193 Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz SSLLT 8 (2). 2018. 193-218 doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.2 http://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/ssllt A self-regulated learning approach to extensive listening and its impact on listening achievement and metacognitive awareness Yajun Zeng Yangtze University, P. R. China zyajun@gmail.com Christine C. M. Goh National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore christine.goh@nie.edu.sg Abstract The role of self-regulation in general learning has been investigated for some time now. Its significance and contribution to second language (L2) listening, however, has yet to be discussed extensively with empirical support. This article reports a case study involving four college EFL students in China over a six-month period of self-regulated learning (SRL) in developing their listening in independ- ent settings. The study examined how the achievement and metacognitive awareness of four high-achieving and low-achieving listeners may have been af- fected by strategies they used for self-regulating extensive listening activities. It also examined the learners’ engagement during four phases of self-regulated lis- tening, namely, task definition, goal setting and planning, strategy enactment, and metacognitive adaptation. Findings revealed substantial differences in the two groups’ metacognitive engagement in three SRL phases. The article argues that the achievements of the respective learners in listening development were affected by these differences. Pedagogical implications of a self-regulated learn- ing approach in extensive listening for L2 listening development are discussed. Keywords: self-regulated learning strategies; listening; metacognition Yajun Zeng, Christine C. M. Goh 194 1. Introduction Listening is a critical dimension in language learning and plays an important role in second language (L2) pedagogy. The importance of listening in communica- tion has also been well documented (Feyten, 1991; Wolvin, 2010; Wolvin & Coakley, 2000). Nevertheless, many scholars agree that listening is still being overlooked in L2 learning, as greater prominence is accorded to the develop- ment of more “visible” skills such as speaking and writing, as well as reading, which is seen to be an important gateway to knowledge in academic contexts (Nation & Newton, 2008; Nunan, 1997; Vandergrift 1997). Listening remains a much neglected skill and listening strategies are seen as the “Cinderella” of strat- egies (Vandergrift, 1997), receiving little research attention as compared to reading, writing or speaking. Even when the curriculum recognizes the importance of listening, such as the current curriculum of college English in mainland China, more is needed to facilitate a principled approach to helping language learners develop their abili- ties. In China, listening comprehension is a compulsory module for all non-English major undergraduates. In the important College English Test Band 4 (CET4) the assessment of listening comprises 35% of the total weighting of the test (Goh & Zeng, 2014). Beyond language learning and assessment, listening is also valued as an important language communication skill in the current economic landscape. In spite of this, listening is the weakest skill for Chinese tertiary-level EFL learners (Jiang, 1994). Chinese students who are studying in other English- speaking countries also consider listening to be their greatest challenge (Liu, 2005). Given the limited classroom instruction time (an average of 2 hours per week of listening instruction for 30-32 weeks in an academic year) and an ap- proach that mainly emphasizes exam preparation, there is a need to find other ways of helping college English learners improve their listening through inde- pendent learning outside class. Chinese EFL students have for decades practiced extensive listening on their own, but what is needed is teacher support that pro- motes self-regulated learning (SRL) to ensure that listening development through extensive listening practice is directed and not left to circumstances. Drawing on experiences from educational psychology and second language learn- ing in general (Oxford, 2011; Pintrich, 2004), such a teacher-supported SRL ap- proach to independent listening development would include principles for plan- ning and implementing learner-oriented SRL activities in independent settings. It underscores the critical role of metacognition in the learning process and provides learners with essential metacognitive tools for self-regulated learning beyond the listening classroom (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). A self-regulated learning approach to extensive listening and its impact on listening achievement. . . 195 To understand the effectiveness of an SRL approach, we conducted a com- parative case study of two high-proficiency listeners and two low-proficiency lis- teners who experienced a six-month independent listening program after class by engaging in SRL activities and materials prepared specially to support their independent learning. 2. Learner strategies in L2 listening Learner strategies refer to deliberate procedures used by learners to enhance comprehension, learning and retention of the target language (Chamot, 1995; Cohen, 1998). In L2 listening, learners use appropriate strategies to achieve comprehension goals, particularly when they have limited ability to understand the oral texts (Gu, Hu, & Zhang, 2009; Vandergrift, 2008). Strategies help learn- ers improve comprehension, retention, and recall of information; and, at the same time, they assist them in planning for overall listening development as part of their language learning effort (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Recent research shows that successful L2 listening involves careful orches- tration or clustering of both metacognitive and cognitive strategies (Graham & Macaro, 2008; Vandergrift, 2003b). In addition, Vandergrift and Goh (2012) con- tend that listeners with heightened metacognitive awareness are able to orches- trate the enactment of various strategies according to task and learner variables. General listening strategies can also be examined in terms of tactics or individual techniques through which each strategy is operationalized (Goh, 2002), and this can offer greater clarity about hierarchic relationships among strategies (Oxford & Cohen, 1992). Despite early debates about whether strategy instruction is useful for listen- ing (Field, 2000; Ridgway, 2000), possible resistance from learners (Huang, 2006) and other challenges, researchers have argued that learners can benefit from learning to use listening strategies to compensate for incomplete understanding, missed linguistic or schematic input, misidentified clues and other listening limita- tions (Flowerdew & Miller, 2005; Rubin, 1994; Vandergrift, 2003a). The consistent use of metacognitive strategies, in particular, is a feature of high achieving L2 lis- teners (Goh, 1998) and can contribute to improving learners’ L2 listening compre- hension (Vandergrift, 2004). One form of L2 listening pedagogy integrates listening tasks with teacher-directed strategy use by learners (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Vandergrift (Vandergrift, 2004; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010) pro- posed a metacognitive cycle to help learners integrate the use of strategies while listening and guide listeners in the acquisition of implicit knowledge about listening processes. Besides developing metacognitive awareness about L2 lis- tening, this cycle also develops L2 perception skills and word recognition skills, Yajun Zeng, Christine C. M. Goh 196 as recommended by Graham (2006). Vandergrift (2007) argues that this metacog- nitive listening cycle has strong theoretical support as it closely parallels the re- search demonstrating implicit learning through task performance. Further empir- ical support is found in a number of studies applying this metacognitive cycle in listening classes (Cross, 2011; Liu & Goh, 2006; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). While the metacognitive listening cycle develops strategic processes dur- ing listening comprehension, it is essentially a classroom pedagogy. Learners also need to have support in using strategies to strengthen activities for devel- oping listening beyond the classroom, in particular, in raising their metacogni- tive awareness of how to self-direct and manage their efforts (Goh, 2008). This calls for an approach to supporting L2 learners’ extensive listening endeavors which enable them to self-regulate their learning process with the help and guidance of the teacher, thereby taking greater ownership of their listening de- velopment in an informed manner. 