DISERTASI dan TESIS Program Pascasarjana UM, 2019

Ukuran Huruf:  Kecil  Sedang  Besar

Word Recognition from Speech, Syntactic Knowledge, Metacognitive Awareness, Self-Efficacy as Predictors for L2 Listening Comprehension

Ramli . Ramli


Word Recognition from Speech, Syntactic Knowledge, Metacognitive Awareness, Self-Efficacy as Predictors for L2 Listening Comprehension



Universitas Negeri Malang, Universitas Bosowa Makassar, Indonesia


Nur Mukminatien

Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia


Ali Saukah

Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia


Johannes Ananto Prayogo

Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia




This study investigated the contribution among word recognition from speech (WRS), syntactic knowledge, metacognitive awareness, self-efficacy as predictors for L2 listening comprehension among 92 Indonesian students of English. WRS was categorized into the 1K, 2K, and 3K word frequency levels through comparison with the largest Corpus (British National Corpus and the Corpus of Contemporary American English. Grammaticality judgement and sentence comprehension as two components of proceduralized syntactic knowledge were also assessed. Word recognition, grammar knowledge, and L2 listening comprehension test were designed based on the students' learning need (learning syllabus).   To complete the nature of relationship, metacognitive awareness and self-efficacy were also involved. Multiple regression analysis revealed that word recognition from speech, syntactic knowledge, metacognitive awareness, self-efficacy positively contributed to listening comprehension. This finding suggested that all variables must be promoted in learning process for students' fruitful L2 listening comprehension. Both pedagogical implications and applications were interpreted.


Keyword:  Word Recognition from Speech, Syntactic Knowledge, Metacognitive Awareness, Self-Efficacy, L2 Listening Comprehension



Listening in Second language (L2) is one of fundamental aspects in learning. Listening in EFL is unavoidable in L2 learning since learners often do listening frequently and essentially to facilitate the development of their English proficiency. Cahyono & Widiati (2011) state that there is a concern regarding listening in the field of language teaching as receptive skill to acknowledge that listening process is complex. L2 listening comprehension which poses the learners to develop other L2 language skills has long been highlighted and observed (Goh, 2000; Graham, 2006; Vandergrift, 2007; Goh, 2008; Graham & Macaro, 2008; Gatehouse & Akerovd, 2008; Field, 2008a, 2008b, 2010; Perez et al., 2013; Siegel, 2013; Chang & Millett, 2014; Sommers, 2015).

The challenge of L2 listening can be worryingly hard work (Weber & Cutler, 2004). The difficulties in listening process can be influenced by many factors such as speech rate, words, phonological features, text structure/syntax, and background knowledge to own factors such as insufficient experience to the target language, low interest and motivation. Those factors are visibly linked to the ability to recognize the word (Goh, 2000).  This study would investigate the contribution among word recognition from speech 1k, 2k, and 3k frequency level as a construct of vocabulary test in listening (Matthews & Cheng (2015) and proceduralized syntactic knowledge which focuses on form and meaning (Ellis, 2005). Previously, research about syntactic knowledge on listening comprehension was investigated using untimed written format of the measure of syntactic knowledge (Mecartty, 2000; Liao, 2007). The issue of designing the variables using syllabus rather than adopting standardized proficiency test is to provide familiar contextual support, sufficient previous knowledge to answer the questions which is better suited to determining the students’ general L2 listening proficiency (Joyce, 2013). To gain a whole picture of correlation between linguistic factors and L2 listening, the role of metacognitive awareness and self-efficacy in listening are also encountered.



Listening comprehension


Listening comprehension is one of important skills in L2 learning and teaching which needs to be operationalized and employed in FL classrooms to meet the students’ learning need (Graham, 2011; Huang, 2005). Nunan & Newton (2009) state that the result of listening provides learners much information which develops their prior knowledge required in language use. When the learners enhance their knowledge, they will begin to speak so the role of listening is fundamental in communication (Vandergrift, 2007; Jafari & Hashim, 2012). Moreover, the purpose of listening is to involve students in social interaction and to obtain direct and exact meaning of the message (Huang, 2005). On the contrary, lack of listening comprehension can be the factor affecting the potential for misunderstandings (Fitch-Hauser, 2007). The English skill development and other successful factors in learning are influenced by listening comprehension. Hence, listening contributes to the successful second language acquisition (Rost, 2014).

