##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 142 Download : 90

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Abstract

Many language students struggle with listening because it's essential to communicate. This research aimed to examine how ESL students used metacognitive strategies to improve their listening comprehension while preparing for the International English Language Testing System (IELTS). In this study, semi-structured interviews were utilized as a research tool to explore how chosen participants employed metacognitive strategies to improve their listening comprehension in preparation for the International English Language Testing System (IELTS). Ten undergraduate students were interviewed for this study; they had all participated in an intervention program to teach them metacognitive strategies for improving their listening. We recorded and transcribed the semi-structured interviews and used a coding system to analyze the data. Although most people of average intelligence engage in metacognitive regulation when presented with an effortful cognitive task, the results of this study suggest that some people are more metacognitive than others, implying that metacognitive strategies give a viable solution for acquiring appropriate skills in the listening component. Successful academic performance is typically associated with high levels of metacognition. Students were open to the new methods and gained self-assurance due to their improved ability to study independently. Therefore it also had a favorable effect on their learning habits. Using metacognitive tactics to help students of all skill levels improve their English listening is an area with much-untapped promise

Keywords

independently promise metacognitive students

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Fadhil Abdulzahra Tarad. (2023). College-Level ESL Students’ Metacognitive Strategies for Mastering the IELTS Listening Course. Texas Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 23, 34–42. Retrieved from https://zienjournals.com/index.php/tjm/article/view/4321

References

  1. Al-Ghazo, A., 2016. The effect of explicit instruction of meta cognitive learning strategies on promoting Jordanian language learners' reading competence. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(10): 170-177.
  2. Almor, A., M.J. Carvalho, M.L.C. Lima, M. Vernice and C. Gelormini-Lezama, 2017. Language processing, acceptability, and statistical distribution: A study of null and overt subjects in Brazilian portuguese. Journal of Memory and Language, 92:
  3. Arnold, J., 2000. Seeing through listening comprehension exam anxiety. Tesol Quarterly, 34(4): 777-786.
  4. Azmi, M.Z., 2015. An overview of Malaysian english language learning strategies. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 6.
  5. Baker, L. and A.L. Brown, 1984. Metacognitive skills and reading. Handbook of Reading Research, 1(353): V394.
  6. Barnhardt, S., A.U. Chamot, P.B. El-Dinary and J. Robbins, 1999. Learning strategies handbook. Addison-Wesley Longman. Borkowski, J.G., M. Carr, E. Rellinger and M. Pressley, 1990. Self-regulated cognition: Interdependence of metacognition,
  7. attributions, and self-esteem. Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction, 1: 53-92.
  8. Buchstaller, I. and G. Khattab, 2013. Population samples. Research Methods in Linguistics. pp: 74-95.
  9. Carr, M., B.E. Kurtz, W. Schneider, L.A. Turner and J.G. Borkowski, 1989. Strategy acquisition and transfer among American and German children: Environmental influences on metacognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 25(5): 765.
  10. Chamot, A.U., 2005. Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25: 112-130.
  11. Cooper, C. and J. Boyd, 1996. Mindful learning. Global Learning Communities.
  12. Davidson, J.E. and R.J. Sternberg, 1998. Smart problem solving: How metacognition helps. Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice: 47-68.
  13. Dominowski, R.L., 1998. Verbalization and problem solving. Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice: 25-45.
  14. Dörnyei, Z. and K. Csizér, 2011. How to design and analyze surveys in second language acquisition research. Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition: A Practical Guide: 74-94.
  15. Flavell, J.H., 1976. Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp: 231-235.
  16. Flavell, J.H., 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10): 906.
  17. Goh, C., 2008. Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development theory, practice and research implications.
  18. RELC Journal, 39(2): 188-213.
  19. Goh, C.C., 2000. A cognitive perspective on language learners' listening comprehension problems. System, 28(1): 55-75.
  20. Graham, S., 2006. Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System, 34(2): 165-182.
  21. Hacker, D.J., 1998. Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. Metacognition in Educational theory and Practice: 165-
  22. Hacker, D.J., J. Dunlosky and A.C. Graesser, 1998. Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Routledge.
  23. Hiew, W., 2012. English language teaching and learning issues in Malaysia: Learners'perceptions Via Facebook Dialogue Journal.
  24. Researchers World, 3(1): 11.
  25. Kluwe, R.H., 1987. Executive decisions and regulation of problem solving behavior. Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding: 31-64.
  26. Lim, T.D., 2013. Analyzing Malaysian english classrooms: Reading, writing, speaking and listening teaching strategies (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Washington).
  27. Littlewood, W., 1999. Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1): 71-94.
  28. Littlewood, W., 2000. Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal, 54(1): 31-36.
  29. Mendelsohn, D.J., 1998. Teaching listening. Annual review of applied linguistics, 18: 81-101.
  30. Nelson, T.O. and L. Narens, 1990. Metamemory: A theoretical framework and some new findings. In G.H. Bower (Ed). The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. New York: Academic Press, 26: 125-173.
  31. Nelson, T.O., L.M.J. Narens and A.P. Shimamura, 1994. Metacognition: Knowing about knowing, (pp. 1-25). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press, xiii. pp: 334.
  32. Newby, J.M. and M.A. Schwemmer, 2014. Effects of moderate noise on a limit cycle oscillator: Counterrotation and bistability.
  33. Physical Review Letters, 112(11): 114101.
  34. O'malley, J.M. and A.U. Chamot, 1990. Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
  35. O'malley, J.M., A.U. Chamot, G.L.O.R.I.A. Stewner-Manzanares, R.P. Russo and L. Küpper, 1985. Learning strategy applications with students of english as a second language. Tesol Quarterly, 19(3): 557-584.
  36. Otero, J., 1998. Influence of knowledge activation and context on comprehension monitoring of science texts. Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice: 145-164.
  37. Pichler, H. and A. Hesson, 2016. Discourse-pragmatic variation across situations, varieties, ages: I don't know in sociolinguistic and medical interviews. Language & Communication, 49: 1-18.
  38. Polio, C., 2012. The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4): 375-389.
  39. Pressley, M., 2002. Comprehension strategies ınstruction: A turn of the century status report, comprehension ınstruction research based best practices. London: Guilford Pres.
  40. Reder, L.M. and C.D. Schunn, 1996. Metacognition does not imply awareness: Strategy choice is governed by implicit learning and memory. In implicit memory and metacognition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  41. RÉvÉsz, A., 2014. Task-based learning: Research methods. Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Robbins, J., 1996. Language learning strategies instruction in Asia: Cooperative autonomy?
  42. Saini, M. and A. Shlonsky, 2012. Systematic synthesis of qualitative research. OUP USA.
  43. Son, L.K. and B.L. Schwartz, 2002. The relation between metacognitive monitoring and control. Applied Metacognition: 15-38.
  44. Stephens, J.C., M.E. Hernandez, M. Román, A.C. Graham and R.W. Scholz, 2008. Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(3): 317-
  45. Vandergrift, L. and C.C. Goh, 2012. Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. Routledge. Wenden, A.L., 2001. Metacognitive knowledge in SLA: The neglected variable. Learner contributions to language learning: New Directions in Research: 44-64.