3. Self-regulated learning Self-regulated learning (SRL) is a complex process by which learners personally activate and sustain cognition, affect and behavior that are systematically ori- ented toward the attainment of learning goals (Efklides, 2009; Schunk, 2008). Our study adopts the definition of SRL by Pintrich (2000) as “an active, construc- tive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment” (p. 453). The concept of self-regulated L2 learning strategies was first put for- ward by Oxford (2011, 2017) in her S2R model. This framework examines closely the theoretical underpinnings of self-regulation in L2 learning and applies self- regulation for understanding development in each of the L2 skill areas, including listening. Participants in our study were responsible for taking charge of their overall listening development and initiating extensive listening tasks in inde- pendent settings. We follow Winne and Hadwin (1998) in characterizing self- regulated learners as learners who are actively and efficiently managing their own learning through monitoring and strategy use. Their mode of SRL model emphasizes the importance of metacognition, which is an important construct for the process of learning to listen in an L2 (Goh, 2008; Vandergrift & Goh, 2012; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). Metacognition is defined as cognition about cognition and involves monitoring and control functions (Dinsmore, Alexander, & Loughlin, 2008; Flavell, 1979; Schunk, 2008). Research has shown that meta- cognition interacts with motivation and affect, and these interactions have im- portant implications for SRL (Efklides, 2009). A self-regulated learning approach to extensive listening and its impact on listening achievement. . . 197 Winne and Hadwin’s (1998) SRL model presents SRL as a more global and inclusive construct which subsumes metacognitive knowledge and strategy use (Pintrich, 2000; Winne & Hadwin, 2008). It describes the specific cognitive pro- cesses that entail a learner’s self-regulation through four basic phases that are considered to be recursive in nature: task definition, goal setting and planning, strategy enactment, and metacognitive adaptation (Greene & Azevedo, 2007). This model enables the forging of linkages between learners’ metacognitive knowledge system and their self-regulatory behaviors in EFL listening develop- ment. To our knowledge, this L2 study, which adopts a self-regulatory learning theoretical framework in order to understand the efficacy of learning strategies, is the first of its kind for extensive listening. 4. Chinese EFL listening Listening is often perceived to be the weakest language skill among Chinese ter- tiary-level EFL learners at the lower or intermediate proficiency levels (Wang, 2002; Wu, Liu, & Jeffrey, 1993). In spite of this, many Chinese learners receive a limited amount of in-class listening instruction per week, with lessons focusing heavily on checking the answers to pre-set comprehension questions. In similar kinds of listening classes, the process of helping students learn to listen was of- ten overlooked (Mendelsohn & Rubin, 1995; Vandergrift, 2004). A great number of students passively relied on classroom listening instruction and may not have realized that they themselves should take charge of their listening development (Goh & Taib, 2006; Vandergrift, 2003b; Wang, 2002). It was also not unusual for some students to give up on their listening because they felt they had caught very little of what was said (Goh, 2000). With the availability of technology-en- abled resources, it is important that teachers consider ways of supporting learn- ers in their extensive listening efforts so that they can learn how to manage their learning and benefit from the authentic resources made available through their mobile devices. To this end, an SRL approach merits consideration, as self-regu- lated listening activities not only increase learners’ exposure to authentic oral texts but also enhance their metacognitive knowledge and self-regulatory abili- ties for listening success (Berne, 2004; Mendelsohn, 2006). An SRL approach that emphasizes the role of metacognition and learning strategies is adopted in this study to help Chinese EFL learners plan and carry out extensive listening activities beyond their classrooms. The study aimed to understand how such an SRL approach to extensive listening practice could ben- efit language learners and whether the gains that learners derive from an SRL program might be affected by their level of engagement during the program. This study is also an example of a study that heeds Hu’s (2016) call to strategy Yajun Zeng, Christine C. M. Goh 198 researchers to conduct strategy research that is emancipatory where learners’ participation can assist them in acquiring new knowledge and developing greater awareness of themselves so that their learning endeavors can be guided by these new understandings. 5. Research questions This study was undertaken to answer the following research questions: 1. Do learners engaged in a SRL approach to extensive listening benefit dif- ferently in terms of listening development and metacognitive awareness of the listening process? 2. What are the self-regulatory behaviors of high- and low-achieving listeners at the four self-regulated learning phases of task definition, goal setting and planning, strategy enactment and metacognitive adaptation? What similar- ities and differences are there between the two groups of learners? 3. To what extent can the self-regulatory behaviors of the two groups of learners account for the differences in the benefits they derived from the SRL program? 6. Method 6.1. Participants Four participants (three females and one male) with an average age of 19 were selected from one intact class. They had been learning English for an average of seven years, beginning from secondary school education. Of these an average of six years included practicing L2 listening. Results from listening tests and par- ticipants’ self-reports confirmed that their listening ability remained the weak- est of the four language skills. For the purpose of comparison, the four participants were placed into two groups according to their achievements in two tests: The National Entrance Exam- ination (English paper) and a mid-term listening test (Table 1). Two top performers in both tests in the class (N = 30; 90th percentile) were designated as high achiev- ing (HA1 and HA2) while two participants in the 20th percentile were designated as the low achieving group (LA1 and LA2). These groupings served to provide some comparison among the learners according to their listening performance. A self-regulated learning approach to extensive listening and its impact on listening achievement. . . 199 Table 1 Selection criteria of four participants for the case study Sex National Entrance Examination score* Mid-term listening test score** High achieving HA1 F 123.0 57.0 HA2 F 121.0 55.5 Low achieving LA1 F 101.0 49.5 LA2 M 99.0 49.0 Class mean 109.0 53.5 Note. * The score is on a 150-mark system; ** The score is on a 100-mark system 6.2. Instruments 6.2.1. Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) This study adopted the Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ; Vandergrift, Goh, Mareschal, & Tafaghodtari, 2006) as an instrument to assess the learners’ metacognitive awareness and perceived use of strategies while listening to oral texts. The MALQ is a 21-item questionnaire comprising items from five factors related to L2 listening comprehension processes: prob- lem-solving, planning and evaluation, mental translation, directed attention and person knowledge. It was used without any adaptions or translations in the pre- sent study because the items were written in simple English that the Chinese college EFL learners could understand. 6.2.2. Self-regulated Learning Portfolio (SRLP) The Self-regulated Learning Portfolio (SRLP) consisted of a set of templates for the participants to record their listening activities and track their progress in both metacognition and listening performance. Part I consisted of a weekly lis- tening plan for the learners to record their plans for listening tasks as well as their monitoring and evaluation of the completion of these tasks. It also rec- orded time spent on each task and how many times learners listened to each text. Part II was a self-directing listening guide which helped learners to plan how to approach the task, monitor their comprehension during the task and evaluate their efforts after it. Part III was a form for a weekly listening diary where the learners wrote their reflections on their weekly listening activities in and outside the classroom and their description of strategy use. A listening strat- egy inventory comprising various metacognitive and cognitive strategies was also included for their reference. It functioned as a learning tool, familiarizing Yajun Zeng, Christine C. M. Goh 200 students with listening strategies and helping them to expand their strategy reper- toire and promote more effective strategy use (Macaro, Graham, & Vanderplank, 2007; Vandergrift, 2003a, 2003b). 6.2.3. Value reflection form At the end of the SRL program, the participants completed a reflection form which was aimed to evaluate what they had gained from the SRL program and the chal- lenges they had faced. This was done in Chinese to facilitate the learners’ expres- sion of any complex thoughts that they might have difficulty expressing in English. 6.2.4. Interviews Individual and group interviews were conducted in Chinese to obtain detailed information on the participants’ evolving metacognitive awareness, strategy use, and self-regulatory skills in listening. Individual interviews were conducted before the learners began the SRL program when they had completed the MALQ questionnaire. A group interview was also conducted in Chinese with the four participants at the end of the SRL program. The purpose of this interview was to supplement data from the students’ value reflection forms and to allow the researchers to explore specific issues that arose during the conversation and which might not have been included in the written reflections. 6.2.5. Listening tests scores Scores of two large-scale listening tests (a university-based mid-term listening test and a national CET4 listening test) were used to assess the participants’ pro- gress in listening performance after the SRL program. A comparison of the par- ticipants’ results in these two tests (overall score and listening score) was used as an indicator of the participants’ improvement in listening performance. 6.3. Data collection and analysis Data collection was completed in the following ways: 1. Collection of participants’ test results for the two listening tests (mid- term and CET4), responses to the MALQ and individual and group inter- views were conducted at different points of the study. The interviews in Chinese were recorded, transcribed and translated. A self-regulated learning approach to extensive listening and its impact on listening achievement. . . 201 2. Completed SRLP documents were submitted via email to one of the au- thors, who provided answers and feedback to the questions and comments in the SRLP through online text chatting and email. At the end of the SRL program, the participants took part in a specially arranged session, in which they wrote individual value reflections and completed a second response to the MALQ. After that they participated in a group interview led by one of the researchers. 3. Comments from the participants’ listening teacher were obtained to pro- vide qualitative evaluation on the performance of the four participants. Data obtained from MALQ responses, listening test scores, and strategy use frequencies, were processed using SPSS to address Research question 1. The quantitative data all went through tests of normality before further analysis to examine participants’ pretest-posttest changes in listening performance, meta- cognitive knowledge and strategy use. To address the second and third research questions, data were collected mainly through verbal reports and interviews. Retrospective verbal reports written in Chinese were translated independently and cross-checked against the translation of another translator for consistency. Coding was done in two stages. In Stage one, one of the authors and a colleague coded a set of transcripts from one participant independently according to a preliminary coding scheme that was based on previ- ous studies on educational objectives (Anderson et al., 2001; Krathwohl, 2002) and listening strategies (i.e., Goh, 2002; Gu, Hu, & Zhang, 2009; O’Malley, Chamot, & Kupper, 1989; Vandergrift, 2003b). Informal calibration discussions were held to re- solve inconsistencies and disagreements before the coding scheme was finalized. In Stage two, the data was divided into two sets and coded independently according to the coding scheme. The transcripts were then double-coded by the two coders with inter-coder reliability improving from .69 to over .84 after the two stages. 7. Results and discussion 7.1. How learners have benefitted from the SRL program Table 2 shows the four participants’ listening performance on the pre- and post- test. While HAs improved by almost 20 marks on a 100-mark test paper, LAs improved by only 9 marks. Furthermore, scores of HAs improved from 2-7% (pretest) to 14-16% (posttest) above the class mean score in the CET4 listening test, showing that they achieved greater progress in their listening performance. Scores of LAs on the other hand dropped from 7-8% to 10-12% below the class mean score after six months of participation in the SRL program. Yajun Zeng, Christine C. M. Goh 202 Table 2 Listening performance of the high- and low-achieving listeners on the pretest and the posttest Mid-term listening test score as pretest** CET4 listening test score as posttest** HA1 57.0 76.0 HA2 54.5 74.5 LA1 49.5 59.0 LA2 49.0 58.0 Class mean 53.5 65.5 Note. ** The score is on a 100-mark system With respect to the changing level of metacognitive knowledge in listen- ing, although all four participants benefitted from the SRL approach, HAs’ re- sponse scores showed an overall 80% increase compared with the LAs in the five metacognitive factors in the MALQ framework, as indicated in Table 3. Table 3 Comparison of high- and low-achieving listeners’ pre- and post-test MALQ scores High-achieving Low-achieving HA1 HA2 Mean LA1 LA2 Mean Directed attention Pretest 5.25 5.25 5.25 4.75 4.25 4.50 Posttest 5.50 5.33 5.42 4.50 4.00 4.25 Problem solving Pretest 5.50 5.17 5.34 4.33 4.25 4.29 Posttest 5.33 5.25 5.29 4.50 4.25 4.38 Planning/evaluation Pretest 4.67 4.60 4.64 4.00 3.75 3.88 Posttest 5.25 5.33 5.29 4.17 3.33 3.75 Person knowledge Pretest 2.33 2.67 2.50 3.33 4.00 3.67 Posttest 2.00 2.33 2.17 4.00 4.00 4.00 Mental translation Pretest 2.00 2.33 2.17 4.50 4.67 4.59 Posttest 2.00 2.33 2.17 4.50 4.50 4.50 Note. The score is based on a 6-point Likert scale as used in the MALQ The results showed that HAs manifested greater progress than LAs in terms of listening performance. Although it is not possible to establish a clear causal effect of the SRL program, the data from the SRLP, reflections, evaluations and interviews strongly suggest that HAs were more engaged in their listening practice and development through self-regulated extensive listening. This would have contributed to their listening development compared with Las, who were less engaged (see sections to follow on three other phases of SRL). This result is different from classroom-based studies where metacognitive instruction utiliz- ing a pedagogical cycle was found to benefit less-skilled listeners more in their listening development (Cross, 2011; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). This could be argued to be due to learners’ self-regulated learning contexts where A self-regulated learning approach to extensive listening and its impact on listening achievement. . . 