (2000), Vandergrift et al. (2006) and Goh and Zhang (2006) contend that learners with high metacognitive awareness are skilled and successful listeners. They proved that questionnaires could be used not only to investigate but also to raise learners’ awareness of the listening process. For instance, Vandergrift et al. (2006) developed the Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) to assess awareness and perceived strategy-use while listening. It is based on different listening 425

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

behaviours that tap different factors associated with L2 metacognitive knowledge and selfregulated learning, which are problem-solving, planning and evaluation, mental translation, person knowledge and directed attention. Vandergrift et al. (2006) claimed that the ultimate goal of the MALQ is to develop metacognitive instruction for L2 listening development. This instrument would assist teachers and learners in discovering the factors impeding comprehension and overcoming listening difficulties. Similarly, Mendelshon (1994, 1995) and Vandergrift (1999, 2002, 2003a, 2003b) pointed to the necessity of developing students’ ‘metastrategic awareness’ before and after listening. They argued that this instructional cycle of pre-listening, listening and post-listening tasks fosters the acquisition of metacognitive strategies such as prediction, individual planning, monitoring and evaluating. This guided listening instruction along with teacher-facilitated discussions was found to be effective and motivating for EFL learners (Goh and Taib, 2006). Vandergrift (1999) also advocated the use of performance checklists which would help learners consciously prepare their listening and assess the approach and the outcomes of the listening task, thus focusing on the process and not merely the product of listening. Although the trend is towards adopting a metacognitive approach to teaching listening, L2 learners still encounter different difficulties in and outside the language classroom. Learners are not efficiently guided to learn the process of listening and improve their ability to listen (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). The goal of this article is not to evaluate the worth of such an approach, if ever it is actually applied, but simply to assess the degree of listeners’ metacognitive

awareness

in

two

culturally

and

linguistically

distinct

language

teaching/learning environments. Their perception of the type of strategies they use during a listening task is investigated in relation to metacognitive and cognitive models of listening comprehension. Flavell’s (1979) taxonomy of metacognitive knowledge and Anderson’s (2008) model of metacognition constitute the theoretical framework of the present study.

2. The Study The study aimed to answer two research questions: 1- Which degree of metacognitive awareness is reported by listeners of English in L4 (Tunisian) and L2 (French) contexts? Which strategies are used the most?

426

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

2- Is there a statistically significant difference between learners’ metacognitive awareness in the French and in the Tunisian learning environments? Do Tunisian and French listeners use different metacognitive strategies?

2.1.

Participants

A total of 242 tertiary-level students belonging to two distinct groups of different cultural backgrounds took part in this study. The informants were French (n = 110) and Tunisian (n = 132) undergraduates selected randomly from the English departments of the University of Savoie in Chambéry (France) and the Institut Supérieur des Langues de Tunis (Tunisia) respectively. Although English is taught as a foreign language in both countries (in contrast with English being taught as a second language (SL) in English speaking countries), its actual status differs. In fact, in the French educational system, English is introduced quite early at the primary school and it is the first foreign language learnt. In Tunisia, however, English is introduced a bit later at the college and is treated as an L4 since it is the third compulsory foreign language learnt after Standard Arabic and French.

At the time the data was collected (November 2011), the French-speaking students were enrolled in the first-year level of the LEA (Langues Etrangères Appliquées) program in view of obtaining a degree in Foreign Applied Languages. In the other group, the subjects were native speakers of Tunisian-Arabic enrolled also in the first-year level of the Licence Fondamentale and Licence Appliquée in English Literature and Civilization. The average age in both groups was nineteen. The length of their exposure to English instruction ranged from 7 to 10 years. The majority of the informants were females. But that said, gender was not taken into consideration as stipulated by the purpose of the study.

2.2.