L2 Listening process is one difficult aspect for learners because they must understand the spoken words quickly and the rate of listening is not always readily controlled (Hulstijn, 2007). L2 learners also face overload of cognition to extract accurate meaning from fluent speech which is caused by some aspects like speech rate, lexis, phonological feature, and background knowledge (Goh, 2000). Another feature that increases the L2 learners’ difficulty is speech signal such as lexical segmentation. This feature creates connected words in groups whose sound features are significantly dissimilar when those of the individual words are pronounced separately (Field, 2003). Therefore, L2 listening skills has been highlighted and observed to explore the learners’ challenge of listening processes. The successful listening comprehension integrates linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge to deliver the foundation of L2 listening comprehension. Buck (2001) defined that L2 listening comprehension is an interactive process facilitated by rapid, accurate and socially contextualized cognition from the sources of linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge. Meanwhile, Vandergrift (2007) and Staehr (2009) define that non-linguistic belongs to metacognitive knowledge and prior knowledge (the context, topic, or world knowledge).

Metacognitive knowledge helps learners decide how to proceed their learning and apply more appropriate ways to listen effectively (Bloomfield, et al., 2010). Basic knowledge might affect the process of syntax and context knowledge comprehend the meaning (Buck, 2001). However, Vandergrift, (2007) include affective dimensions (i.e. motivation, anxiety, self-efficacy) as other factors in successful listening comprehension.  Students’ perceptions in L2 listening prove the vital role of their self-efficacy and provenances of successes in listening (Graham, 2006). In line with the previous ideas, in general language, a separation appears between linguistic competence (knowledge of language) and strategic competence (the ability to use this knowledge) (Bachman and Palmer, 1996). Applying the different types of linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge is through bottom-up and top-down processes to conceptualize L2 listening (Goh, 2000; Vandergrift, 2007; Prince, 2012).

Bottom-up and top-down processing models in L2 listening comprehension become largely applied to discover the cognitive processes and types of knowledge applied during listening activity. This model has employed a strong influence in the field of L2 listening (Vandergrift, 2007; Graham & Macaro, 2008). The “bottom-up and top-down” information processing model theorizes that the cognitive processes involved in listening comprehension exist along a bidirectional range reaching between lower level (bottom-up) processes and higher level (top-down) processes (Vandergrift, 2004). Graham (2006) and Prince (2012) revealed that the complexity of the listening processes involves a larger combination of knowledge sources, linguistic and non-linguistic in which students understand incoming data rapidly. Increasing familiarity and context is linked to the faster and better word recognition. Meanwhile, both also facilitate word recognition (Solso, 1991). Successful L2 listening comprehension incorporates two major linguistic factors; word recognition and syntactic knowledge. Along with phonological knowledge, Mecartty (2000); Buck (2001); Bloomfield et al. (2010); Vandergrift and Goh, (2012); revealed that among the two linguistic factors word recognition and syntactic knowledge are the knowledge bases that learners use to process and understand the text. It is also vital to note that two linguistic components can be explicitly taught and practiced in classroom settings, and teachers can focus on the development of their students in these two areas to improve L2 listening skill.  The comprehension of spoken language must begin with word segmentation and recognition form as the base of verbal language comprehension (Staehr, 2009).

Furthermore, listening success depends on the capability of listeners to simultaneously activate their knowledge source such as the ability to decode speech, to recognize word, to interpret and process the input rapidly (Perez et al. 2013). Listeners are not able to control grammatical structure, sentence or text unless words are recognized (Harmer, 1991). Moreover, Matthews & Cheng (2015) quotes Graham et al.’s (2010) ideas that the lowest level of word recognition in linguistic knowledge is first required before non-linguistic knowledge in the form of world knowledge or higher order. When listeners found the difficulty in the perception or word recognition level, little cognitive capacity is left for their high-level processing such as making inference (Goh, 2002). Moreover, students are not able to gain on top-level cues if they can recognize a certain number of words (Bonk, 2000) because the words represent meaning, access the appropriate contextual information, and interpret a sufficient meaning representation of the text.