203 there was limited teacher input during the listening tasks, unlike previous class- room-based studies (see e.g., Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). Results also revealed much higher overall improvement in five metacogni- tive factors for HAs, lending further support to previous studies demonstrating the positive outcomes of different kinds of metacognitive interventions for L2 lis- tening development (Goh & Taib, 2006; Goh & Zeng, 2014; Graham & Macaro, 2008; Mareschal, 2007; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010; Zeng, 2007). Moreover, HAs showed much stronger metacognitive awareness than LAs in factors such as planning/evaluation, directed attention and problem-solving. The increase in re- ported use of these three strategies reflect HAs’ stronger self-regulatory skills in lis- tening: planning, evaluating, managing attention for better comprehension and ap- plying strategies to infer and to monitor these inferences (Kintsch, 1998; Vander- grift, 2003a). As skilled and effective listeners are generally found to frequently employ these strategies while listening, it could be argued that good control of planning/evaluation, attention-managing and problem-solving strategies signals a great step for learners to becoming self-regulated and autonomous listeners. As indicated by their responses on personal knowledge, HAs were also more confi- dent and less anxious compared to LAs in English listening after the self-regulated learning program. Similarly, their lower mean scores for mental translation indi- cate that they were refraining from using mental translation strategies. 7.2. How learners compared in self-regulatory behaviors The four SRL phases for listening development in independent settings are task definition, goal setting and planning, strategy and tactic enactment and meta- cognitive adaptation. Results of the HAs-LAs comparisons in these four phases are first presented in Table 4, and these will then be discussed and further illus- trated with excerpts from the learners’ reflections. These behaviors are analyzed and presented in terms of the learners’ understanding of their general listening development and the specific listening tasks that they engaged in during their weekly listening. 7.2.1. Task definition Task definition refers to an understanding of what a task is. All four participants largely shared a common understanding of what the general task of developing lis- tening and specific listening tasks entail. They regarded listening in English as a real challenge and felt that listening was more difficult than other three macro-skills of English. This is indicative of learners’ lack of confidence and levels of anxiety, both of which can result in an inability to apply metacognitive knowledge while listening Yajun Zeng, Christine C. M. Goh 204 in particular (Vandergrift et al., 2006). HAs, nevertheless, reported that they did not feel nervous when listening to English, which might have resulted from their in- creased exposure to English listening materials through the SRL program. Table 4 Differing self-regulatory behaviors in listening for HAs and LAs High-achieving Low-achieving Task definition General listening development It is a challenge and more difficult than the other three language skills. Specific listening task Generally determined by understanding of the nature and purpose of lis- tening and the task type. Goal setting & planning General listening development Mastery orientated. Performance orientated. Specific listening task Set more demanding cognitive and metacognitive goals. Mainly behaviorally and cognitively ori- ented. Strategy enactment General listening development Frequent use of all essential metacognitive listening strate- gies. Metacognitive tactics not reported: Selective attention 1. Check current interpre- tation with context of the message. 2. Notice how information is structured. 3. Listen to specific parts of the input. Comprehen- sion monitoring 4. Pay attention to visuals and body language. General listening development Orchestrated a broader spec- trum of cognitive listening tac- tics to infer, predict, contextu- alize, visualize, elaborate, or to reconstruct meaning of the oral text. Cognitive tactics not reported: Prediction 1. Anticipate details while listening/local. Inferencing 2. Apply knowledge about the target language. 3. Use visual clues. Metacognitive adaptation General listening development Varied and more sophisticated metacognitive adaptation. Simple and limited forms of metacognitive adaptations. Specific listening task Results indicated that definition of specific listening tasks was generally determined by a learner’s understanding of the nature of listening and the task type concerning selected listening materials. An example of such perceptions was the belief that “the dictation task is far more difficult than a MCQ task” (LA1). This reflected the participants’ understanding of task demands or the dif- ficulty level of different task types. A self-regulated learning approach to extensive listening and its impact on listening achievement. . . 205 7.2.2. Goal setting and planning The HAs and LAs differed considerably in goal setting and planning in their over- all listening development or when approaching specific listening tasks (Table 5 and Table 6). Table 5 Implementation of weekly SRL listening plans Average times of repeated listening Time spent on listening (minutes) High-achieving 3.77 123 Low-achieving 2.1 34 Table 6 Learners’ multi-dimensional listening purposes HA1 HA2 LA1 LA2 Submissions 18 14 10 10 Listening purpose Behavioural Finish assignment 0 0 7 6 Entertain 0 1 2 3 Form habit 2 2 0 0 Cognitive Remember/Know 5 10 4 8 Understand 5 2 1 3 Apply 2 2 1 0 Metacognitive Manage attention 2 1 0 0 Develop ability 15 9 1 0 LAs expressed explicitly the strong desire to get appropriate grades to pass the national CET4 test. In contrast, although passing CET4 was also mentioned by the HAs, they were more focused on deep understanding of tasks, mastering skills, and self- improvement. In line with their distinct goal-orientations, the learners planned their listening development in quite different manners, and the implementation of listen- ing plans also varied considerably. As shown in Table 5, while LAs spent only 34 minutes per week on learning to listen, HAs invested almost four times more in this effort (123 minutes). Likewise, for each listening task, HAs tended to listen to it about four times. HA1 even reported that for a difficult listening task the text was repeated seven times. In contrast, LAs listened to it only two times, regardless of the difficulty level of the tasks. Such a considerable difference in planning for and implementation of listening plans between the high- and low-achievers was consistent with their dif- fering goal-orientations. HAs benefitted more from the SRL approach as they were prepared to invest more and they also adhered more faithfully to their learning plans. Group interview data also revealed that LAs’ much poorer investment in listening could have been caused by their relatively lower level of confidence, as they were weaker in their listening to start with (Goh & Zeng, 2014). As in the excerpt