Instrumentation: the Questionnaire on Metacognitive Awareness in Listening

The data were collected by means of a questionnaire, Questionnaire on Metacognitive Awareness in Listening (QMAL), adapted from the survey proposed by Vandergrift et al. (2006) with reference to Goh (1997) and Zhang and Goh (2006). The goal of this measure, as expressed by Vandergrift et al., is to “assess student awareness of the listening process (i.e., students’ perceptions of themselves as listeners, their perceptions of the requirements of 427

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

listening tasks, and their awareness of the strategies they deploy to achieve comprehension)” (2006: p 438). Taking into consideration the uniqueness of every context and to enhance the feasibility of the present comparative study, several modifications were applied to Vandergrift’s MALQ and the designed instrument was piloted with 30 Tunisian students of EFL. A few items were added, others were deleted and some rephrased. Problems of redundancy and clarity were revealed and adjusted.

The revised QMAL comprises 23 items that describe listening behaviours while performing listening comprehension tasks. A five-point Likert scale follows each item and indicates the frequency of e ach listening behavior/strategy-use as follows: 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Sometimes; 4 = Often and 5 = Always. The items are categorised according to the distinct aspects of metacognitive knowledge about listening (person, task and strategy), as reviewed earlier in the previous section. The validation procedure of the questionnaire also allowed to further confirm the number and type of categories involved in this self-report instrument. The categories displayed in the QMAL corresponded in fact to the five-factor model of Vandergrift et al. (2006) involving 5 independent metacognitive behaviours related to person knowledge, problem-solving, planning and evaluation, mental translation and directed attention as presented in Table 2 below. They represent different strategies and beliefs such as inference, using context, having a purpose and plan for listening, and self-efficacy. These categories will subsequently serve to easily unravel the type of strategies Tunisian and French listeners use and the degree of their awareness of the listening processes. In addition, a decision was taken to make of English the language of the questionnaire. Having groups of different native languages, it was feared that creating French and Arabic versions of the same questionnaire might not be totally identical; knowing that written standard Arabic is quite different from Tunisian Arabic and perceived as difficult for comprehension. For this reason, piloting the instrument guaranteed the clarity and comprehensibility of the terminology of the items and results would not be altered because of language. Finally, the overall reliability index (Cronbach’s alpha) of the piloted questionnaire was judged satisfactory (α= .782).

428

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

Table 2. Description of metacognitive behaviours/strategies in the QMAL Category person knowledge

Description

Example

Items

Listeners’ perceptions about the difficulty presented by the listening task and their self-efficacy in performing it

Level of anxiety; listening compared to other skills; linguistic confidence in SL listening

1-11- 23

problemsolving

Strategies employed to overcome difficulties in or breakdowns of understanding, to make appropriate inferences and verify these inferences

Using context and known vocabulary to deduce the meaning of unknown words; using background knowledge; correcting one’s interpretation

3-4-6-78-12-1517-20

planning and evaluation

Strategies used by SL listeners to organize and get ready for listening and to assess the outcome

Setting a plan prior to listening; having a purpose while listening; referring to similar oral texts; regularly evaluate personal interpretation of text and efficiency of strategies

Ineffective strategies to avoid and abandon that refer to on-going mental translation

Automatically translate all or key words

9-21

Focusing harder and not giving up when facing difficulty; recovering concentration when losing it

5-13-19

mental translation

directed attention

2.3.

Strategies used for concentration and maintaining attention

2-10-1418-22

Data Collection and Analysis

The collection of data started first in France and was pursued two weeks later in Tunisia. The procedure was the same except that it was carried out on several days in Tunis. The administration of the questionnaire was done by the researcher helped by fellow colleagues and collaborators in both countries. The informants were first engaged in a listening comprehension test involving real-life passages before answering the questionnaire. The rationale was that learners would not approach the questionnaire blind but would have a precise fresh listening task on which they would base their responses. Completion of the questionnaire took about 10 minutes and further clarifications were provided to learners when necessary. After examination, 7 unfinished questionnaires were discarded and only 235 wholly completed questionnaires were retained for analysis.

