3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 2019

1A self-regulated learning approachto out-of-class listening practice
Tomoko Yabukoshi (Nihon University, Japan)

2

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 2019

Background: Importance of listening• In L2 learning and communication

Receivingand interactingwith L2 input

Facilitating
the acquisitionof other skills(Vandergrift & Goh, 2012)

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 2019

3Background: L2 listening research• The least research attention (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012; Zeng & Goh, 2018)• Limited instruction time for listening (Zeng & Goh, 2018)• Less structured support on how to listen (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012)• Little strategy instruction research (Polansky, 2011)

More pedagogical guidance on L2 listening

4

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 2019

L2 listening instruction approach
1. “Listening to repeat approach” (audio-lingual methods)
2. “Question-answer comprehension approach”
3. “Real-life listening in real time” approach (CLT)
4. Strategy-based approach (SBI)

Vandergrift (2004, p. 3)

5

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 2019

SBI: Metacognitive approach• Grounded on L2 listening strategy research→The importance of metacognitive strategies••••

Classroom-based approach
Raise awareness of L2 listening processes
Use metacognitive (& cognitive) strategies
Use strategies in 3 stages (pre-/during-/post-listening)
Metacognitiveawareness

Self-efficacy

Listening
performance

Intervention Group vs. Control Group(Graham & Macaro, 2009; Tanewong, 2018; Vandergrift &Tafaghodtari, 2010)

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 2019

6SBI: Self-regulated learning approach• Extension of classroom pedagogy → Out-of-class listening(Zeng & Goh, 2018)• Winne & Hadwin’s (1998) metacognitive SR model• Metacognitive SR activities• List of listening strategies• Feedback from teachers
MetacognitiveawarenessSelf-efficacy?

Listeningperformance

2 skilled-listeners vs. 2 less skilled-listeners
More studies (experimental design) are called for.
Effective SR processes of L2 listeners

7

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 2019

The concept of self-regulation (SR)
Educationalpsychology

L2 strategy
research• SR refers to “processes that learners use to activate andmaintain cognitions, emotions, and behaviors to attainpersonal goals” (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 2014, p. 145).
• Integration of L2 learning strategies into SR theory• SR L2 learning strategies (Oxford, 2011, p.48)• L2 learning strategies in the S2R model (Oxford, 2017, p.48)• Writing strategies for SRL (Teng & Zhang, 2016)• SR strategies (Seker, 2016)

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 20198

Effective SR listening processes (Yabukoshi, 2018)• Japanese college students’ SR processes outside the class• Zimmerman’s (2011) social cognitive model• 3 cyclical phases (forethought, performance, self-reflection)

Metacognitive SR listening processes
•
••
•
•

Time management
Setting specific and challenging learning goals
Analyzing task difficulties
Planning strategies appropriate for the tasks, to achieve goals
Attending to linguistic and non-linguistic elements and practicing
in various ways
• Monitoring listening comprehension• Evaluating strategy use and identifying problems

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 20199The present study
Based on Yabukoshi (2018) that was framed by
the Zimmerman’s three cyclical processes of SR,
the present study proposed and examined theeffects of an SRL approach to out-of-classlistening practice of Japanese EFL students.

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 201910

Research questions
1. Will an SRL approach improve students’listening performance?
2. Will the SRL approach develop students’

metacognitive self-regulatory strategy use?

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 201911Participants & setting
45 Japanese college students
Year

The second year

MajorBusinessLevel

Intermediate (TOEIC L & R: M = 555)

CourseA compulsory English reading & writing

Requirement Taking the TOEIC L & R

12

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 2019

Research design
A quasi-experimental study• Two intact classes

Intervention Group (IG)n =22Comparison Group (CG)
n =23

13

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 2019

Out-of-class listening practice
Duration

7 weeks

Weekly Tasks TOEIC Listening practice questions
Textbook

TOEIC preparation coursebook,including listening strategies for TOEIC L

IG (n =22)
Metacognitive SR strategies
Listening tasks

CG (n =23)
Listening tasks

14

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 2019

Instructed metacognitive SR strategies
Self-reflection(Post-listening)

Forethought(Pre-listening)
Goal setting
Task analysis
Strategic planning
Time management

Performance(During-listening)

Evaluation

Directed attention
Monitoring
SR cycle(Yabukoshi, 2018)

15

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 2019

Strategy instruction: 4-phase sequence
Adapted from Chen (2013)

Phase 1: Awareness-raising
SRL questionnaire
Phase 2: Demonstration
Task sheets with the prompts of the focused strategies
Phase 3: Practice
Listening practice using the prompts
Phase 4: Evaluation
Effectiveness of the focused strategies using the prompts

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 201916

Measures
ListeningA) Official TOEIC L testB) TOEIC L practice test

1. Pretest
2. Posttest

SRL

Original SRL questionnaire
14 items on a 6-point scale-Forethought (α = .78)
-Performance (α = .67)
-Self-reflection (α = .79)1. Pretest
2. Posttest
3. Delayedposttest

17

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 2019

Results
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Variables
Official TOEIC L
pretest (Max. 495)
TOEIC L practicepretest (Max. 30)
SR strategy use(Time 1) (6-point)

GroupN

M

SD

IG

22276.82

45.66

CG

23281.09

41.97

IG

2218.64

3.89

CG

23

16.96

3.23

IG

22

4.21.63CG

23

3.85.67

Independent-sample t-tests: n.s.

