Bahador Taherkhani1
Seyed Hesamuddin Aliasin
Robab Khosravi
Siros Izadpanah- 1Department of English Language, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran
- 2Department of English Language Teaching, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, Iran
This study investigated the effects of metacognitive listening strategy instruction (MLSI) and learners’ locus of control orientation on the listening comprehension of EFL learners. 100 EFL students at the University of Zanjan and Imam Khomeini International University of Qazvin were randomly chosen. The participants were randomly assigned to an experimental group (N = 50) and a control group (N = 50). The experimental group received 10 weeks of treatment including 10 sessions of metacognitive listening strategy training. Both groups took the Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire and Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control Scale before the treatment sessions. Then, they took the listening pre-test and after the treatment, the listening post-test was administered and the required data was obtained. The findings revealed that MLSI had a significant impact on the learners’ listening comprehension for the learners with internal LoC; However, external LoC did not have any significant moderating effect on listening comprehension ability. Pedagogical implications are suggested for an EFL teaching/learning context.
Introduction
Numerous studies have reported the benefits of metacognitive strategy instruction and internal locus of control concerning L2 language learning (Goh, 2002a; Mokhtari and Sheorey, 2002; Bolitho et al., 2003; Chamot, 2005a; Bozorgi, 2009; Bulus, 2011). However, few studies have been carried out to explore the impact of metacognitive strategy training concomitantly with the moderating the effect of locus of control orientation on Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension.
The listening skill plays a crucial role in communication in general and language learning in particular (Rubin, 1994; Anderson and Lynch, 1998; Amir et al., 2020) and can be said to be the most fundamental language skill (Oxford, 1993). The demanding task of teaching and learning this skill can be said to cause frustration, poor performance, and negligence of listening instruction (Bozorgian, 2014). This happens due to the complex nature of listening, owing to both external factors (e.g., speech rate, unaccustomed cultural reference, or accent) and internal factors (e.g., motivation, self-esteem, or locus of control) (Lynch, 2011; Mustofa and Sari, 2020).
Metacognitive strategy training is a way to reduce the complexity of listening tasks by controlling and monitoring the processes. Research has shown that metacognitive strategy instruction is profitable in this respect (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Vandergrift, 2003, 2006, 2007; Vandergrift and Tafaghodtari, 2010; Cross, 2011; Maftoon and Fakhri Alamdari, 2020). As Davidson and Sternberg (1998) pointed out, metacognitive knowledge allows problem solvers to perform better in encoding or investigating the problem in its context.
Kennelly and Mount (1985) propose that closely related to metacognition is locus of control orientation. Studies on these two concepts have revealed a positive relationship between strategy instruction and internal locus of control as predictors of successful language learning and acquisition (Arslan and Akin, 2014; Mesgar et al., 2014). LoC has been studied since the 1960s in connection with motivation (Kader, 2014; Schipor and Schipor, 2014), happiness (Marrero Quevedo and Carballeira Abella, 2014), hopelessness (Bagge et al., 2014), and academic achievement (Chalak et al., 2014; Sagone and Caroli, 2014). Although there has been some research related to LoC, metacognition and listening comprehension, the findings are not conclusive and require more studies. Thus, this study is one such attempt at further exploring the issue.
Review of Related Literature
Listening Comprehension
Among the main language skills, the listening skill had been overlooked for years; but in the 1970s, it gradually became important (Holden, 2004). According to Chastain (1988), listening had been overlooked due to the failure of the students and teachers in understanding the “need for developing functional listening comprehension skills” (p. 192). Vandergrift (2007) also believes that this failure may be connected to the implicit nature of listening, the ephemerality of acoustic input, and the inaccessibility of listening processes. Today, however, the role of listening in EFL/ESL programs is already well recognized (Goh, 2000; Lotfi, 2012).
In the late 19th century, the importance of oral skills was emphasized by reformists, which led to the emergence of new teaching methods such as the audio-lingual method which was later completed by Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) (Goh, 2008). Later, the mechanical process of language acquisition was challenged by a new method that addressed the mental and cognitive processes (Rahimi and Katal, 2013). Some studies (e.g., Rubin, 1994; Lynch, 1998; Vandergrift, 2004; Macaro et al., 2007) shifted to new approaches influenced by developments in linguistic and cognitive psychology. Cognitive psychology emphasizes listening over speaking by highlighting the comprehensible input in listening (e.g., Krashen and Terrell, 1983).
Recently, the role of social context in listening comprehension instruction has been highlighted. According to these models, the focus should chiefly be on interactive listening in which listeners have an active role as they interact with the interlocutor. This has caused an increasing interest in investigating the role of strategy use in listening comprehension development and consequently established the theoretical foundation for strategy-based classroom instruction (Rahimi and Katal, 2013).
The second half of the twentieth century heralded a new era of focus on individual learner differences (cognitive and metacognitive differences) and their role in language learning and teaching (Kök, 2013; Whitehead, 2020). Early research was mostly based on Krashen’s idea that mere exposure to comprehensible input would increase listening skills and promote language acquisition. However, this focus has been replaced by an emphasis on how input is processed by the learners (Vandergrift, 1999). Consequently, knowing what strategies learners use and what predicaments they encounter has become a fundamental part of listening research. Listening experts argue that learners will perform better if they learn more about cognitive and metacognitive processes in listening comprehension (Flowerdew and Miller, 2005; Coşkun, 2010). In addition, some researchers believe that equipping learners with proper and effective listening strategies, such as planning, monitoring and evaluating will help them to become more efficient listeners (Vandergrift, 2002, 2004; Panggabean and Triassanti, 2020).
