1. “Learning to listen” A pedagogical cycle for:  teaching the listening process  raising metacognitive awareness  improving comprehension

2. BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION LEARNERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF LISTENNG most difficult skill toughest to improve least pleasant to learn source of anxiety CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING most used skill negotiation of meaning Important to learners noticing PROCESS APPROACH “demystify the skills” metacognition strategy instruction metacognitive awareness

3. METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS / STRATEGY USE SUCCESSFUL LEARNING OUTCOMES Thomas (1988); Jessner (2006) Bilingual Advantage Winne (1995); Bolitho et. al (2003); Palmer & Goetz (1988) General Learning Schoonen, Hulstijn & Bossers (1998); Muniz-Swicegood (1994) L1/L2 Reading Purpura (1997) L2 Test Performance Imhof (2001) L1 Listening L2 Writing Fortune (20o5)

4. METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS IMPROVED L2 LISTENINGCOMPREHENSION Carrier, (2003); Chamot (2005); O’Malley & Chamot (1990); Thompson & Rubin (1994); Ross & Rost, (1991); Thompson & Rubin (1996); Vandergrift (1997; 2004); Vandergrift, Goh, Mareschal, & Tafaghodtari; (2006); Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari (2010) RESEARCHERS HAVE EXAMINED THE LINK BETWEEN: and have found a positive correlation.

5. HOW CAN WE RAISE LEARNERS’ METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS? A pedagogical cycle of controlled, cognitive & metacognitive strategy training which will:  develop understanding of the listening process  train students in effective listening strategy use  separate listening practice from listening performance  mirror real world listening activities  provide practice with and promote awareness of the metacognitive processes underlying listening comprehension

6. 1. At the end of the treatment, what will be the difference between the two groups in terms of listening comprehension? 2. At the end of the treatment, what will be the difference between the two groups on a final measure of metacognitive awareness? 3. How will the experimental groups respond to the pedagogical cycle in post-treatment focus group interviews? How will their responses differ from those of the comparison groups in similar focus group interviews? RESEARCH QUESTIONS

7. PROCEDURES: PEDAGOGICAL CYCLE Experimental Group Treatment Planning & Predicting Stage First Verification Stage Second Verification Stage Final Verification Stage Reflection Stage Planning & Directed Attention Monitoring & Planning Monitoring, Planning & Selective Attention Monitoring, Problem-solving, & Evaluating tine Evaluating (and reflection) & Planning

8. PARTICIPANTS Upper-Intermediate Level Students Appropriate Listening Level 65% of class time devoted to listening Authentic Materials Four Intact OPIE Listening & Speaking Classes

9. MATERIALS & INSTRUMENTS END OF QUARTER MPT Listening Alternative Listening Assessment MALQ Focus Group Interviews During the Quarter Checklist Observations of all Classes BEGINNING OF THE QUARTER Michigan Placement Test (Listening) (MPT) Alternative Listening Assessment Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ)

10. Michigan Placement Test Metacognitive Awareness in Listening Questionnaire Alternative Listening Assessment Observation checklists Quantitative Observation data Focus group interviews Qualitative DATA ANALYSIS

11. LIMITATIONS LIMITATIONS Isolation of a single variableStudent placementLack of think-aloud protocol/stimulated recallResearcher as teacher

12.  RQ1: Experimental group will outperform comparison group on final measure of listening comprehension  RQ2: Experimental group will outperform the comparison group on a final measure of metacognitive awareness  RQ3: Experimental group will respond positively to the pedagogical cycle Expected Findings (Goh & Taib, 2006; Graham & Macaro, 2008; Rubin, 1994; Thompson & Rubin, 1996; Vandergrift, 2002; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010).