The word recognition and listening comprehension


Recognizing words as a crucial factor for successful listening comprehension in second language development is continuously investigated Larsen et al, (2008); Staehr, (2009); Webb & Rodgers (2009a); Webb & Rodgers (2009b); Jafari & Hashim, (2012); Van Zeeland & Schmitt, (2013a); Van Zeeland & Schmitt, (2013b); Yamamoto, (2014). Those studies have also found that vocabulary knowledge is such a substantial aspect for successful L2 listening comprehension. However, less research has directly studied the role of word recognition from speech in listening. Matthews & O'Toole, (2013) revealed that students attained significantly higher word recognition levels while undertaking the learning procedures. Continuously, Matthews et al, (2014) showed that there was greater improvement in L2 word recognition from speech when using web-application using web-application. Furthermore, Matthews & Cheng (2015) investigated the relationship between WRS in 1000, 2000, and 3000-word frequency levels and listening comprehension test (IELTS) in 24 different subjects in tertiary level in ESP context. It revealed significant association between WRS and L2 listening comprehension scores and third thousand frequency level with L2 successful listening comprehension. However, the improvement of L2 WRS is predominantly interesting in learning settings within which involvement in the target language is unachievable. From the purpose, development of high frequency word recognition from speech (WRS) considerably seems to be helpful model for quizzes that aims to be predictor listener's ability to have L2 listening comprehension in EAP context. The crucial role of L2 WRS in listening comprehension, the practical difficulties in enhancing this skill, and the current lack of empirical finding can be used as the primary motivations for the present study.


Syntactic knowledge in Listening comprehension


Although vocabulary aspect has been presented in models of L2 listening comprehension as a way of conveying meaning auditory language, Mecartty (2000); Buck, (2001) state in linguistic knowledge syntactic knowledge also has equally been recognized as essential for the perception and interpretation of auditory language. Additionally, Sun (2002) also demands that L2 listeners may find difficulty segmenting streams of speech when many words are connected because of limited syntactic knowledge. Some previous studies (Long, 1985; Chiang and Dunkel, 1992; Teng, 2001) have investigated the significant position of syntactic knowledge in L2 listening. Investigating syntactic knowledge in relation to L2 listening comprehension is based on the results from the two previous studies (Mecartty, 2000; Liao, 2007). Mecartty (2000) compared the roles of vocabulary (K-24) and syntactic knowledge (K-24) in both L2 reading and listening. The two measures were delivered in written form and were untimed. Basically, he described that no significant findings were found with respect to predictive power and the measures of vocabulary and syntactic knowledge covered in the study.  Additionally, Liao (2007) explored the link between vocabulary knowledge, syntactic knowledge and L2 listening ability. These results exposed that vocabulary and grammatical knowledge were identified as essential predictors for L2 listening comprehension. The untimed written format of the measure of syntactic knowledge may have hidden the finding. The most distinguished limitation of these both measures was delivered in written form and was untimed. The constructs between vocabulary and syntactic knowledge have either been under or misrepresented in one research. Therefore, this current study investigates word recognition from speech and syntactic knowledge. To gain a whole picture of correlation between linguistic factors and L2 listening, the role of non-linguistic factors should also be involved.


Metacognitive comprehension and L2 listening comprehension


Another aspect beside linguistic feature which is consciously needed to develop students’ listening comprehension is metacognitive awareness/knowledge. Metacognition helps learners decide what to do in their learning process so listeners can adopt more appropriate ways to listen effectively (Bloomfield, et al., 2010) because awareness of metacognitive processes related to planning, monitoring, and evaluating cognitive processes while doing language activities helps learners to manage, direct, regulate and guide their learning (Wang et al., 2009). According to Goh (2008), metacognitive instruction deals with two purposes. Firstly, learners increase their motivation, thereby becoming less anxious, and more confident. Secondly, listening performance improves with increased confidence (Vandergrift & Goh (2012); Vandergrift (2004)).

Additionally, metacognition lies as the heart of learner-oriented L2 listening comprehension because it is fundamental to help learners involve more effectively with contribution and lead their overall listening development like language input they receive, manage their approach to listening, focus on the spoken message, and boost their performance on listening activity in and out of the classroom (Rahimirad & Shams, 2014). Research on metacognition in second language (L2) listening becomes positive interest among researchers, reviewers, and scholars (Cross,2015) and some studies on learners’ metacognition has exposed the important role of metacognitive knowledge in L2 listening performance (Vandergrift, Goh, Mareschal & Tafaghodtari, 2006; Goh & Hu, 2013; Bozorgian, 2014; Rahimi & Abedi, 2015; Vandergrift and Baker, 2015). Tafaghodtari, (2006) found that metacognitive awareness is recognized as an essential variable in L2/FL listening comprehension process. Goh & Hu (2013) found that learners’ metacognitive knowledge scores, their listening performance, and metacognitive awareness in listening were significantly correlated. Rahimirad & Shams (2014) resulted that there was a significant improvement in the learners’ listening test and metacognitive awareness level after receiving strategy instruction. Furthermore, Bozorgian (2014) found the influence of metacognitive instruction, and metacognitive knowledge of EFL male students. It improved students’ listening skill after metacognition has been taught to them so applying MALQ potentially improved metacognitive awareness when listening (IELTS). Rahimirad & Moini (2015) found that giving extra attention to a strategic approach to the listening activities in EAP classrooms and crucial and focus on product-oriented as well as process-oriented listening instruction to foster the leaners’ ability to extract content information from listening input effectively. In this current study, to investigate the ability to recognize words from speech and syntactic knowledge as predictions for L2 listening comprehension, metacognitive knowledge is one of the main non-linguistic factors that must be accounted for.