According to the quantitative nature of this study, descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). Frequency, means, standard deviations and percentages were computed in order to examine English learners’ perceived strategy use and beliefs within each of both participant groups separately. 429

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

A calculation of the mean of subjects’ answers for the entire questionnaire and in relation to the five metacognitive awareness categories of problem solving, planning and evaluation, directed attention, personal knowledge and mental translation. These were analyzed and compared within and between groups. An independent samples t-test was run to inspect whether there was a significant difference between French and Tunisian learners in relation to their metacognitive awareness in listening comprehension. Guidelines and interpretation schemes offered by Oxford (1990) and Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995) were followed as grading criteria for metacognitive awareness degree and to analyze the 5-point Lickert scale employing the three levels of usage: high (mean of 3.5 or higher), medium (mean of 2.5 to 3.4), and low (2.4 or lower). Besides, a scoring guide and scheme were kindly offered by Vandergrift to help interpret the items in the MALQ according to the five categories mentioned earlier.

3. Results and discussion

3.1.

Metacognitive awareness of Tunisian L4 listeners

Table 3 below shows the descriptive statistics of all the items in the questionnaire obtained in the Tunisian environment. The categories to which the items belong are also distinguished. The findings demonstrated that, on the whole, Tunisian learners of English declared possessing nearly all the types of knowledge investigated in the QMAL and employing their representative strategies quite frequently. In fact, almost all of the variables (14) fell into the high-usage level (M ≥ 3.5). 34% of the strategies (8 variables) were of the medium-usage level. Only one strategy (item 21= “I translate word by word, as I listen”) was found to be of low-usage (M ≤ 2.4). This strategy related to the mental translation category.

430

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of each metacognitive awareness variable Category - item N Mean (M) Person knowledge item 1 item 11

Std. Deviation (SD)

125 124

3,14 3,25

,892 1,298

item 16 125 item 23 125 Planning & evaluation item 2 125

3,39 3,18

1,361 1,245

2,90

1,480

item 10 item 14 item 18 item 22 Problem solving item 3 item 4

125 125 125 125

3,73 3,64 3,75 3,84

1,247 1,194 1,209 1,043

124 124

4,28 4,07

,984 1,083

item 6

125

3,81

1,060

item 7

125

4,38

,973

item 8

125

3,94

1,145

item 12

123

3,41

1,024

item 15

125

4,10

1,091

item 17

125

3,80

1,078

item 20

124

3,51

1,179

Directed attention item 5

125

4,37

,955

item 13

125

3,98

1,195

item 19

124

3,48

1,193

item 9 item 21

125 125

3,26 2,4

1,231 1,271

Valid N (listwise)

121

Mental translation

The mean of students’ answers to the directed attention category seemed to be the highest. The overall mean of the variables of this category was computed; M=3.94. Tunisian learners also showed a high usage of problem solving strategies (M=3.92 ; SD=1.1), followed by planning and evaluation (M=3.57 ; SD=1.28) and person knowledge (M=3.23 ; SD=1.21). The strategies belonging to the mental translation category of metacognitive awareness were the least frequently used as the overall mean was low (M=2.83 ; SD=1.31). Looking at the frequencies in the SPSS output, the above results were confirmed. Items 7, 5, 3, 15, 13 and 4 represented the most preferred strategies with 64,8%, 62,4%, 55,2%, 50,4%, 49,6% and 431

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

47,2% of the Tunisian students respectively reported using them “Always”. These variables represent the directed attention and problem solving categories. In addition, as noticed in the table, the standard deviation indexes (SD ≈ 1.1) indicate that there is no significant variation in the students’ answers and their average distance from the mean. Tests of normality of distribution were also conducted and demonstrated that the answers of Tunisian learners were quite normally distributed as shown in Figure 2. This figure displays the normal Q-Q Plots for two distinct items of the questionnaire selected randomly here for demonstration (items 12 and 23). The lines seen in the plots represent the estimated normal distributions. The small loops refer to the observed values in our findings which do not deviate from normality.