below, LA1 had clearly prioritized the learning of other skills as a result of this. Yajun Zeng, Christine C. M. Goh 206 Excerpt 1 My listening is poor. I don’t think I can improve very much in half a year’s time so I spent more time on preparing the reading section and writing section of the CET4 test. (LA2) Such significantly different degrees of investment in listening either in overall time spent (frequency) or in repeated listening (repetition) would have contributed to HAs’ higher scores (30%) on the CET4 listening test (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). HAs and LAs also differed considerably in implementing action plans while carrying out specific listening tasks. Listening is a goal-directed strategic behav- ior and a purposeful process, in which the listening purpose drives the compre- hension process (Goh, 2002; Goh & Zeng, 2014; Rost, 2005). Different listening purposes would therefore affect the comprehension process, as the analysis of the SRLP protocols concerning the multidimensionality of listeners’ purposes for specific recordings revealed. Following Pintrich (2001), these dimensions are be- havioral, cognitive, and metacognitive. As can be seen in Table 6, the two low achievers tended to set more behav- ioral and cognitive goals for specific listening tasks, while the two high achievers clearly perceived more demanding cognitive purposes and metacognitive pur- poses of listening. For LAs with a performance-oriented approach, finishing the assignments seemed to be their top priority, either because they were required to do so or they did not want to be considered inferior in the class. They also lis- tened to English songs or movie clips for relaxation and entertainment, indicating their preference for less demanding listening tasks. In contrast, the two high achievers explicitly pointed out they were trying to cultivate a good learning habit through regular listening training. Although they also listened to English songs and watched English movies in their spare time, they reported to have chosen more demanding listening materials for intensive listening from their textbooks and original CET4 listening test papers, demonstrating their mastery-orientation. It is possible that these two stronger listeners felt they had the ability to manage these more demanding listening tasks and were setting up challenges for themselves while the less able listeners preferred to choose easier ways of practicing their listening. While this seems like a logical thing to do, it is also possible that the two LAs had missed out on opportunities to develop their lis- tening further. This factor combined with a lower frequency of practice and fewer repetitions of listening would have contributed to their slower progress. In addition, LAs’ cognitive learning purposes were limited to knowing and understanding, with knowing or remembering taking up the highest percentage of occurrence. In contrast, HAs not only set goals for more exposure to aural input and deeper understanding and comprehension of gist and details, but they A self-regulated learning approach to extensive listening and its impact on listening achievement. . . 207 also tried to apply their linguistic knowledge and what they got from the oral texts to improve their dictation skills. Dictation takes up a little less than 30% of the CET4 listening test and is also the weakest listening skill for Chinese EFL lis- teners (Jin, 2005). HAs’ resolution to overcome this listening difficulty and more self-initiated investment in dictation exercises were evidence of their much higher cognitive goals in listening. 7.2.3. Strategy enactment The strategy enactment pattern of high achievers showed considerable differ- ences from that of low achievers either in the frequency of strategy use or in the way specific cognitive or metacognitive tactics operationalize strategies used (Table 4). It should be noted that the reported use of listening tactics and strat- egies based on participants’ retrospection for each listening task was not neces- sary in tandem with the actual use in listening learning and the 44 listening tac- tics included in our checklists were illustrative and not exhaustive. Furthermore, due to the limited sample size (n = 4), no statistical measures were adopted here to determine the significance level of strategy deployment. Instead, the occur- rences of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use for each participant were counted and ranked accordingly. Research in both learner strategy for language learning and L2 listening highlighted the significance of strategy development for listening success and L2 acquisition (Goh & Zeng, 2014; Vandergrift, 2003b; Wenden, 2002). The fact that six cognitive tactics and eight metacognitive tactics were jointly used by all participants was strong evidence of the similarity and convergence of Chinese EFL listeners’ strategy use preference in approaching listening tasks or develop- ing listening proficiency. In line with what has been reported by Goh (2002), the four participants reported an average 64% of use of inferencing strategy, using contextual clues and familiar content words or drawing on knowledge of the world to help them bridge gaps in their understanding, which stressed the key role that prior knowledge played in learner comprehension. As such, these lis- tening tactics can be prioritized and highlighted in strategy instruction in listen- ing classes to promote learners’ higher level of awareness and future use. Fur- thermore, all participants reported they had never used the strategy of noticing how information is structured, for example, the presence of discourse markers. This finding has strong implications for listening pedagogy in China. Specifically, familiarizing Chinese EFL learners with various genre types and corresponding meta-discourse markers and rhetorical devices assumed greater importance in teaching listening. Thus, genre-based teaching intended to promote listening discourse comprehension should thereby be prioritized in listening classes. Yajun Zeng, Christine C. M. Goh 208 However, we found a marked difference in cognitive strategy enactment as reflected by the frequency/occurrence of participants’ perceived strategy use. First, HAs used four cognitive strategies, up to one third more often than LAs. This might help explain HAs’ higher level of strategy awareness and stronger ability in deep level processing and tackling listening comprehension problems. Second, HAs reported relying heavily on the visualization strategy of men- tally displaying the shape or spelling of key words while listening, which was only occasionally used by LAs. Chinese EFL learners frequently mentioned the im- portance of the size of their vocabulary in relation to their learning, as observed by Zhang (2010). Hence, the considerable difference identified here might have been caused by learners’ varied vocabulary size in general and word recognition or spelling abilities in particular. Third, the finding that the strategy occurrence of mental translation for HAs was almost 30% lower than that of LAs might indicate HAs’ much improved awareness of the detrimental effect of this strategy and fruitful efforts in re- stricting its use while listening. Or it might have resulted from their greater level of automaticity in processing lexical chunks. The finding is consistent with L2 listening literature (e.g., Vandergrift et al., 2006). Finally, the high- and low-achievers differed in operationalizing the fixa- tion strategy, which involves focusing attention on understanding a small part of a text. Compared to Las, who frequently tried to memorize/repeat the sounds of unfamiliar words, HAs were more engaged with memorizing words or phrases for later processing, indicating their stronger ability in matching the sound of words with their forms as well as engagement in deep level processing to con- struct meaning during listening (Field, 2008). Similarly, there were also more differences between