Metacognitive Listening Strategies
In the 1960s, research into Language Learning Strategies (LLS) began. This was due to the development in cognitive psychology (Williams and Burden, 1997). The primary focus was on the reports of efficient language learners on how they learn a language. These successful learners were put under observation (Wenden and Rubin, 1987). The first article published about learner strategies was in 1966 by Aaron Carton, entitled “The Method of Inference in Foreign Language Study.” Afterwards, numerous studies on learning strategies followed (e.g., O’Malley et al., 1985, 1989; O’Malley and Chamot, 1988, 1990, 2001; Goh, 1997, 2002b; Annevirta and Vauras, 2003; Chamot, 2004, 2005a,b; Habte-Gabr, 2006; Macaro, 2006; Cross, 2011; Abdul Malik et al., 2013).
The term metacognition was first introduced by Flavell (1979). He identified three types of metacognitive knowledge: person, task, and strategy knowledge. According to Wenden (1991), person knowledge is the general knowledge learners have about how learning happens and how various elements such as age and learning styles can influence language learning. In addition, it is the knowledge learners have about themselves and their beliefs about success or failure. Task knowledge refers to what learners know about the aims, demands, the nature of the tasks, and the knowledge of the procedures to complete these tasks. Strategic knowledge is about learners’ knowledge of the strategy used in order to be successful in achieving learning goals. Thus, it can be said it is the knowledge of knowing how best to approach language learning.
Metacognitive strategies are generally divided into three types: planning, monitoring, and evaluating; therefore, they help learners to understand both what they can learn (knowledge of cognition) and how they can learn it (regulation of cognition) (Eftekhary and Gharib, 2013). These strategies can be parallel to the pre-task, on-task, and post-task activities featured in many texts (Holden, 2004). Anderson (2002) emphasizes the importance of metacognitive strategies among cognitive and socio-affective strategies in developing learners’ skills. Various researchers have pointed out the importance of metacognitive strategies and their direct influence on the learning process and outcome (Pressley et al., 1987; Paris and Winograd, 1990; Victori and Lockhart, 1995; Winne, 1995; Schoonen et al., 1998; Boekaerts et al., 2000; Zimmerman and Schunk, 2001; Mokhtari and Reichard, 2002; Pintrich, 2002; Bolitho et al., 2003; Eilam and Aharon, 2003).
According to Goh (2008), listening strategy instruction can help enhance learner motivation, decrease anxiety, and benefit weak listeners. Yet studies show that what and when and how much to use strategies are related to learners’ learning styles (Hsueh-Jui, 2008) and to listening task types (Chang, 2008), as well as to learners’ level of English language proficiency (Fewell, 2010), listening ability (Bidabadi and Yamat, 2011), attitudes toward the effectiveness of strategies (Zhang and Goh, 2006), and listening anxiety (Golchi, 2012).
A lot of empirical evidence in the literature implies that employing metacognitive strategies leads to more productive listening in various contexts (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Thompson and Rubin, 1996; Vandergrift, 2003; Wilson, 2003; Zhao, 2013; Hariri, 2014). Related research findings also suggest that listening strategy awareness is related to learners’ level of education (Rahimi and Katal, 2012a), motivation (Vandergrift, 2005; Kassaian and Ghadiri, 2011), listening test performance (Zhang and Liu, 2008), technology use (Rahimi and Katal, 2012b), and listening self-efficacy (Rahimi and Abedi, 2014). Vandergrift (2003), for example, taught some metacognitive strategies to some beginner elementary school and university students in France. Students in both groups gained the benefits of training and they improved their listening performance.
Some related studies have resulted in contradictory and mixed findings A number of studies have shown that metacognitive instruction enhances students’ metacognitive knowledge about listening (Vandergrift, 2004; Liu and Goh, 2006); furthermore, it has a positive effect on students’ listening performance and accomplishments (Vandergrift, 2007; Vandergrift and Tafaghodtari, 2010). It also raises learners’ awareness of the nature and requirements of listening tasks along with an increase in their self-confidence while working on listening tasks (Goh and Taib, 2006). Meanwhile, other studies have indicated no significant change in listening performance (Thompson and Rubin, 1996; Seo, 2002), and in strategy employment and awareness (Chen and Huang, 2011). Vandergrift and Tafaghodtari (2010) propose that by considering the newness of the experiments in this area, more studies should be conducted in different languages, ages, genders, and learning contexts in order to settle the extant contentions.
As an attempt to suggest a model for strategy-based training, the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) was developed by Chamot and O’Malley (1986). This metacognitive strategy training model helps instructors to amalgamate language, content, and strategies in a meticulously planned lesson. In the CALLA model, the main principles are learners’ prior knowledge and their constant evaluation of their learning process. Their model consists of five phases: preparation, presentation, practice, evaluation, and expansion (Chamot and O‘Malley, 1994). The first phase is about preparing learners about their own prior strategy knowledge and the benefits of the use of particular strategies (e.g., setting goals and objectives, identifying the purpose of a language task, overviewing and linking with already known materials). The second phase is the instructor’s presenting and explaining new strategies as well as their implementation (e.g., explaining the importance of the strategy, asking students when they use the strategy, etc.). The third phase is to practice the strategies in the classroom context (e.g., asking questions, cooperating with others, seeking practice opportunities). The fourth phase includes learners’ self-evaluation of their strategy use and the results of their works (e.g., self-monitoring, self-evaluating, and evaluating their learning). The last phase is expansion, in which learners expand their strategy knowledge into new learning situations (e.g., arranging and planning their learning).
Holden (2004) explained this matter from a different perspective. He introduced a cyclical approach including three stages for a listening task: pre-listening, task-listening, and post-listening. Such an orientation, which has been used for at least two decades, is pedagogically well-founded and reliable and leads students to make consistent use of special strategies at proper times in the listening process.