Figure 2. Normal Q-Q Plots for two selected items (indicators of normality of distribution)

These results actually suggest that learners in this particular EFL learning context were generally aware of their difficulties as listeners and their listening comprehension processes, since they report being active listeners who try to solve problems when there is a comprehension break-down, thus denoting an ability to monitor comprehension. Tunisian listeners to English seem also to be highly conscious of the significance of directed attention strategies as they report a continuous effort in maintaining their concentration while listening and when confronting a difficulty (item 5 ‘While I listen, I maintain my concentration as much as possible’, M=4.37; and item 13 ‘I focus harder when I have difficulty understanding what is said’, M= 3.98). However, strategies of planning and evaluation were apparently found to be of lesser use. Students showed a lesser capacity of planning for listening

432

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

compared to the other categories. For instance, the behaviour in item 2 ‘Before I start listening, I have a plan how I am going to listen’ was declared to be regular only by 36% of the learners. Nevertheless, the other planning and evaluation strategies in items 10, 18 and 22 were thought to be important and synonym of successful listening comprehension. These high scores indicate an ability to reflect on difficulties and consider alternatives.

On the other hand, apart from mental translation, person knowledge represented beliefs and perceptions about listening that were rarely reported as important by Tunisian subjects. In fact, scoring high in these two factors is not desirable. A high score in mental translation would mean effortful processing through the first language which may interfere with attention to and overall processing of input, while a high score in person knowledge would suggest a high level of anxiety and a lack of confidence. In addition, the efficiency of these strategies and type of knowledge is context-dependent. For example, for item 1 (‘Listening in English is more difficult than reading, speaking or writing in English’), 60% of the informants reported this true sometimes. Yet, for variable 23 (‘I tend to panic when I don’t understand what I hear’), 36,8% of the subjects, which is quite an elevated percentage, admitted this was often true to them.

3.2.

Metacognitive awareness of French L2 listeners

Table 4 below presents the overall mean and standard deviation of the 5 categories constituting metacognitive awareness of French learners of English. According to the results, like the Tunisian subjects, French informants demonstrated a high awareness and a frequent usage of the directed attention and problem solving strategies with M=4.15 and M=3.98 respectively. Thus, L2 listeners seem to have a high ability of making inferences and monitoring these inferences. Subjects report being able to monitor their listening comprehension and solve difficulties as they arise. For example, variable 4 (‘I use the words I understand to guess the meaning of the words I don’t understand’) representing a problem solving strategy fell into the high-usage level with M=4.27 and SD=.86. Other items referring to the problem solving processes include strategies such as relying on the general idea of a listening text to deduce the meaning of unknown words, and using one’s experience and background knowledge to interpret the text.

433

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

Table 4: Descriptive statistics of overall metacognitive awareness for French L2 students Metacognitive Categories Problem solving Planning & evaluation Mental translation Directed attention Person knowledge

N 110 110 110 110 110

Mean 3,98 3,30 2,7 4,15 3,15

Std. Deviation 0,942 1,12 1,249 0,884 1,133

The next highest mean in the French data is that of the planning and evaluation factor M=3.30. Overall, French results seem to be much similar to Tunisian findings. Participants report using strategies pertaining to the same categories within the following same order: 12345-

Directed attention Problem solving Planning and evaluation Person knowledge Mental translation

According to the summary of all metacognitive awareness categories provided in table 4, it can be deduced that the students on the whole displayed characteristics of active strategic listeners. They were conscious of their cognitive process during listening comprehension and were able to employ a wide myriad of listening strategies to achieve successful comprehension. French ESL listeners seem to be effective in choosing the type of strategies that help them overcome difficulties. In fact, like the Tunisians, French learners did not rely much on mental translation strategies as they are actually considered to be ineffective.

3.3.

Differences in metacognitive awareness between French and Tunisian listeners

Given the global similarity observed in both contexts, a closer look at scores obtained in each item was deemed necessary to notify any differences in the degree of metacognitive awareness. Indeed, basic differences appeared in some items. For example, the frequency level of item 22 (‘After listening, I think about my interpretation to see if it is acceptable’) reported by English students in the L2 and L4 environments was M=3.55 and M=3.84 respectively. Tunisian listeners appear to rely more on this strategy. Another example is 434

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

provided by the means obtained for item 10 ‘Before listening, I try to think about and guess the content of the speech based on any information given (e.g., title, topic, pictures, questions…)’. These were M=3.79 and M=3.73 for French and Tunisian contexts respectively. Other differences were spotted within the person knowledge category. In fact, ‘listening in English is more difficult than the other skills’ (item 1) seemed to be truer for the Tunisian than for the French. However, the French ‘tend to panic more when they don’t understand what they hear’ (item 23). This might suggest that the French learners have more negative perception of themselves as L2 listeners of English and that the Tunisians might have more effective communicative skills since they report being less anxious than the French.