HAs and LAs in how the metacognitive tactics were enacted. First, the frequency disparity of meta- cognitive strategy use between HAs and LAs was even greater compared to that of their cognitive strategy use. The much higher frequency of metacognitive strategy use for HAs was in line with L2 listening literature claiming that skilled listeners revealed using about twice as many metacognitive strategies as their less-skilled counterparts, primarily in comprehension monitoring (Goh, 2002; Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). It also helped explain HAs’ stronger ability to self-reg- ulate their listening learning as well as their greater degree of progress in listen- ing performance in the SRL case study. Second, HAs reported 42% more use of pre-listening preparation strate- gies such as previewing contents, which underscored the key role that prepara- tion strategies played in listening success (Goh, 2002; Rost, 2005). The three pre- planning preparation tactics not only covered learners’ mental and emotional preparation to reduce anxiety and enhance confidence but also included actions A self-regulated learning approach to extensive listening and its impact on listening achievement. . . 209 to pre-process the content semantically and phonologically. In this sense, HAs were far better prepared mentally and emotionally for achieving success in lis- tening tasks as compared to LAs. Third, the much higher level of strategy use in directed attention and se- lective attention suggests that HAs tended to monitor attention and avoid dis- tractions by concentrating hard and continuing to listen in spite of difficulty. Moreover, HAs managed to pay particular attention to familiar content words and listen for gist to secure satisfactory comprehension. Such strategy use dis- parity between HAs and LAs in both attention strategies is consistent with L2 listening research (Goh, 2002; Rost, 2002; Vandergrift et al., 2006) claiming that attention strategies are mainly adopted by higher ability listeners and are be- lieved to be essential for second language listening success. Fourth, while HAs frequently tried to notice intonation features to help them in comprehension, LAs seldom did so. Specifically, HAs were found to have paid par- ticular attention to pronunciation and intonation for better oral English through read- ing-aloud in the mornings and active participation in after-class English activities. Lastly, while HAs tended to use another two types of selective attention strategies, which were to listen to specific parts of the input and to pay attention to visuals and body language for video texts, LAs reported never using these tac- tics. Listening has been proven highly demanding and very much memory con- suming for Chinese EFL listeners (Wang, 2002). Thus, it is especially important that LAs learn to focus on specific parts of input and discard irrelevant or less im- portant information to achieve satisfactory understanding. In the same vein, it is also important that they are able to capitalize on visuals and body language to com- pensate for their limited knowledge of the target language for better comprehen- sion of video texts or in face-to-face communications with native speakers. 7.2.4. Metacognitive adaptation High-achieving listeners engaged in varied and more sophisticated metacognitive adaptation, either for immediate change or for long-term listening development, compared to Las, who appeared to have restricted themselves to simple and limited forms of immediate and long-term metacognitive adaptations, as indi- cated in Table 7. L2 listening research has well attested to the benefits and significance of evaluation after listening (Goh & Zeng, 2014; Rost, 2002; Vandergrift et al., 2006). As reported, the four participants showed marked difference in making long-term metacognitive adaptation for listening development. Although both high- and low- achievers tended to make metacognitive changes to reduce anxiety, regulate attention, and take down more notes to compensate for the limited working Yajun Zeng, Christine C. M. Goh 210 memory, HAs also reported having engaged in other essential metacognitive adap- tations for long-term listening development, which were not reported by LAs. Table 7 HAs and LAs’ metacognitive adaptation in listening based on the listen- ing guide protocols High-achievers Low-achievers Adaptation Immediate met- acognitive adap- tation for specific listening task · Need to consult the dictionary to get to know some words and expressions involved in such games (HA1). N.A. Vocabulary · Take down those unclear parts and then consult the dictionary afterwards to make clear their pronunciations (HA1). N.A. Pronunciation · Could listen according to scripts and try to find some patterns (HA2). · Scripts are helpful for repeated listen- ing (LA2). Listening scripts Long-term meta- cognitive adap- tation for listen- ing development · Often neglect to use these strategies while listening and I should learn to use these strategies more (HA1). N.A. Strategy use awareness · Calm down and do not be anxious if I can’t catch the listening (HA1). · Try to reduce listening anxiety (HA2). · Try to relax while listening (LA2). · Should prepare well before listen- ing (LA1). Reduce anxiety · Very important to focus attention while lis- tening (HA1). · Understand more when I stay focused (HA2). · Should focus more as I often get dis- tracted (LA1). · Just can’t concen- trate on the task (LA2). Attention · Very important to predict the content based on the title (HA1). · Guess according to common sense knowledge (HA1). · Quite important to predict before listening (HA2). · Sometimes the content could be predicted through test item choices (HA1). · Predict using the test items (HA1). · Try to train ability to preview the test items quickly (HA1). N.A. Prediction and previewing test items · Impossible to catch every sentence so key points are important (HA1). · Impossible to understand every part even if I want to (HA2). · Should focus on key points (HA1). · Try to catch sensitive and key details while listening (HA2). N.A. Theme and key points A self-regulated learning approach to extensive listening and its impact on listening achievement. . . 211 · For the inferential test items, I need to grasp the main theme and key sentences (HA1). · Pay attention to some questions related to the theme and pay attention to several sen- tences in the beginning of the text (HA1). · Learn to catch the main theme of the text (HA1). · Learn to catch key sentences to improve ac- curacy (HA2). · Should take down more notes in case I for- get what I’ve heard (HA1). · Taking down more notes as it is help- ful (LA2). Note-taking · Train my dictation ability consciously after class (HA1). N.A. Dictation · Should learn to link what I hear to related questions while listening (HA2). N.A. Association Note. N.A. = means not available from the data Results showed that HAs possessed stronger strategic awareness in listen- ing and they decided to learn and use more strategies in listening tasks. This is supported in one of HAs’ SRLP protocol, as indicated in Excerpt 2. Excerpt 2 I often neglect to use these strategies while listening and I should learn to use these strategies more. (HA1) In addition, HAs were more aware of the value of prediction for listening success and tended to preview test items to get themselves better prepared be- fore listening. Given the limited working memory and weak word recognition skills of Chinese EFL listeners (Zheng & Li, 2002), effective prediction and pre- viewing test items or questions before listening, which is what HAs did in our study, seemed to have contributed the lion’s share of learners’ listening success. Furthermore, HAs stressed the importance of the theme and key points of the oral texts. Unlike LAs, HAs would “pay attention to some questions related to the theme and pay attention to several sentences in the beginning of the text,” as one high achiever put it. Therefore, the ability to grasp the theme and key points to guarantee overall comprehension and to solve inferential ques- tions or test items appeared to well distinguish HAs from LAs. Finally, HAs reported having made another two metacognitive adapta- tions for listening development, which were not found in LAs’ listening proto- cols. One was to train the dictation ability and the other was to develop associ- ation skills. First, improving dictation ability directly addressed the urgent need to pass CET4 listening test, where dictation takes up almost 30% of the total Yajun Zeng, Christine C. M. Goh 212 listening score. Second, active association across the comprehension process to link what has been heard to questions demonstrated HAs’ dynamic assessment of their level of comprehension. It appears that LAs have much to learn from HAs in applying these two metacognitive adaptations to enhance their listening ability. 