Self-efficacy and L2 listening comprehension


Beside word recognition from speech, syntactic knowledge and metacognitive awareness, successful L2 listening comprehension is also influenced by self-efficacy as the key to understand learners’ actions. Vandergrift (2007) and Rost (2014) state that the first field of L2 listening, one of the most central aspects, is the affective factors. Self-efficacy is one of powerful motivational constructs because it covers all aspects of motivational form with causal attributions which affect motivation, performance and affective reaction (Bandura, 1977; Monzirgi & Birjandi, 2016 in Bandura, 1993). In line with the statement, Bandura (1984; 1986) defined that self-efficacy is self-judgement of learners’ capabilities to complete a task well. Related to the prominence of self-efficacy, he also considered that self-efficacy has a main role in language learning by fostering or blocking learners’ progress. In this manner, Bandura (1986) proposed that self-efficacy is more substantial than knowledge, skill, and prior achievement. Moreover, self-efficacy is personal beliefs about self-capabilities to finish a specific task which strongly influence on the levels of persistence and how they make choices (Graham, 2011). Yip (2012) resulted that learning strategies as well as self-efficacy were highly predictive of their general academic performance. When students have self-efficacy, the low academic achievers will have more positive direction of learning attitude and they will logically make a change to their leaning strategies and result in improvement in their academic performance. Additionally, Hsieh (2008); Piechurska & Kuciel (2013) found self-efficacy has given substantial contribution to the understanding of student motivation and language learning achievement.

The position of learners’ self-efficacy is obviously significant in their perseverance and success, it is crucial to know ways to support learners develop high self-efficacy in language learning contexts (Baleghizadeh & Masoun, 2013) and when students have strong sense of self-efficacy, they can be possibly more motivated, put more effort in their strategy use, and encourage to apply their strategy use in listening activities (Graham, 2011; Anam & Stracke, 2016). Since listening becomes complex and active process of interpretation, self-efficacy leads students to gain higher level of achievement and bear greater willingness to face challenges and to employ effort (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1989; Mills, at al. 2006). To investigate the ability to recognize words from speech, syntactic knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge as predictions for L2 listening comprehension, self-efficacy is one of affective domains must be accounted for.


The Present Study


Previous empirical finding revealed that there was a relationship between word recognition from speech (WRS) at the three frequency levels and standardized listening test (IELTS) in English Specific Purpose (ESP) context among 24 different majors. Meanwhile, this study investigates the relationship between word recognition from speech and L2 listening comprehension test in English Academic Purpose (EAP) and the role of other factors was also accounted for. Another linguistic factor is syntactic knowledge. This study investigates the relationship between spoken syntactic knowledge to L2 listening comprehension because the previous studies only examined the relationship between untimed and written syntactic knowledge and L2 listening comprehension. Those tests were constructed based on learners’ need in listening course. the designed proficiency test based on the students’ leaning syllabus is considered to be suited to determining the students’ L2 listening comprehension (Joyce, 2013). Furthermore, the roles of non-linguistic factors are also encountered; metacognitive awareness and listening self-efficacy. As the discrepancy of this research, this study is expected to obtain empirical evidence on the contribution among word recognition from speech (WRS), syntactic knowledge, metacognitive awareness, and listening self-efficacy to L2 listening comprehension.


Research Questions


This present study goes to explore the research questions as follows.

1.To what extent do the students’ word recognition from speech at the first, second, and third thousand frequency, syntactic knowledge, metacognitive awareness, and self-efficacy contribute to L2 listening comprehension?



This research employed correlational study. It aimed to provide a clear understanding of the correlation between word recognition from speech, syntactic knowledge, metacognitive awareness in listening, self-efficacy in listening and L2 listening comprehension.


