Metacognition in Second Language
Teaching & Learning of Listening
Research Paper Written by Hanadi
Mirza
In the early 80s, an increasing need emerged to help
language learners reflect upon and refine their beliefs and knowledge about
learning, which is known as metacognition. Studies on metacognition can enhance
not only students’ understanding of those approaches to second language
acquisition which assign an active role to the learner but also provide
practical implications to second language instruction (Wenden, 1998).
Distinguishing between cognition and metacognition results in that cognition
involves both the knowledge of the world and the strategies for using that
knowledge to solve problems, whereas metacognition includes monitoring,
controlling, and understanding one’s knowledge and strategies. In 1979, Flavell
presented a model of cognitive monitoring which has been a useful theoretical
foundation for researchers interested in the metacognitive aspects of human
thinking. According to his model, cognitive monitoring occurs through the
actions and interactions among two or more of the following variables of the
metacognitve knowledge: 1) the person- including his/her prior knowledge of the
world, 2) the task- what s/he should do as a goal, and 3) the strategy- how
s/he should achieve that goal (Flavell, 1979). This research paper will show
how metacognition in second language teaching and learning of listening
reflects Flavell’s model of metacognition which includes the metacognitive
knowledge of the person, the task, and the strategy.
Metacognition
plays an important role in second language teaching and learning. Making students learn to think
about what happens during the language learning process is facilitated by the
teachers who can model strategies for learners to follow in all five stages of
the metacognitive model. This model combines various attended thinking and
reflective processes. A brief illustration of a metacognitive model is given
below discussing the five components of metacognition including:
(1) preparing and planning for learning, that is to set a goal and work on
achieving it,
(2) selecting and using learning strategies which will help students make
conscious decisions about the learning process,
(3) monitoring strategy use aiming at keeping learners on track to meet
their learning goals,
(4) orchestrating various strategies which is the ability to coordinate,
organize, and make associations among the various strategies available and (5)
evaluating strategy use and learning, through which learners evaluate whether
what they are doing is effective. This evaluation stage allows the second
language learner to reflect through the cycle of learning while integrating all
of the previous aspects of metacognition (
The aforementioned metacognitive stages would help the students reflect on their
conscious learning of the listening skill. Teaching learners how the
metacognitive skills interact involves the interaction of
Flavell’s three metacognitive knowledge: 1) the person, 2) the task, and
3) the strategy.
Metacognitve
awareness in second language (L2) listening is highly related to
motivation. In other words, the more
extrinsically motivated the listeners the greater the tendency to report these
listening strategies such as self-encouragement and paying attention when in
difficulty (See Appendices A and B). Also, while intrinsically motivated,
listeners improve in their listening strategies such as listening for overall
meaning and using comprehension questions to aid comprehension. More advanced listening strategies require
self-determination in listeners such as paying more attention and focusing
harder when in difficulty (Vandergrift, 2004).
Teaching students to use a metacognitve model in listening can be
done by helping them develop a metacognitve model of self-regulated listening
comprehension. Self regulated listeners are now active learners and are aware
of how to plan for a listening task, how to monitor their comprehension, and
how to evaluate their performance. Students’ conscious awareness of the above
mentioned strategies can ensure their successful completion of a listening task
(Vandergrift, 2002). When teachers and students reflect on the process of
listening, these interactions can help students develop metacognitive
knowledge, thereby facilitating self-regulated learning. As suggested by Goh
(1997), awareness of the process of listening can also be fostered through
careful use of a pedagogical sequence of pre-listening, listening, and
post-listening activities. This sequence of teaching strategies promotes the
acquisition of appropriate metacognitive knowledge about listening, in
particular strategic knowledge of metacognitive strategies such as planning,
monitoring, and evaluating. The importance of pre-listening activities lies in
helping students plan for the successful completion of a listening task by
making decisions about what to listen for and focusing attention on meaning
while listening (Wenden, 1991).
While there is
certainly some overlap in the types of knowledge reflected in Vandergrift’s
comments mentioned below, the data highlights a high degree of the interaction
of Flavell’s three metacognitive knowledge. Students are aware of the factors
that affect listening comprehension (task knowledge), they have some
understanding about themselves as L2 listeners (person knowledge), and they are
aware of what they can do to improve performance in future listening tasks
(strategic knowledge). Vandergrift (1999) emphasized the importance of the use of
listening comprehension checklists to help students consciously focus on the
process of listening. Teachers can help students use strategies such as
'listening hard' and 'thinking hard' which imply some focused attention to the
auditory text. These strategies include directed attention or self-management
using statements such as 'I was quiet' and 'I did not talk' that would help
them achieve success in listening tasks.