Concerning the translation strategies, Tunisian listeners translate more key words, but the French translate more word by word as they listen (FM 2.42 > TM 2.05). This attention given to details in listening comprehension is further verified by the fact that the French listen more closely to every word in order to understand the message (item 6). At this stage, this implies that French learners of English rely more on a bottom-up processing for listening comprehension but needs to be proved.

Nevertheless, despite all the noticeable distinctions mentioned above, the means of the questionnaire variables remain quite approximate. The need for a reliable test that would testify of the worth of any existing difference was urgent. For this purpose, a decision was taken to conduct an independent-samples T-test. This test was used to detect the statistical significant differences in the reported metacognitive awareness between students in L2 and L4 learning contexts. The results of the test are shown in Table 5.

435

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

Table 5: Independent Samples Test: Differences in the degree of metacognitive strategies between EFL and ESL listeners Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

F

Sig. t

df

Sig. (2tailed)

233 ,236

Std. Error Mean Difference Difference

Lower Upper

,137

,115

-,090 ,363

Item 1

1,935 ,166 1,188

Item 2

8,572 ,004 -1,409 233 ,160

-,251

,178

-,601 ,100

Item 3

2,438 ,120 -,302

232 ,763

-,037

,122

-,277 ,204

Item 4

6,625 ,011 1,548

232 ,123

,200

,129

-,055 ,455

Item 5

21,715 ,000 2,027

232 ,044

,212

,105

,006

Item 6

,579

-,279

,136

-,546 -,011

Item 7

5,426 ,021 -,599

232 ,550

-,068

,113

-,291 ,156

Item 8

13,561 ,000 1,962

233 ,051

,256

,131

-,001 ,513

Item 9

,103

,749 ,688

233 ,492

,108

,156

-,200 ,416

Item 10

11,003 ,001 ,419

233 ,675

,063

,150

-,233 ,359

Item 11

5,195 ,024 -,146

232 ,884

-,023

,155

-,329 ,283

Item 12

6,809 ,010 2,768

231 ,006

,340

,123

,098

Item 13

23,654 ,000 1,390

232 ,166

,189

,136

-,079 ,457

Item 14

28,136 ,000 -2,709 230 ,007

-,369

,136

-,637 -,101

Item 15

25,512 ,000 2,170

233 ,031

,260

,120

,024

Item 16

,079

232 ,608

-,089

,174

-,432 ,253

Item 17

6,880 ,009 ,212

233 ,832

,027

,129

-,226 ,281

Item 18

,285

-,497

,163

-,819 -,175

Item 19

8,812 ,003 1,521

,220

,145

-,065 ,505

Item 20

,339

,561 -1,124 232 ,262

-,172

,153

-,473 ,129

Item 21

19,092 ,000 -2,493 233 ,013

-,371

,149

-,663 -,078

Item 22

1,951 ,164 -2,351 233 ,020

-,295

,125

-,541 -,048

Item 23

,014

-,340

,162

-,659 -,020

,447 -2,054 230 ,041

,779 -,513

,594 -3,044 233 ,003 230 ,130

,906 -2,092 233 ,037

,418

,582

,495

The most important columns in the t-test output are the Sig. and the Sig.(2-tailed) column which would ascertain if the French and Tunisian means are statistically different from each item. The value provided in the Sig.(2-tailed) column is named p and stands for probability of error. When the p value is greater than .05, the variability in the two learning environments is about the same. In this case, the scores in the French environment do not vary much more than the scores in the Tunisian context. This would mean that the variability in the two English contexts is not significantly different. According to the results however, some of the p values are < .05. The null hypothesis of no difference between the two groups is rejected. There is in fact a statistically significant difference between the mean frequency scores of Tunisian and French listeners. The items 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, 22 and 23 show this 436