Locus of Control
Rotter (1954) introduced the social learning theory suggesting that a person’s behavior is influenced by environmental factors and social context. Rotter also emphasized that the expected results of a behavior influence the person’s motivation to engage in that behavior. The concept of locus of control or LoC was derived from Rotter’s social learning theory underlying the idea of the control over life events (Williams and Burden, 1997), and was first used by Phares (1976), then organized by Rotter (1966) (Mutlu et al., 2010).
A fundamental supposition of Rotter’s theory is that people’s behavior is determined both by nature and by the prominence of their aims or reinforcements as well as by their expectation of these aims to happen (Siri et al., 2007). According to this theory, a learner’s expectancy of a result anticipates future behavior in a given situation. Developing a locus of control idea is a good way to describe these anticipations (Siri et al., 2007). Rotter (1975) explains that LoC is a bridge to intermingle the behaviorist approach to cognitive psychology.
Based on the earlier theories introduced, people are categorized across the two ends of a continuum: internalizers and externalizers. The first group tend to attribute their outcomes and results to internal factors, to themselves, and feel personally in charge of their lives. The second group believe events happen out of their control by external factors such as fate and luck (Williams and Burden, 1997; Slavin, 2003). A great deal of study has been done on LoC as well as its connection with perceived success/failure in life and educational achievement.
According to recent studies, locus of control can be effective in a vast area of social and psychological sciences. Pavalache-Ilie and Unianu (2012) examined the relationship between LoC and the pro-environmental attitudes of undergraduate students. Results showed that internalizers have higher biocentric concerns for interventionist conservation policies. In another study carried out in Romania, Mihaela et al. (2013) concluded that LoC, teachers’ personality structure, and creative attitudes were interconnected and they could be regarded as predictors of didactic competencies.
Various researches have been conducted to explore the advantages/disadvantages of being at each end of the I-E scale. Internalizers display significant progress in areas like academic achievement, social maturity, and motivation (Lefcourt, 1992). They also are achievement-oriented, better information processors, and establish a productive relationship with the environment (Phares, 1976). In addition to the above, internal LoC leads to greater success in reading, math, and self-esteem (Nowicki and Strickland, 1973; Bulus, 2011). Externalizers, on the other hand, prefer extreme risks, are low persistent, and have unconventional changes in their attitude regarding educational, occupational, and cognitive circumstances (DuCette and Wolk, 1972). They usually are more anxious and depressed and have fewer adaptability skills (Benassi et al., 1988; Parkes, 1991). Another area to mention is the connection between LoC and perceiving others or themselves. Research shows that internalizers enjoy high self-esteem and competing spirit, while externalizers face poorer self-concept and lower self-evaluation; they also believe that they are insecure, unlucky, and inadequate (Bellack, 1975; Chandler, 1976; Burns, 1979). Furthermore, students with internal LoC are proud of their accomplishments yet shameful of their failure, and learners with external LoC show little emotional altercation in either success or failure (Mearns, 2006).
Concerning the role of LoC in second/foreign language learning, some studies have investigated it in relation to L2 learners’ reading (Ghonsooly and Elahi Shirvan, 2011; Naser and Ghabanchi, 2014; Mesgar and Tafazoli, 2018), writing (Ghonsooly and Elahi Shirvan, 2011) and listening skills (Sotoudenama and Hosseini Otaghsaraee, 2012) and academic achievement (Yazdanpanah et al., 2010). In these studies, the findings were in favor of the internal LoC regarding its role in L2 learning.
As understood from the literature reviewed above, almost no research was conducted on the role of LoC in second/foreign language learning. More specifically, its interplay with metacognitive strategies in developing the L2 listening skill is a concrete gap in the literature. Thus, this study can be considered an attempt to partially fill this gap. To this end, the following research questions were posed: (1) Does metacognitive listening strategy instruction (MLSI) make any significant difference in listening comprehension for Iranian EFL learners with internal LoC? (2) Does MLSI make any significant difference in listening comprehension for Iranian EFL learners with external LoC?
Materials and Methods
Participants
The participants of the study consisted of intermediate Iranian EFL learners (both male and female) at the University of Zanjan and Imam Khomeini International University of Qazvin, Iran. Out of 151 subjects who initially took part in the study, based on the proficiency test results, 100 intermediate learners were selected as the final participants of the study.
Materials
Two sources were used in the present study. One was language learning strategies: what every teacher should know by Oxford (1990), and strategies for success: a practical guide to learning English by Brown (2002). Oxford explains how these strategies can be directly and indirectly applied to the four language skills. Brown also provides full descriptions of specific strategies and introduces some questionnaires, which are quite useful in learning about individual characteristics of learners.
In this study, a mixture of O’Malley et al.’s (1986) CALLA (the CALLA) and Holden’s (2004) cyclical approach was used. The CALLA consists of five stages: preparation, presentation, practice, evaluation, and expansion. Holden’s cyclical approach on the other hand includes three stages: pre-listening, task-listening, and post-listening. The researchers extracted materials from Brown and Oxford’s strategy training books and then altered them in terms of students’ needs and interests. Teacher-prepared materials were taught to the experimental group in a ten-week period based on the CALLA and the cyclical approach.
Instruments
Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire
Vandergrift et al. (2006) developed this questionnaire as a valid and reliable instrument to explore their awareness of metacognitive listening comprehension strategies. MALQ contains 21 items and each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). MALQ includes five factors: problem-solving (six items), planning and evaluation (five items), mental translation (three items), person knowledge (three items), and directed attention (four items).
Numerous studies have used MALQ to measure listeners’ metacognitive listening awareness (Zhang and Goh, 2006; O’Bryan and Hegelheimer, 2009; Baleghizadeh and Rahimi, 2011; Rahimi and Katal, 2012a; Eftekhary and Gharib, 2013; Rahimi and Abedi, 2014). Vandergrift et al. (2006) provided thorough explanations and evidence for the validity of this questionnaire, reporting a Cronbach alpha of 0.87.
Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control Scale
This scale contains 29 self-reported statements with two alternatives in each statement. Learners have to choose one alternative developed by Rotter (1966), which they believe is true, not what they like to be true. A high score indicates external loci and a low score indicates internal loci. It is considered the most standard scale that is used worldwide (Bozorgi, 2009). Many researchers have continued to use it as a measure of LoC (Bozorgi, 2009; Deniz et al., 2009; Basak and Ghosh, 2011; Devin et al., 2012). The Cronbach’s alpha in this study was calculated at 0.93.
Oxford Quick Placement Test
Oxford’s Quick Placement Test was used as a proficiency test. It contains 60 multiple-choice questions covering both vocabulary and grammar. All the test items in this test have been through Cambridge ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) quality control procedures and so far, the test has been validated in 20 countries (Geranpayeh, 2003). KR-21 was used to estimate the reliability of the test (r = 0.86) which showed a satisfactory reliability level; scores 0–29 represent the elementary level, 30–47 show the intermediate level, and 48–60 indicate the advanced level.
Listening Comprehension Pre-test
This test was chosen from TOEFL. The test had 16 multiple-choice questions divided into five tracks and the participants were required to listen to tracks only once. Some parts of the test also had pictures to facilitate comprehension.
Listening Comprehension Post-test
Similar to the pre-test, the post-test was chosen from TOEFL with the same format and same level of difficulty. The test had 16 multiple-choice questions divided into five tracks and the test-takers listened to the tracks only once. This test also incorporated pictures.
Pilot Test
A pilot test was conducted to estimate the validity and reliability of the instruments. The test was given to 20 students with characteristics identical to those of the target sample. The Cronbach alphas for the pre-test and post-test were calculated at 0.83 and 0.70, respectively. The validity of the tests was also confirmed by expert judgment.
Data Collection Procedure
As the first step, Rotter’s LoC scale was used to determine all the participants’ LoC orientation in both groups. In the next step, the MALQ questionnaire was distributed to decide which factors of listening strategy awareness were applied to the participants before the treatment. The results revealed that the participants were mostly aware of and used the suitable strategy of preparation and the less promising strategy of mental translation.
Having gone through all the steps above, the researchers applied the treatment. In a period of 10 weeks, ten sessions of listening strategy instruction were held. Each session, which lasted 30 minutes, incorporated teaching different listening strategies. During the first session, the concepts of metacognition and metacognitive strategy use were introduced. Then from sessions 2–9 the following strategies were taught by using CALLA and Holden’s cyclical approach: Overviewing and linking with already known material, Paying attention, Organizing, Setting goals and objectives, Identifying the purpose of a listening task, Planning for a language task, Seeking practice opportunities, Self-monitoring, and Self-evaluation.
The last session was dedicated to a review of the strategies and after the treatment sessions, the participants took the listening comprehension post-test. This test contained similar content and instruction as the pre-test and the purpose was to see the impact of strategy training on the internal and external LoC participants’ listening comprehension scores after treatment.
Data Analysis
In order to analyze the data, the researchers conducted two separate ANCOVA analyses. In doing so, the researchers intended to remove the prior effect of pre-test as the covariate variable on the post-test as the dependent variable.
Results
Testifying the Assumptions of ANOVA
To make sure that the main assumptions hold for conducting the ANCOVA analyses, the researchers ran three tests to testify the normality of the data distributions for the dependent variable, the homogeneity of variances and the homogeneity of regression. The results confirmed these assumptions holding for the data before the ANCOVA tests were run. The results appear in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 below.
Table 1. Results for the tests of normality and homogeneity of variances.
Table 2. Results for the homogeneity of regressions.
Table 3. ANCOVA results for the internalizer group’s performance on the listening comprehension post-test.
Table 4. ANCOVA results for the externalizer group’s performance on the listening comprehension post-test.
As indicated in Table 1, the data in the pre-test and post-test scores was normally distributed for both control and experimental internal LoC and external LoC groups (p-values > 0.05). Also, based on the results obtained from Levene’s tests of homogeneity of variances, this assumption held for all the data in the pre-test and post-test scores of the control and experimental internal LoC and external LoC groups (p-values > 0.05) (Table 2). Finally, as shown in Table 4, no interaction was found between the dependent variables and the covariates, indicating no violation of the regression homogeneity assumption.
Investigating the First Research Question
The first research question was meant to investigate the effect of MLSI on the listening comprehension ability of the internal LoC intermediate EFL learners. To answer this question and compare the control and experimental group’s mean scores on the pre-test and post-test through eliminating the effect of the pre-test, a univariate ANCOVA analysis was conducted. As shown in Table 3 below, the results indicated that MLSI had a significant effect on the participants’ listening comprehension ability (F = 40.20, p < 0.05). Moreover, based on the general benchmarks suggested by Plonsky (2015) as the ratings for interpreting different effect sizes in L2 research, the effect of MLSI on this group’s listening comprehension performance turned out to be small (eta squared = 0.35 < 0.40).
Investigating the Second Research Question
The second research question was posed to study the effect of MLSI on the listening comprehension ability of the external LoC intermediate EFL learners. To answer this question and compare the control and experimental group’s mean scores on the pre-test and post-test through eliminating the effect of the pre-test, another univariate ANCOVA analysis was conducted. According to Table 4, the results indicated no significant effect for MLSI on the participants’ listening comprehension ability (F = 0.59, p = 0.45).