Population and Samples


The population was all second semester students at English Language and Letters Department, Faculty of Humanities, UIN Maliki Ibrahim Malang, Indonesia.  They had already followed and passed Literal Listening (listening I) which concerned on understanding short dialogues and other simple spoken texts of British and American accents to achieve literal comprehension. There were approximately 200 students selected as the targeted population. However, the accessible samples of this research were 92 students.


Research Instruments


The Measurement of Word Recognition from Speech (WRS)


The construction mode of word recognition from speech was an adaptation from the previous research (Matthews & O'Toole, (2013); Matthews et al (2014); Matthews & Cheng (2015)).  It was to measure the participants’ ability to recognize the targeted words from speech which represent meaning. The items of test were combined with the written stimulus position the targeted words with the blank space. Each item of WRS consisted of one sentence with one missing targeted word. The contextual words in a sentence were at the same or more frequent than the targeted word. In Matthews and Cheng (2015) the frequency level of the lexical content of the written contextual sentences for each item was carefully checked. For the items testing the 1K frequency level all contextual lexical items were also from the 1K frequency level and for the 2K and 3K level, contextual lexical items were predominantly from the 1K level with only a few items from the 2K level. The spoken stimulus of words was general information to limit the potential influence of students’ background knowledge. By providing sentence, students were expected to comprehend the context as well as to recognize the words.

The categorization of word lists 1000, 2000, and 3000 frequency level was taken from British National Corpus (BNC) (Davies, 2004) in comparison with Corpus of Contemporary of American (COCA) (http://www.wordfrequency.info) as the largest freely-available and well- balanced corpus of American English (Davies, 2008). The analysis tool from Vocabulary Profiler on the Compleat Lexical Tutor (Cobb, 2013) showed how many words contain from frequency bands as determined through analyzing many research corpora BNC-COCA. The number of WRS used was 22 words in 1K frequency range, 37 words in 2K frequency range, and the words of 3K were dominant in 41 frequency range. The WRS was examined in terms of its usefulness: validity and reliability prior to its implementation. The spoken stimulus of WRS test was carefully recorded in normal speed rate using digital recording equipment by a woman native speaker of English. There were 100 sentences as the spoken stimulus with 100 targeted words, 5 seconds periodically were given to recognize the targeted word in each sentence, and around 17 minutes were used to complete this test. The total word length of stimulus of targeted words was 824 words and the average length of words was 8.24 words in each sentence.

Regarding the ways of scoring word recognition from speech tests, the basic concern was to limit the potential threat to validity caused by the requirement to represent words in the written form. When the students made minor spelling errors they were not penalized in scoring the ability to recognize high frequency words from speech of high frequency (Buck, 2001).  The structured scoring rubrics designed by (Matthews & O'Toole, 2013) which produced a very high level of inter-rater reliability as determined by Cohen's Kappa analysis (K =91, p < .01) were employed to achieve this goal. The use of the rubric categorized the minor spelling errors and assigned marks for varying levels of word recognition systematically. The marking rubrics assigned full credit (1) to responses which were written in the correct orthographic form and included minor spelling errors which no way impeded the scorer’s ability to recognize the target word. Half marks (0,5) were assigned for words which could be readily recognized by the scorer, despite a degree of vagueness introduced due to the errors in the representation of the target word. Meanwhile, no credit (0) was given when students answered different word or no answer.

The scores of WRS test were analyzed using point-biserial correlation coefficient to analyze the item validity while reliability of test used Kuder–Richardson Formula 20. Word recognition from speech test had 100 items which were given to the students and if the valid value of Pearson correlation was higher than 0.257 (> .59) and the reliability coefficient was .965 (N.59). To support the validity of the instrument, at the first validity and reliability were checked using the real samples (N.92) from the same department and university in the end of semester. It was found that 79 items were valid with the reliability coefficient (α =0.921).


Syntactic Knowledge


Target Structure


The idea to operationalize the proceduralized syntactic knowledge tests was based on criteria offered by Ellis (2005). Firstly, assessing L2 knowledge needs to be controlled. L2 learners have limited time to access their knowledge of language and learners successfully complete the task if they have an acceptable level of proceduralized knowledge of target structure. Secondly, while measuring the form of sentence, it is also focused on meaning. Another concern is that fluent language use requires a focus on meaning rather than on form in both production and comprehension. In this study, measuring syntactic knowledge of learners concerned on their knowledge of forms and meaning which were considered as better measures of proceduralized L2 knowledge. Two kinds of syntactic knowledge were developed; grammaticality judgment test and sentence comprehension test. The target structures of this test were developed from two positions of research: (a) the studies of cognitive psychology regarding factors contributing to spoken sentence comprehension (Robertson & Joanisse, 2010; Kornilov et al. 2015); (b) corpus studies regarding frequency of basic English grammatical structures using any structural frequencies for a variety of written and spoken corpora (Roland et al., 2007). Sentence comprehension studies focused on comprehension of canonical and non-canonical sentences.The syntactic structures were based on Basic English Grammar course syllabus.