8. Conclusion This study adopted a self-regulated learning (SRL) approach for developing L2 listening in independent settings. It helped to extend the current classroom- based, process-oriented discussions of L2 listening instruction into one that fo- cuses on learner-oriented, self-regulated learning activities. It also provides ev- idence for the validity of transferring the theoretical construct of self-regulated learning to the area of second language acquisition, as first proposed by Oxford (1999) and explicated in Oxford (2011, 2017). This concept was further empha- sized by Dörnyei and associates (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Hornstra, van der Veen, Peetsma, & Volman, 2013; Tseng, Dörnyei, & Schmitt, 2006). At the same time, by adopting a metacognition-inclusive SRL framework, we were able to examine the use of strategies and how they can benefit language learners in self-directed listening activities. As argued by Vandergrift and Goh (2012), strategy instruction during class time and listening practice after class need not be mutually exclusive. We demonstrated that listening teachers in China could use carefully designed met- acognitive tools to help learners plan and prepare well for listening tasks, check and monitor comprehension, and evaluate strategic efforts in listening process in independent settings. Finally, our study took the research on skilled listeners further by identifying distinct and differing developmental paths of self-regulatory skills in L2 listening for learners with different achievement levels. This research evidence was espe- cially helpful for less skilled listeners to reflect on their poor performance in spe- cific self-regulated learning phases. Listening teachers can also capitalize on the limited listening class time to offer individualized instruction for low achievers. As such, it was expected that low achievers’ self-regulatory skills in listening could be greatly enhanced along the way for them to become skilled listeners. Our study was limited in its scope as the proposed SRL approach focused primarily on examining listening as an individual cognitive entity and the devel- opmental paths of learners with different achievement levels. Future research on self-regulation in SRL in L2 listening should include an examination of the affective and social aspects of the skill. In addition, research is needed in which both the constructive nature of learning and the important role that L2 learners play in the social process of learning to listen could be equally emphasized. How A self-regulated learning approach to extensive listening and its impact on listening achievement. . . 213 teacher scaffolding or support can be integrated into the SRL approach, as well as how their on-going interaction with learners in an SRL program can help learners achieve more progress in listening also merits further research. Furthermore, research that would contribute to fuller understanding of metacognition and self-regulated learning in L2 listening both within and be- yond the classroom is warranted. Whether different listening task types exert a differential influence on learner’s growth in metacognition and listening perfor- mance also appears to be an area requiring further research. Additional re- search is also needed to combine others’ ratings (such as teachers’ and peers’) and self-ratings to produce comprehensive assessment of listeners’ metacogni- tion and self-regulated learning. Lastly, it should also be cautioned that the in- terpretation and discussion are based on feedback from two cases (two high achievers vs. two low achievers) only. Therefore, the generalizability of the find- ings is very much limited to the context where the case study was carried out. In spite of this, the study can offer some practical insights for considera- tion. Firstly, L2 listening development outside class can benefit from a teacher- supported self-regulated learning approach. Instead of asking students to just “listen more,” teachers can provide tools to support their learning endeavors. These tools, such as the SRLP, can help learners articulate their plans and chart their progress. More able listeners may be more motivated to adopt such an approach, and the weaker ones who want to master their listening would also be likely to invest more time and effort in it. Although this study showed that it was the higher-achieving students who benefitted more and were more en- gaged, teachers should not exclude weaker listeners from a teacher-supported self-regulated approach. They could use the two cases in this study to illustrate the importance of taking charge of one’s listening development by engaging in and being committed to self-regulated learning beyond the classroom. Learners who are mainly motivated to pass examinations, however, may not fully appre- ciate the rationale for such an approach, as they may see it as taking away time from other language learning activities. Teachers would therefore need to de- cide for themselves whether or not it is necessary to complement their class- room instruction with such extensive listening activities. More importantly, they would need to be convinced themselves that their learners can benefit from such an approach, as this study has shown, and motivate their learners to invest time and effort in this form of extensive listening that can bring about longer term benefits in listening development. Yajun Zeng, Christine C. M. Goh 214 References Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., . . . Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman. Berne, J. E. (2004). Listening comprehension strategies: A review of the literature. Foreign Language Annals, 37(4), 521-533. Chamot, A. (1995). Learning strategies and listening comprehension. In D. Mendelsohn & J. Rubin (Eds.), A guide for the teaching of second language listening (pp. 13-30). San Diego: Dominie. Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman. Cross, J. (2011). Metacognitive instruction for helping less-skilled listeners. ELT Journal, 65(4), 408-416. Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391-409. htpps://doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6 Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589-630). Oxford: Blackwell. Efklides, A. (2009). The new look in metacognition: From individual to social, from cognitive to affective. In B. L. Clayton (Ed.), Metacognition: New research developments (pp. 137-151). New York: Nova Science. Feyten, C. M. (1991). The power of listening ability: An overlooked dimension in language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 75(2), 173-180. Field, J. (2000). “Not waving but drowing”: A reply to Tony Ridgway. ELT Journal, 54(2), 186-195. https://doi:10.1093/elt/54.2.186 Field, J. (2008). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2005). Second language listening: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goh, C. (1998). How ESL learners with different listening abilities use comprehension strategies and tactics. Language Teaching Research, 2(2), 124-147. Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28(1), 55-75. Goh, C. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns. System, 30(2), 185-206. A self-regulated learning approach to extensive listening and its impact on listening achievement. . . 215 Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: Theory, practice and research implications. RELC Journal, 39(2), 188-213. Goh, C., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal, 60(3), 222-232. Goh, C., & Zeng, Y. (2014). How learners’ engagement in a self-regulated learning program affected their listening development differently. In D. G. Sampson, J. M. Spector, N.-S. Chen, & R. Huang Kinshuk (Eds.), Proceedings of IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 469-473). Los Alamitos, CA: CPS & IEE Computer Society. 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. Graham, S., & Macaro, E. (2008). Strategy instruction in listening for lower- intermediate learners of French. Language Learning, 58(4), 747-783. Greene, J., & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 334-372. Gu, Y., Hu, G., & Zhang, L. J. (2009). Listening strategies of Singaporean primary pupils. In R. Silver, C. Goh, & L. Alsagoff (Eds.), Language learning in new English contexts (pp. 55-74). London: Continuum. Hornstra, L., van der Veen, I., Peetsma, T., & Volman, M. (2013). Developments in motivation and achievement during primary school: A longitudinal study on group-specific differences. Learning and Individual Differences, 23(0), 195- 204. htpps://doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.09.004 Hu, G. (2016). Research on second language learner strategies: Past, present, and future. In Y. Leung (Ed.), Epoch making in English teaching and learning (pp. 306-335). Taipei: Crane. Huang, J. (2006). Learner resistance in metacognition training: An exploration of mismatches between learner and teacher agendas. Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 95-117. Jiang, Z. K. (1994). Relationship of listening strategies and listening comprehension. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 29(1), 1-5. Jin, Y. (2005). The National College English Test of China. Paper presented at the International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA) 2005 Conference, Madison, WI. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. Yajun Zeng, Christine C. M. Goh 216 Liu, X. (2005). Teaching academic listening. In K. P. Foong & M. Vallance (Eds.), Teaching English to Chinese ESL students: Classroom practices (pp. 30-47). Singapore: Pearson Longman. Liu, X., & Goh, C. (2006). Improving second language listening: Awareness and involvement. In T. S. C. Farrell (Ed.), Language teacher research in Asia (pp. 91-106). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Macaro, E., Graham, S., & Vanderplank, R. N. (2007). A review of listening strategies: Focus on sources of knowledge and on success. In A. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 165-185). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mareschal, C. (2007). Student perceptions of a self-regulatory approach to second language listening comprehension development. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa, Canada. Mendelsohn, D. (2006). Learning how to listen using learning strategies. In A. Martínez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 74-90). Berlin: De Gruyter. Mendelsohn, D., & Rubin, J. (1995). A guide for the teaching of second language listening. San Diego, CA: Dominie. Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2008). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. New York: Routledge. Nunan, D. (1997). Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 192-203). London: Longman. O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., & Kupper, L. (1989). Listening comprehension strategies in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 10(4), 418-437. Oxford, R. L. (1999). Relationships between second language learning strategies and language proficiency in the context of learner autonomy and self- regulation. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 38, 108-126. Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Oxford, R. L., & Cohen, A. D. (1992). Language learning strategies: Crucial Issues of concept and classification. Applied Language Learning, 3(1), 1-35. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self- regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pintrich, P. R. (2001). The knowledge dimension. In L. W. Anderson, D. R. Krathwohl, P. W. Airasian, K. A. Cruikshank, R. E. Mayer, P. R. Pintrich, J. Raths, & M. C. Wittrock (Eds.), A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and A self-regulated learning approach to extensive listening and its impact on listening achievement. . . 217 Assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (pp. 38-62). New York: Longman. Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self- regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385-407. Ridgway, T. (2000). Listening strategies: I beg your pardon? ELT Journal, 54(2), 179-185. Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching listening. New York: Longman. Rost, M. (2005). L2 listening. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 503-528). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. Modern Language Journal, 78(2), 199-221. Schunk, D. H. (2008). Metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: Research recommendations. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 463-467. htpps://doi:10.1007/s10648-008-9086-3 Tseng, W., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78-102. Vandergrift, L. (1997). The Cinderella of communication strategies: Reception strategies in interactive listening. Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 494-505. Vandergrift, L. (2003a). From prediction through reflection: Guiding students through the process of L2 listening. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3), 425-440. Vandergrift, L. (2003b). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning, 53(3), 463-496. Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3-25. Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40(3), 191-210. Vandergrift, L. (2008). Learning strategies for listening comprehension. In S. Hurd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Language learning strategies in independent settings (pp. 84-102). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. New York: Routledge. Vandergrift, L., Goh, C., Mareschal, C., & Tafaghodtari, M. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431-462. Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60(2), 470-497. Yajun Zeng, Christine C. M. Goh 218 Wang, Y. (2002). A study of the listening strategies employed by non-English majors in China. Foreign Language World, 92(6), 5-12. Wenden, A. (2002). Learner development in language learning. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 32-55. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker & J. Dunlosky (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277-304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self- regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297-314). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wolvin, A. D. (2010). Listening and human communication in the 21st century. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (2000). Listening education in the 21st century. International Journal of Listening, 14(1), 143-152. Wu, Y., Liu, R., & Jeffrey, P. (1993). Learner factors and language learning achievement: A survey. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 25(1), 36-44. Zeng, Y. (2007). Metacognitive instruction in listening: A study of Chinese non- English major undergraduates. MA thesis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’ knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 320-353. Zheng, H., & Li, Z. (2002). Listening comprehension and short-term retention. Foreign Language World, 89(3), 32-35.