Discussion and Conclusion
An implicit finding of this study has to do with the effectiveness of listening metacognitive strategy instruction in improving EFL learners’ listening comprehension ability. While some researchers have declared no significant effect for listening metacognitive strategies training on improving listening comprehension (Thompson and Rubin, 1996; Seo, 2002; Chen and Huang, 2011; Abdul Malik et al., 2013), others have emphasized the positive impact of strategy training on listening comprehension. This finding of the study is in line with the findings of some other related studies (Goh, 2002a; Pintrich, 2002; Bolitho et al., 2003; Chamot, 2005b; Annevirta et al., 2007; Vandergrift, 2007; Field, 2008; Coşkun, 2010; Ghapanchi and Taheryan, 2012; Maftoon and Fakhri Alamdari, 2020; Panggabean and Triassanti, 2020).
The first research question was meant to investigate the effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on the listening comprehension skill of the EFL learners with internal locus of control orientation. The results obtained revealed that metacognitive strategy instruction had a significant effect on the internalizers’ listening comprehension performance. This finding further consolidates similar findings reported earlier that supported the positive role of the internal LoC in learning diverse skills and components of the target language (Yazdanpanah et al., 2010; Ghonsooly and Elahi Shirvan, 2011; Sotoudenama and Hosseini Otaghsaraee, 2012; Naser and Ghabanchi, 2014; Mesgar and Tafazoli, 2018).
The second research question was posed to investigate the role of metacognitive strategy training in the performance of externalizers on listening comprehension. Based on the finding, the externalizers in the experimental group did not outperform their counterparts in the control group on the post-test, which means the external LoC may not have a moderating effect in this research context. Although this finding is in line with those related study findings reported above, it should be treated with caution due to the small group sizes. Further studies with greater sample sizes may reveal a different finding.
Based on the findings of the study, it can be concluded that instructing metacognitive listening strategies may enhance both listening comprehension performance and listening skills. Providing direct strategy training based on the CALLA and cyclical approach can be advantageous for internalizers although we have to consider the fact that other strategy training methods could be useful for externalizers. It can be argued that having an internal locus of control orientation is an advantage for learners. Furthermore, it would be better to devise programs to help externalizers to alter their views and attitudes toward failure and success.
The results of the present study provide some implications for instructors to promote students’ metacognitive listening strategies of planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Teachers in the EFL classrooms can use a strategy-based instruction in order to teach L2 listening more effectively. Teachers may need to introduce the concept of LLS to learners and make them acquainted with these strategies. In addition, teachers can provide instruction and practice utilizing metacognitive strategies directly or indirectly (i.e., embedded in tasks). Metacognitive listening awareness as well as an ability to regulate learning may assist students to learn skills of self-directed learning and become autonomous language learners. Consequently, examining listeners’ use of metacognitive strategies, may help instructors to reach a greater understanding of listeners’ metacognitive awareness. This may also help learners to find a more effective approach to performing different listening tasks successfully. Likewise, material and curriculum developers should allocate some parts of the listening materials to introducing the concept of strategies, with a special emphasis on metacognitive listening strategies to help listeners to understand and manage listening processes more effectively and become competent listeners. By practicing metacognitive listening strategies, students change into self-regulated listeners and develop the ability to handle various listening tasks more successfully.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author Contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary Material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2022.847564/full#supplementary-material
References
Abdul Malik, F., Sarudin, I., Jariah, M. A., and Ibrahim, E. H. E. (2013). Effects of metacognitive listening strategy training on listening comprehension and strategy use of ESL learners. World Appl. Sci. J. 21, 57–66.
Amir, S., Kang, M. A., and Saeed, D. (2020). Listening habits of higher secondary school students of english: an analysis. Bahria J. Prof. Psychol. 17, 106–112. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3657008
Anderson, N. J. (2002). The Role of Metacognition in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: ERIC Digest.
Annevirta, T., Laakkonen, E., Kinnunen, R., and Vauras, M. (2007). Developmental dynamics of metacognitive knowledge and text comprehension skill in the first primary school years. Metacogn. Learn. 2, 21–39. doi: 10.1007/s11409-007-9005-x
Annevirta, T., and Vauras, M. (2003). Developmental changes of metacognitive skill in elementary school children. J. Exp. Educ. 74, 197–225.
Arslan, S., and Akin, A. (2014). Metacognition: as a predictor of one’s academic locus of control. Educ. Sci. 14, 33–39. doi: 10.12738/estp.2014.1.1805
Bagge, C. L., Lamis, D. A., Nadorff, M., and Osman, A. (2014). Relations between hopelessness, depressive symptoms and suicidality: mediation by reasons for living. J. Clin. Psychol. 70, 18–31. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22005
Baleghizadeh, S., and Rahimi, A. H. (2011). The relationship among listening performance, metacognitive strategy use and motivation from a self-determination theory perspective. Theory Pract. Lang. Stud. 1, 61–67. doi: 10.4304/tpls.1.1.61-67
Basak, R., and Ghosh, A. (2011). School environment and locus of control in relation to job satisfaction among school teachers - a study from Indian perspective. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 29, 1199–1208. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.354
Bellack, A. (1975). Self-evaluation, self-reinforcement, and locus of control. J. Res. Pers. 9, 158–167. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(75)90026-4
Benassi, V. A., Sweeney, P. D., and Dufour, C. L. (1988). Is there a relationship between locus of control orientation and depression? J. Abnorm. Psychol. 97, 357–367. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.97.3.357
Bidabadi, F. S., and Yamat, H. (2011). The relationship between listening strategies used by Iranian EFL freshman university students and their listening proficiency levels. English Lang. Teach. 4, 26–32. doi: 10.5539/ELT.V4N1P26
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., and Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of Selfregulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50030-5
Bolitho, R., Carter, R., Hughes, R., Ivanic, R., Masuhara, H., and Tomlinson, B. (2003). Ten questions about language awareness. ELT J. 57, 251–260. doi: 10.1093/elt/57.3.251
Bozorgi, S. (2009). On the Relationship between Locus of Control and the Grade Point Average of the Iranian Azad University EFL Students. Available online at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505569.pdf (accessed April 15, 2015)
Bozorgian, H. (2014). Less-skilled learners benefit more from metacognitive instruction to develop listening comprehension. Int. J. Res. Stud. Lang. Learn. 4, 3–12. doi: 10.5861/ijrsll.2014.748
Brown, H. D. (2002). Strategies for Success: A Practical Guide to Learning English. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Bulus, M. (2011). Goal orientation, locus of control and academic achievement in prospective teachers: an individual differences perspective. Educ. Sci. 11, 540–546.