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

significant difference. The basic differences lie principally in the problem solving and planning and evaluation categories represented by 3 items each. For example, for variable 5 p=.044. It follows that Tunisians maintain their concentration while listening, adjust their interpretation, and use the general idea of the text to guess meaning of words more than the French. The French, however, are better at planning their listening and evaluating their comprehension and what could be used in future listening texts that they would encounter. The other categories are also represented by 1 item each. For instance, there is a statistically significant difference between the two groups with regards to person knowledge. In fact, the p value obtained for variable 23 now statistically confirms what was suggested earlier, namely the French panic more than the Tunisians (p=.037). In sum, the above analysis has demonstrated that, even though the French and Tunisian learners of English had quite an equal metacognitive awareness, they were different with regard to the type of processes and strategies they employ during listening comprehension in a foreign language. According to the data, it appears that, although the French studied English as an L2 and were introduced to this language much earlier than the Tunisians who learnt it as an L4, the Tunisian students used more top-down processes. They in fat perceived global strategies as more important than those pertaining to listening for detail. This was seen, as discussed earlier, in their results concerning the means of items 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 20. According to many scholars in the field, using top-down processes is quite often synonym of success in language comprehension and learning (Tsui and Fullilove, 1998; Rost, 2002; Vandergrift, 2004; Flowerdew & Miller, 2005). The French reported they rely also on some bottom-up strategies and were more anxious about listening than the Tunisian learners. This would suggest that, in this context, L4 students would outperform L2 learners in listening comprehension tests. There exists in the literature a correlation between high metacognitive awareness, types of listening processes and scores in listening tests (Vandergrift et al., 2006). Yet, for this to be affirmed, further research is required in these learning contexts.

4. Conclusion The study set out to investigate the degree of the metacognitive awareness in listening for French and Tunisian tertiary level students of English. This was measured through their reported beliefs and use of strategies as revealed by the MALQ. Thus, the major focus of this research was to suggest any potential cross-cultural differences in metacognitive awareness 437

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

strategy use. It actually further confirmed that different cultural and social backgrounds necessarily have an influence on learners’ beliefs and cognition about FL learning in general and listening in particular. This implies that French and Tunisian students held distinct procedural knowledge and approached listening tasks with specific predetermined notions of how to perform it. All of the participants in this study showed characteristics of active strategic listeners. They seemed to have quite a clear idea about themselves as listeners, about the needs and processes involved in listening comprehension and about the strategies in listening. They were conscious of their cognitive processes during listening and demonstrated an ability to utilize a wide range of EFL listening strategies. The present study findings actually support other results of previous studies (Goh, 1997; Vandergrift, 2003; Liu and Goh, 2006; Zhang and Goh, 2006) which claimed that successful foreign language listeners, like any native user of the target language, possess satisfactory knowledge about listening in a different language and were aware of a multitude of listening strategies available for use. The long exposure to the target language and the adoption of the communicative approach (CA) to teaching foreign languages (information provided via informal interviews with French and Tunisian teachers of English) in both countries could explain the awareness and the similarities revealed in this research. As for the differences in metacognition categories, these are related to the present types of learning environment. The informants of the study learn English in different linguistic and cultural contexts. The French L2 learners having more developed planning-evaluation strategies could be due to the fact that teachers in France give more importance to pre- and post-listening activities, although the CA is adopted in both countries. The French also use more translation bottom-up ineffective strategies. This might be traced back to the over-reliance on and over-use of L1 (French language) in French classrooms. In addition, during informal interviews, some French teachers admitted resorting to translating target words and ideas very often and quite immediately when they notice a comprehension difficulty. It seems that there is some resistance to what the CA advocates concerning the use of translation and there is still reference to classical approaches to teaching. This would explain the fact that Tunisians seem to be better at using the general idea of the text for guessing what they do not understand. As for person knowledge differences, the French learners declared they are very often nervous and tend to panic when they have to listen to English. In fact, according to the informal conversations held with the participants and their teachers of English, French students lack confidence and generally feel quite embarrassed when thy have to communicate in English. Moreover, Tunisian learners of English have already acquired their native language (Tunisian Arabic as L1) and other two 438

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

foreign languages (Standard Arabic and French as L2 and L3 respectively). Successful transfer of L1, L2 and L3 listening comprehension strategies and acquaintance with different FLs might also clarify why Tunisians are more self-knowing.