Grammaticality judgment and sentence comprehension test


The first measure of syntactic knowledge was a timed aural grammaticality judgment. The word frequency used in test sentences was words from the first 1000 word-families to avoid compounding syntactic knowledge and WRS test. Correct and incorrect sentences were provided for each target structures based on students’ listening syllabus course. Therefore, the aural test had a total of 74 items and the total words are 646. The second measure of syntactic knowledge was aural sentence comprehension studies. The target structures were also selected from the students’ course syllabus. The word frequency used in test sentences was words from the first 1000 word-families to avoid compounding syntactic knowledge and WRS test. In this test, participants listened to the sentence once and answered a short yes/no comprehension question. There were four items for each target structures for a total of 40 items and the total words were 389 which needs 7 seconds for SJT, and 8 seconds for SCT) to answer each item of test periodically.  The result of validity and analysis showed that in grammatical judgement test, 49 items were valid and its cronbach's alpha (α) was 0.833. Meanwhile, the sentence comprehension test was also measured. It showed that 34 items were valid with its cronbach's alpha α = 0.747.


Listening Comprehension Test


To develop language test for the purposes of satisfying language learning needs, the test of listening was designed based on the listening syllabus of Islamic State University (UIN) Malik Ibrahim, Malang. This test was administered for students who had passed in Listening I (Literal Listening) course in semester 2. Specifically, there were four basic competences used to develop this test. Firstly, the test was employed for students to understand comprehend listening texts in the form of short dialogue. They were expected to find the specific or details information from the short conversation. Secondly, the test was designed for students to understand the main ideas and details of dialogues.  For the third competence, students were to comprehend the main ideas and details of narrative texts. In this test, the students got some information of the sequences of events. The last basic competence was to comprehend the main ideas and details of descriptive texts.  The resources of listening test were adopted from some authentic materials of listening which are widely provided for students and lecturers commonly used the sources at UIN Maulana Malik, Malang.

The listening comprehension test consisted of 6 transcripts, 3 short conversations, 1 dialogue, and narrative and descriptive listening text. The content of the short dialogue in L2 listening comprehension was involved to achieve a social function in some conversation. The question type was multiple choice as adopted listening comprehension test from TOEFL. Like other listening tests, the participants answered the questions with multiple choices as they heard the stimulus material. The listening material was heard only once. Time allocation provided was approximately 15 minutes to answer and 5 minutes to transfer the answer into an answer sheet. Regarding the scoring listening test, highest stakes of listening tests applied a "correct" or "incorrect" approach to grading responses. Basically, in this listening comprehension test, a point is described for a correct response. Correct answer received 1 mark while incorrect answer did not receive a point (0). A try out was also conducted to the validity of the listening comprehension test after it was being examined by the experts. 35 items were valid with Cronbach's alpha (0.751) which were used to collect the data.


Metacognitive Awareness of Listening Questionnaire


This questionnaire was used to measure the participants’ metacognitive awareness concerning their perceived use of strategies while listening to spoken texts. This research adapted the Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) which was constructed by (Vandergrift, Goh, Mareschal, and Tafaghodtari (2006) and previously implemented by Goh & Hu (2013); Rahimirad & Shams (2014); Bozorgian (2014); Vandergrift & Baker (2015); Rahimirad & Moini (2015). The MALQ, a self-report instrument, consists of 21 randomly ordered items in relation to L2 listening comprehension. The items of questionnaires focus on measuring the perceived use of the strategies and processes underlying five factors related to the regulation of L2 listening comprehension: Problem-solving (5, 7, 9, 13, 17, 19), Planning and Evaluation (1, 10, 14, 20, 21), Mental Translation (4, 11, 18), Person Knowledge (3, 8, 15), and Directed Attention (2, 6, 12,16). Participants responded using a Likert scale from 1 to 6, with 6 signifying full agreement with the item. 21 items were valid with cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.915) used to collect the data for students’ strategy use in listening process. The MALQ was completed after learners had engaged in a listening comprehension test.


Self-Efficacy of Listening Questionnaire


The construction of list