Chalak, A., Nasri, N., and Tabrizi, H. H. (2014). The relationship between the types of locus of control and the academic achievement of Iranian online foreign language learners. Cypriot J. Educ. Sci. 9, 50–56.
Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electron. J. For. Lang. Teach. 1, 14–26.
Chamot, A. U. (2005a). Language learning strategy instruction: current issues and research. Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 25, 112–130. doi: 10.1017/S0267190505000061
Chamot, A. U. (2005b). “The cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA): an update,” in Academic Success for English Language Learners, eds P. Richard-Amato and M. Snow (White Plains, NY: Longman), 87–101.
Chamot, A. U., and O’Malley, J. M. (1986). A cognitive academic language learning approach: An ESL content-based curriculum. TESOL Q. 21, 227–249. doi: 10.2307/3586733
Chamot, A. U., and O‘Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Chandler, T. (1976). A note on the relationship of internality-externality, self acceptance, and self ideal discrepancies. J. Psychol. 94, 145–146. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1976.9921409
Chang, A. C. S. (2008). Listening strategies of L2 learners with varied test tasks. TESL Can. J. 25, 1–26. doi: 10.18806/tesl.v26i1.127
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing Second-Language Skills, Theory and Practice. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Chen, C. C., and Huang, C. T. (2011). Raising EFL college students’ metacognitive awareness about listening. in Paper Presented at the NYS TESOL 41st Annual Conference, Melville, NY.
Coşkun, A. (2010). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on the listening performance of beginner students. Novitas R. 4, 35–50.
Cross, J. (2011). Metacognitive instruction for helping less-skilled listeners. ELT J. 65, 408–416. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccq073
Davidson, J. E., and Sternberg, R. J. (1998). “Smart problem solving: how metacognition helps,” in Metacognition in Theory and Practice, eds D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, and A. C. Graesser (Mahwah: Erlbaum), 47–68.
Deniz, M., Tras, Z., and Aydogan, D. (2009). An investigation of academic procrastination, locus of control, and emotional intelligence. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 9, 623–632. Available online at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ847770.pdf
Devin, H. F., Ghahramanlou, F., Fooladian, A., and Zohoorian, Z. (2012). The relationship between locus of control (internal–external) and happiness in pre-elementary teachers in Iran. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 46, 4169–4173. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.220
DuCette, J., and Wolk, S. (1972). Locus of control and extreme behavior. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 39, 253–258. doi: 10.1037/h0033386
Eftekhary, A. S., and Gharib, T. (2013). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on the listening performance of Iranian EFL beginner learners. ELT Voices India 3, 23–53.
Eilam, B., and Aharon, I. (2003). Students’ planning in the process of self-regulated learning. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 28, 304–334. doi: 10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00042-5
Fewell, N. (2010). Language learning strategies and English language proficiency: an investigation of Japanese EFL university students. TESOL J. 2, 159–174.
Field, J. (2008). Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press. Available online at: http://staffnew.uny.ac.id/upload/132304799/pendidikan/[John_Field]_Listening_in_the_Language_Classroom_((BookFi.org).pdf
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. Am. Psychol. 34, 906–911. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Flowerdew, J., and Miller, L. (2005). Second Language Listening: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ghapanchi, Z., and Taheryan, A. (2012). Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategy use in speaking and listening proficiency of Iranian EFL learners. World J. Educ. 2, 64–75. doi: 10.5430/wje.v2n4p64
Ghonsooly, B., and Elahi Shirvan, M. (2011). On the relation of locus of control and L2 reading and writing achievement. Eng. Lang. Teach. 4, 234–244. doi: 10.5539/elt.v4n4p234
Goh, C. (1997). Metacognitive awareness and second language listeners. ELT J. 51, 361–369. doi: 10.1093/elt/51.4.361
Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System 28, 55–75. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00060-3
Goh, C. (2002a). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns. System 30, 185–223. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00004-0
Goh, C. (2002b). Learners’ self-reports on comprehension and learning strategies for listening. Asian J. Eng. Lang. Teach. 12, 46–68.
Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: theory, practice and research implications. Reg. Lang. Centre J. 39, 188–213. doi: 10.1177/0033688208092184
Goh, C., and Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT J. 60, 222–232. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccl002
Golchi, M. M. (2012). Listening anxiety and its relationship with listening strategy use and listening comprehension among Iranian IELTS learners. Int. J. Eng. Linguist. 2, 115–128. doi: 10.5539/ijel.v2n4p115
Habte-Gabr, E. (2006). The importance of socio-affective strategies in using EFL for teaching mainstream subjects. J. Human. Lang. Teach. 8, 1–5.
Hariri, M. (2014). The effect of meta-cognitive strategies instruction on listening comprehension of Iranian pre-intermediate female EFL learners. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Educ. 4, 437–441.
Holden, W. R. (2004). Facilitating listening comprehension: acquiring successful strategies. Bull. Hukuriku Univ. 28, 257–266.
Hsueh-Jui, L. (2008). A study of the interrelationship between listening strategy use, listening proficiency levels, and learning style. ARECLS 5, 84–104.