18

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 2019

RQ1. Listening performance
Official TOEIC L (Max. 495)
320
310

301.74*

290
280

25

311.82 *300

281.09276.82TOEIC L Practice (Max. 30)
2018.64

20.64**
16.96

19.48 **

15
10270
5260
250

0IG

CG
PretestPosttest

IGCG
PretestPosttest

Paired IG: t(21) = 2.37, p = .03, r = .46
t-test
CG: t(22) = 2.41, p = .03, r = .46

IG: t(21) = 2.86, p = .009, r = .53
CG: t(22) = 3.17, p = .004, r = .56

ANCOVA

F(1, 42) = .02, p = .90, n.s.
η2 = .000

F(1, 42) = .60, p = .44, n.s.
η2 = .01

ＩＧ did not outperform CG on the listening posttests

19

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 2019

RQ2. SRL
Overall SRL
4.50*

4.21

3.85

Time 1Performance
phase

4.26
4.09
3.94

Time 2IGCGTime 3

ANOVA IG F(2, 42) = 3.36, p = .04, η2 = .14 Post-hoc Time 2 < Time 3
CG F(2, 44) = 1.37, p = .26, η2 = .06 n.s.

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 201920

Discussion (RQ1):Will an SRL approach
improve students’ listening performance?
• IG significantly improved their listening test scores. Up↑• CG also made significant gains in the tests. Up↑• The advantage of IG over CG: n.s.

Interpretation• The short-term implicit instruction, the self-instructional setting• The treatments that the both groups received-A large amount of listening input of the TOEIC-Strategies (task-analysis, strategic planning, attention, etc.)⇒The CG’s partial experience of an SRL approach3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 201921Discussion (RQ2):Will an SRL approachdevelop students’ strategy use?
• IG: Improvement of strategy use (the performance phase)• CG: No significant changes n.s.
Tanewong (2018): Despite CG’s partial experiences of MI,
IG’s better awareness, the during-listening stage
Zeng & Goh (2018): The effectiveness of an SRL approach forskilled listeners in the independent learning setting

The SRL approach was effective for developing theintermediate EFL listeners’ strategy use
in the self-instructional setting

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 201922Limitations and future research directions• No advantage of IG over CG in the listening tests⇒More investigation in terms of IDs (proficiency, self-efficacy)• Metacognitive-inclusive SRL approach⇒Inclusion of motivational SR strategies• Not possible to establish a clear causal effect⇒Qualitative studies
how students develop strategy use and listening performance3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 201923References• Chen, A.-H. (2013). EFL listeners’ strategy development and listening problems: A

process-based study. The Journal of ASIA TEFL, 10(3), 81-101.
• Graham, S., & Macaro, E. (2008). Strategy instruction in listening for lowerintermediate learners of French. Language Learning, 58, 747-783. doi: 10.1111/j.14679922.2008.00478.x• Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Selfregulation in context. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
• Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow:Pearson.
• Plonsky, L. (2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A metaanalysis. Language Learning, 61(4), 993-1038. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00663.x• Seker, M. (2016). The use of self-regulation strategies by foreign language learners
and its role in language achievement. Language Teaching Research, 20, 600-618. doi:
10.1177/1362168815578550• Tanewong, S. (2018). Metacognitive pedagogical sequence for less-proficient Thai EFL
listeners: A comparative investigation. RELC Journal, Advanced online publication, 1-18.
doi: 10.1177/0033688218754942• Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016). A questionnaire-based validation of multidimensionalmodels of self-regulated learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 100(3),674-701. doi: 10.1111/modl.12339

3rd International Conference on Situating Strategy Use, October 14, 201924

References• Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 24(3), 3-25. doi:10.1017/S0267190504000017• Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. M. (2012). Teaching and learning second language
listening: Metacognition in action. New York: Routledge.
• Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does
make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60, 470-497. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00559.x• Yabukoshi, T. (2018). Self-regulation and self-efficacy for the improvement of listening
proficiency outside the classroom. The Language Learning Journal, Advanced online
publication. doi: 10.1080/09571736.2018.1472626.
• Zeng, Y., & Goh, C. C. M. (2018). A self-regulated learning approach to extensive
listening and its impact on listening achievement and metacognitive awareness.
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 193-218. doi:
10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.2• Zimmerman, B.J. 2011. Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learningand performance. In Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance, ed.
B.J. Zimmerman and D.H. Schunk, 49–64. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Zimmerman, B.J. and A. Kitsantas. 2014. Comparing students’ self-discipline and selfregulation measures and their prediction of academic achievement. Contemporary
Educational Psychology 39, no. 2: 145–155. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.004.