5. Implications for teaching and learning FL listening The questionnaire proved that FL students possess a high degree of metacognitive awareness. In this paper, we agree with earlier studies such as Goh (1997; 2000) and Vandergrift et.al. (2006) and stress on the fact that research instruments, such as diaries, questionnaires or introspection, can be diverted and employed as a metacognitive-awareness-raising tool and a stimulus for students to reflect on their strategy use and listening difficulties. Teachers, especially in the French context, are urged to consider the importance of the topdown type of processing for listening comprehension. Teachers should systematically encourage their students become strategic learners. Efficient listening strategies need to be explicitly taught. Learners should be taught how to listen and not merely be tested on comprehension. This can be achieved by involving students in thinking about their listening processes. Students should be encouraged to discuss their listening experiences in class from a metacognitive viewpoint. For example, teachers could spend more time in the pre- and postlistening tasks and develop the nature of the discussions occurring during these activities. According to the particular findings of the present study, there should be an extensive preparation prior to listening in English. French as well as Tunisian learners require learning how to plan their listening (what to do and in what order). Prediction should be stressed upon as a very effective strategy to successful comprehension. Students should learn to use their already existing schemata knowledge about their world and linguistic experiences. Predicting from context should not however be limited to the pre-listening stage. In addition, motivating students by explaining the purpose of each task is also necessary. Here, learners can discuss the potential difficulties that can be encountered and the strategies that can be used to overcome these challenges. For the while-listening stage, teachers in the French L2 learning setting could restore the noticed students’ gap in strategy use through an extensive work on the top-down strategies which are supposed to whip away comprehension problems and cover the deficiencies of bottom-up strategies. The two key strategies that French learners should develop, according to the results of the metacognitive awareness questionnaire, are using background knowledge and using context to find the meaning of unknown words. Learners, particularly Tunisians, should be further encouraged to systematically evaluate their 439

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

comprehension during and after listening. Finally, teachers should also encourage students to reflect on the effectiveness of the strategies they choose for one listening text or the other. It is hoped that self-regulated learning would result from classroom development and raising of students’ metacognitive awareness, and thus learners would be successful in FL listening. As has been argued earlier in this paper, high scores in listening comprehension tests are significantly correlated with high metacognitive awareness (Vandergrift et al. 2006). This could be assessed for our participants via further research.

6. Limitations The present study has only provided insight into few cross-cultural discrepancies in the degree of metacognitive knowledge and type of metacognitive awareness strategies used by the French and Tunisian students for listening comprehension in English. The first limitation of this study lies in the instrumentation used. In fact, it only relied on students’ perceptions revealed by the self-report questionnaire. There is a need for an online measure, such as thinkaloud, to investigate the actual use of the reported metacognitive awareness strategies. It is also recommended that future research in these environments concentrate on other types of strategies, like cognitive and socio-affective, to have a better complete picture of all the listening strategies employed by the French and the Tunisians. Further research should also call for more heterogeneous groups as far as level of study is concerned. The present study relied only on tertiary level students measuring in English. This could have influenced the type of data obtained since these students have a high overall EFL proficiency. A quite advanced mastery of English in this case could have contributed to the high frequency of strategy use revealed by this study.

References Anderson, J. (1999). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications (Fifth Edition.). Worth Publishers. Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. Eric Digest, 35(5), 56–70. Bolitho, R. (2003). Ten questions about language awareness. ELT Journal, 57(3), 251–259. Chamot et al. (1999). Learning Strategies Handbook (1st ed.). Pearson ESL. Fernandez-Duque, Baird, & Posner. (2000a). Awareness and metacognition. Consciousness 440