Kader, A. A. (2014). Locus of control, student motivation, and achievement in principles of microeconomics. Am. Int. J. Contemp. Res. 4, 1–11. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2404768
Kassaian, Z., and Ghadiri, M. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between motivation and metacognitive awareness strategies in listening comprehension: the case of Iranian EFL learners. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 5, 1069–1079. doi: 10.4304/jltr.2.5.1069-1079
Kennelly, K. J., and Mount, S. A. (1985). Perceived contingency of reinforcements, helplessness, locus of control, and academic performance. Psychol. Sch. 22, 465–469. doi: 10.1002/1520-6807(198510)22:4<465::AID-PITS2310220417>3.0.CO;2-O
Kök, İ (2013). A study on the relationship between learners’ listening comprehension achievements and their multiple intelligence groups. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 89, 182–186. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.831186
Krashen, S. D., and Terrell, T. D. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International English Language Teaching.
Lefcourt, H. (1992). Durability and impact of the locus of control construct. Psychol. Bull. 112, 411–414. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.411
Liu, X. L., and Goh, C. (2006). “Improving second language listening: Awareness and involvement,” in Language Teacher Research in Asia, ed. T. S. C. Farrell (Alexandria, VI: TESOL), 91–106.
Lotfi, G. (2012). A questionnaire of beliefs on English language listening comprehension problems: development and validation. World Appl. Sci. J. 16:508515.
Lynch, T. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on listening. Annu. Rev. Appl. Linguist. Stud. 18, 3–19. doi: 10.1017/S0267190500003457
Lynch, T. (2011). Academic listening in the 21st century: reviewing a decade of research. J. Eng. Acad. Purposes 10, 79–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.03.001
Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: revising the theoretical framework. Modern Lang. J. 90, 320–337. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00425.x
Macaro, E., Graham, S., and Vanderplank, R. (2007). “A review of listening strategies: focus on sources of knowledge and on success,” in Language Learner Strategies: 30 Years of Research and Practice, eds E. Macaro and A. Cohen (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 169185.
Maftoon, P., and Fakhri Alamdari, E. (2020). Exploring the effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on metacognitive awareness and listening performance through a process-based approach. Int. J. Listen. 34, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/10904018.2016.1250632
Marrero Quevedo, R. J., and Carballeira Abella, M. (2014). Does locus of control influence subjective and psychological well-being? Pers. Individ. Differ. 60:S55. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.07.231
Mearns, J. (2006). “The social learning theory of Julian Rotter,” in Personality Theory, ed. D. P. Crowne (New York, NY: Oxford University Press).
Mesgar, M., Bakar, N. A., and Amir, Z. (2014). Online metacognitive and interactional strategy use: Iranian students’ internal locus of control. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 118, 288–295. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.039
Mesgar, M., and Tafazoli, D. (2018). Online metacognitive reading strategies by internal and external locus of control. Int. J. Virtual Pers. Learn. Environ. 8, 38–50. doi: 10.4018/IJVPLE.2018010103
Mihaela, P. L., Magdalena, S. M., and Loredana, T. S. (2013). A study on the relation between locus of control and creative attitudes in the structure of didactic competence. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 84, 1381–1385. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.760
Mokhtari, K., and Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. J. Educ. Psychol. 94, 249–259. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
Mokhtari, K., and Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. J. Dev. Educ. 25, 2–10.
Mustofa, M., and Sari, A. S. (2020). Video subtitle to teach listening skill of junior high school students. JEES 5, 149–153. doi: 10.21070/jees.v5i2.874
Mutlu, T., Balbag, Z., and Cemrek, F. (2010). The role of self-esteem, locus of control and big five personality traits in predicting hopelessness. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 9, 1788–1792. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.401
Naser, F., and Ghabanchi, Z. (2014). The relationship between self-efficacy beliefs, locus of control and reading comprehension ability of Iranian EFL advanced learners. Int. J. Lang. Learn. Appl. Linguist. World 5, 156–174.
Nowicki, S., and Strickland, B. R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 40, 148–154. doi: 10.1037/h0033978
O’Malley, J. M., Uhl Chamot, A., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., and Russo, R. P. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Lang. Learn. 35, 21–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01013.x
O’Bryan, A., and Hegelheimer, V. (2009). Using a mixed methods approach to explore strategies, metacognitive awareness and the effects of task design on listening development. Can. J. Appl. Linguist. 12, 9–37.
O’Malley, J. M., and Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524490
O’Malley, J. M., and Chamot, A. U. (2001). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., and Küpper, L. (1986). The Role of Learning Strategies and Cognition in Second Language Acquisition: A Study of Strategies for Listening Comprehension used by Students of English as a Second Language. Rosslyn, VA: Inter American Research Associates. doi: 10.21236/ADA192006
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., and Kupper, L. (1989). Listening comprehension strategies in second language acquisition. Appl. Linguist. 10, 419–437. doi: 10.1093/applin/10.4.418
O’Malley, J. M., and Chamot, A. V. (1988). “How to teach language strategies,” in The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Training Manual, eds A. Chamot, J. O’Mallet, and L. Küpper (Arlington, VA: Second Language Learning), 121–122.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher should Know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (1993). Research update on teaching L2 listening. System 21, 76–108. doi: 10.1016/0346-251X(93)90042-F
Panggabean, C. I. T., and Triassanti, R. (2020). The implementation of metacognitive strategy training to enhance EFL student’s oral presentation skill. Eng. Educ. 5, 32–40. doi: 10.29407/jetar.v5i1.14324
Paris, G. S., and Winograd, P. (1990). “How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction,” in Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction, eds B. F. Jones and L. Idol (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 15–51.