In addition, students can use their background knowledge to predict and
listen selectively while using such statements as ‘I predicted the answers
because I know that …’ and to verify the accuracy of their predictions while
monitoring their comprehension (Vandergrift, 2002).
Fogarty
(1994) suggested that only when students become aware of their own behavior
that they become self-regulatory about that behavior (Vandergrift, 2002).
Students’ conscious awareness of their planning, monitoring, and evaluation
strategies can ensure their successful completion of various listening tasks. When learners reflect
upon their learning strategies, they become better prepared to make conscious
decisions about what they can do to improve their learning while making use of
Flavell’s interaction of the three metacognitive knowledge of the person, the
task, and the strategy. Helping students
develop metacognition in L2 listening can be achieved only when listening
practice and reflection on the process is done outside of the context of
evaluation. Therefore, when teachers use listening activities only to test comprehension
of specific details of a text, this leads to anxiety among learners and
consequently impedes the development of their metacognitive knowledge.
Appendix A
A Checklist for Good and Poor Listeners
|
|
4 Start
Here |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
All descriptors for a “4” are
in place, but student listening during this project has gone beyond the
criteria for a “4”. q Listened intensely to what the person was
saying, trying to put him/herself into the other person’s “shoes”
(empathy). q Student always sought a deep understanding
of what others were saying. |
Listening with Understanding
and Empathy When working with others during
this project, student: q Always tried to understand the other
person’s point of view. q Listened to what the person was saying,
trying to put him/herself into the other person’s “shoes” (empathy). q Held back on her/his values, opinions or
prejudices. q If asked, could give examples for another
person’s ideas. q Built on the ideas of others during
meetings. q Listened intensely to instructions and therefore
had a very good understanding of expectations. |
A few minor issues with
listening that may be described below. |
Some larger issues with student
listening that may be described below. |
Several large issues with
student listening. |
|
|
Possible problems with
Listening during this project: q
Student
may not really be listening to what others are saying, but s/he may be
thinking about what s/he wants to say while the other person is talking. q
Student
may laugh at or put down the ideas of others.
q
Student
may interrupt others. q
Student
may not really build on the ideas of the others, or could not give an example
of the other person’s ideas. Student’s posture may not show that they are
listening. q Student may not hold back of his/her
opinions or prejudices while listening. q Student may not really try to understand
the other person’s point of view. q Student may not have listened effectively
to instructions and therefore had little understanding of expectations. |
|||||
Checklist rating students’ level of listening with understanding
and empathy, developed by Costa et al. 2000.
Appendix B
Expert versus Novice Listeners
“Good listeners
really try to understand what other people are saying” (Costa, 2000, p.24). If
they disagree with what someone says, it is only after truly understanding
them. Highly effective and intelligent people spend quite a bit of time
listening…trying to understand another person’s point of view. They listen to
more than what the person is saying, they try to put themselves into the other
person’s “shoes” (empathy). Effective listeners hold back on their values,
opinions and prejudices. They can give examples for another person’s ideas, and
they build on the ideas of others. Poor listeners are not really listening to
what others are saying, but are just thinking about what they want to say while
the other person is talking.
References
Anderson, N. J. (2002). The
Role of Metacognition in Second Language Teaching and Learning.
Costa, A.L. & Kallick, B. (2000).
Habits of Mind: Discovering and
Exploring.
Flavell, J.
(1979).Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: a New Area of
Cognitive
Developmental Inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10), 906 – 911.
Fogarty
(1994) as cited in Vandergrift (2002).
Vandergrift, L. (1999) as cited
in Vandergrift (2002).
Vandergrift, L. (2002). It Was Nice to See that Our
Predictions Were Right. Developing Metacognition in L2
Listening Comprehension.
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Relationships among
Motivation, Orientations, Metacognitive Awareness and Proficiency in L2
Listening. Applied Linguistics.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner
Strategies for Learner Autonomy.
Wenden. A. L. (1998).Metacognitive Knowledge and
Language Learning.