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

and Cognition, 9, 324–326. Fernandez-Duque, D., Baird, J. A., & Posner, M. I. (2000b). Executive attention and metacognitive regulation. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 288–307. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive– developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Flowerdew, J. & L. Miller. (2005). Second Language Listening: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goh, C. (1997). Metacognitive awareness and second language listeners. ELT Journal, 51(4), 361–369. Goh, C . (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28(1), 55–75. Goh, C. (2002). Learners self-reports on comprehension and learning strategies for listening. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12, 46 – 68. Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: theory, practice and research implications. RELC Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 39(2), 188–213. Goh, C. & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal, 60(3), 222–232. Graham, S. (1997). Effective Language Learning: Positive Strategies for Advanced Level Language Learning. Multilingual Matters. Graham, S. (2006). A study of students’ metacognitive beliefs about foreign language study and their impact on learning. Foreign Language Annals, 39(2), 296–309. Jun Zhang, L. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268–288. Mendelsohn, D. J. (1994). Learning to Listen: A Strategy-Based Approach for the SecondLanguage Learner. Dominie Press. Mendelsohn, D. J., & Rubin, J. (1995). A guide for the teaching of second language listening. Dominie Press. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of 441

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

reading strategies. Journal of educational psychology, 94(2), 249–259. O’malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., & Küpper, L. (1989). Listening comprehension strategies in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 10(4), 418–437. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know (1st ed.). Heinle ELT. Oxford R.L., & Burry-Stock J.A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning (SILL). System, 23(1), 1–23. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. (B.F. Jones & L. Idol Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459–470. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225 Rivers, W. P., & Rivers, W. P. (2001). Autonomy at All Costs: An Ethnography of Metacognitive Self‐Assessment and Self‐Management among Experienced Language Learners, Autonomy at All Costs: An Ethnography of Metacognitive Self‐Assessment and Self‐Management among Experienced Language Learners. The Modern Language Journal, The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 279–290. Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and Researching Listening. London: Pearson Education. Schoonen, R., Hulstijn, J., & Bossers, B. (1998). Metacognitive and language-specific knowledge in native and foreign language reading comprehension: An empirical study among Dutch students in grades 6, 8, and 10. Language Learning, 48(1), 71–106. Shimamura, A. P. (2000). Toward a cognitive neuroscience of metacognition. Consciousness and Cognition, 9, 313–323; discussion 324–326. SPSS, Inc. (2009). SPSS 17.0 for Windows. Chicago: SPSS Inc. Tsui, A. & J. Fullilove. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 432 – 451. Vandergrift, L. (1998). Successful and less successful listeners in French: What are the strategy differences? French Review, 370–395. Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension: Acquiring successful strategies. ELT Journal, 53(3), 168–176. 442

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

Vandergrift, L. (2002). « It Was Nice to See That Our Predictions Were Right »: Developing metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(4), 555–575. Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language learning, 53(3), 463–496. Vandergrift, L. (2003). From prediction through reflection: Guiding students through the process of L2 listening. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3), 425–440. Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3 – 25. Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive awareness and proficiency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 70–89. Vandergrift, L, & Goh, C.(2009). Teaching and testing listening comprehension. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching (p. 395–411). Wiley‐Blackwell. Vandergrift, L, Goh, Mareschal, C., & Tafaghodtari, M. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431– 462. Vandergrift, Laurens, & Vandergrift, Larry. (1997). The Comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 387–409. Vandergrift, L. & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. New York: Routledge. Wenden, A. (1987). Metacognition: An expanded view on the cognitive abilities of L2 learners. Language Learning, 37(4), 573–597. Wenden, A. (1991). Learner Strategies For Learner Autonomy (1st ed.). Prentice Hall College Div. Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning1. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537. Wenden, A. L. (1999). An introduction to Metacognitive Knowledge and Beliefs in Language Learning: beyond the basics. System, 27(4), 435–441. Wenden, A. L. (2002). Learner Development in Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 32–55. Zhang, D., & Goh, C. (2006). Strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use: Singaporean students’ awareness of listening and speaking strategies. Language Awareness, 15(3), 443

Approaches and Methods in Second and Foreign Language Teaching

199–119. Zimmerman, B. (1990). Self-regulating academic learning and achievement: The emergence of a social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 2(2), 173–201.

444