Parkes, K. R. (1991). LOC as moderator: an explanation for additive versus interactive findings in the demand-discretion model of work stress? J. Psychol. 82, 291–312. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1991.tb02401.x
Pavalache-Ilie, M., and Unianu, E. M. (2012). Locus of control and the pro-environmental attitudes. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 33, 98–202. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.111
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Pract. 41, 219–225. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
Plonsky, L. (2015). Advancing Quantitative Methods in Second Language Research. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis. doi: 10.4324/9781315870908
Pressley, M., Snyder, B., and Cariglia-Bull, B. (1987). “How can good strategy use be taught to children? Evaluation of six alternative approaches,” in Transfer of Learning: Contemporary Research and Application, eds S. Cormier and J. Hagman (Orlando, FL: Academic Press), 81–120. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-188950-0.50010-2
Rahimi, M., and Abedi, S. (2014). The relationship between listening self-efficacy and metacognitive awareness of listening strategies. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 98, 1454–1460. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.565
Rahimi, M., and Katal, M. (2012a). Metacognitive listening strategies awareness in learning English as a foreign language: a comparison between university and high-school students. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 31, 82–89. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.020
Rahimi, M., and Katal, M. (2012b). The role of metacognitive listening strategies awareness and podcast-use readiness in using podcasting for learning English as a foreign language. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28, 1153–1161. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.025
Rahimi, M., and Katal, M. (2013). The impact of metacognitive instruction on EFL learners’ listening comprehension and oral langauge proficiency. J. Teach. Lang. Skills 5, 69–90.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social Learning and Clinical Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. doi: 10.1037/10788-000
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol. Monogr. 80, 1–28. doi: 10.1037/h0092976
Rotter, J. B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 43, 56–67. doi: 10.1037/h0076301
Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. Modern Lang. J. 78, 199–221. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02034.x
Sagone, E., and Caroli, M. E. D. (2014). Locus of control and academic self-efficacy in university students: the effects of self-concepts. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 114, 222–228. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.689
Schipor, M. D., and Schipor, O. A. (2014). Motivation and locus of control: relational patterns activated in training for teaching career. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 128, 420–425. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.181
Schoonen, R., Hulstijn, J., and 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. Lang. Learn. 48, 71–106. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00033
Seo, K. (2002). The effects of visuals on listening comprehension: a study of Japanese learners’ listening strategies. Int. J. Listen. 16, 57–81. doi: 10.1080/10904018.2002.10499049
Siri, U., Gemlk, N., and Sur, H. (2007). A comparative analysis of internal-external locus of control among hospital PERSONNEL in Turkey and its managerial implications on health sector. Hum. Soc. Sci. J. 2, 51–62.
Sotoudenama, E., and Hosseini Otaghsaraee, S. S. (2012). Locus of control, test anxiety, gender and their relationship with listening performance of Iranian EFL students.Zabanpazhouhi. J. Lang. Stud. 12, 57–74.
Thompson, I., and Rubin, J. (1996). Can strategy instruction improve listening comprehension? Foreign Lang. Ann. 29, 331–342. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01246.x
Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension: acquiring successful strategies. ELT J. 54, 168–176. doi: 10.1093/elt/53.3.168
Vandergrift, L. (2002). It was nice to see that our predictions were right: developing metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. Can. Modem Lang. Rev. 58, 555–575. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.58.4.555
Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Lang. Learn. 53, 463–496.
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Ann. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 24, 3–25. doi: 10.1017/S0267190504000017
Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive awareness and proficiency in L2 listening. Appl. Linguist. 26, 70–89. doi: 10.1093/applin/amh039
Vandergrift, L. (2006). Second language listening: listening ability or language proficiency? Modern Lang. J. 90, 6–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00381.x
Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Lang. Teach. 40, 191–210. doi: 10.1017/S0261444807004338
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. M., Mareschal, C., and Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire (MALQ): development and validation. Lang. Learn. 56, 431–462. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00373.x
Vandergrift, L., and Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: an empirical study. Lang. Learn. 60, 470–497. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00559.x
Victori, M., and Lockhart, W. (1995). Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language learning. System 23, 223–234. doi: 10.1016/0346-251X(95)00010-H
Wenden, A., and Rubin, J. (eds). (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International.
Whitehead, E. (2020). Application of meta-cognitive strategy instruction in listening comprehension to the level III student teachers. Excell. Educ. J. 9, 104–119.
Williams, M., and Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, M. (2003). Discovery listening: improving perceptual processing. ELT J. 57, 335–343. doi: 10.1093/elt/57.4.335
Winne, P. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educ. Psychol. 30, 173–187. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3004_2
Yazdanpanah, M., Sahragard, R., and Rahimi, A. (2010). The interplay of locus of control and academic achievement among Iranian English foreign language learners. Cypriot J. Educ. Sci. 5, 181–202.
Zhang, D., and Goh, C. (2006). Strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use: Singaporean students’ awareness of listening and speaking strategies. Lang. Awar. 15, 199–219. doi: 10.2167/la342.0
Zhang, W., and Liu, M. (2008). Investigating cognitive and metacognitive strategy use during an English proficiency test. Indones. J. Eng. Lang. Teach. 4, 122–139.
Zhao, J. (2013). Application of metacognitive strategy training into listening class. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 5, 3239–3242. doi: 10.19026/rjaset.5.4563
Keywords: locus of control, metacognitive strategy instruction, listening comprehension, cognitive academic language learning approach, EFL learning
Citation: Taherkhani B, Aliasin SH, Khosravi R and Izadpanah S (2022) The Interface Between Metacognitive Strategy Training and Locus of Control in Developing EFL Learners’ Listening Comprehension Skill. Front. Educ. 7:847564. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.847564
Received: 02 January 2022; Accepted: 15 June 2022;
Published: 19 July 2022.
Edited by:
Douglas F. Kauffman, Medical University of the Americas – Nevis, United StatesReviewed by:
Abdullah Alamer, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Saudi ArabiaChin-Yu Chen, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan
Copyright © 2022 Taherkhani, Aliasin, Khosravi and Izadpanah. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Siros Izadpanah, Y3lyb3NpemFkcGFuYWhAeWFob28uY29t