本研究旨在探討後設認知聽力策略教學對台灣大學學生英文聽解力之影響。此外，本研究也探討台灣大學學生對後設認知聽力教學的態度。研究對象為大學生一年級兩班，共八十六位學生。實驗組接受後設認知聽力策略訓練輔以課堂學習單和學習日誌的方式進行教學。然而，控制組則接受傳統的聽力教學。本次後設認知聽力策略實驗共歷時十六週。在2015年的暑假7月11日，研究者邀請參與此研究的實驗組及對照組的學生們回到學校接受延遲英文聽力理解測驗。第二次及第三次全民英檢英文聽力理解測驗，共相隔三週。
    本實驗透過量化與質化的混合式方法，折衷取其優使本研究的內容更具完整性。研究工具包含：(1)個人背景問卷調查、(2)三套全民英檢英文聽力測驗本、(3)後設認知覺察聽力問卷、(4)學習日誌以及(5)訪談紀錄。本研究採用SPSS獨立樣本T檢定來做英文聽力前測、後測、延遲測驗的量化分析，並利用成對樣本T檢定檢視歷經十週後，實驗組的學生有無後設認知覺察，更運用the Pearson Product Moment Correlation研究後設認知各項因素與全民英檢聽解力之間的關係。最後，善用訪談記錄和學習日誌來揭發學習者對於後設認知聽力策略教學的態度。
    根據本研究量化結果顯示，實驗組在接受後設認知聽力策略教學之後英文聽解力並無顯著差異。雖然經過十週的後設認知聽力策略教學後，可使實驗組的學生們腦海裡存有後設認知聽力策略的概念，且這一些後設認知聽力策略對英文聽解力有顯著的關係，但卻沒有明顯增加受測者的英文聽解力，因此這一些結果，能保有商榷的空間。除此之外，對於後設認知聽力策略教學，百分之六十七的實驗組受訪者抱持著肯定的態度、百分之二十的實驗組學習者則保持中立的立場、然而卻有百分之十三的實驗組學生表示負面的態度。
    最後，本研究質化結果表示，此研究能存在許多限制，還有許多複雜的影響因素無法被控制在其中，如：學習者個人的學習偏好、學習意願、學習動機或是一位採取主動學習或被動學習的學習者，這些因素也同時影響著此研究結果。本研究建議未來的研究方向可著重於：(1)找不同科的老師一同合作，把後設認知策略教學，運用在不一樣的教學情境下；(2)個人特質之因素需考慮到研究中，例：學習者的學習風格；(3)邀請更多不同的學習者參與此研究，如：不同程度的英文學習者(高階程度、中階程度、低階程度)加入到後設認知聽力策略教學的研究行列裡。

The current study investigated the effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on EFL Taiwanese college students’ English listening comprehension. Moreover, their attitudes were examined. The study was conducted in two required English laboratory classes. Eighty-six students voluntarily participated in the study. Most of them were freshmen. The experimental group was given metacognitive strategies training, whereas the control group received traditional listening teaching. The whole study lasted 18 weeks. All participants in both groups were welcomed back taking the GEPT delayed tests on July 11th, 2015. The interval between the second time and the third time was 3 weeks.
    Both quantitative and qualitative research methods were applied in this study. Five instruments included background questionnaires, three versions of GEPT listening comprehension tests, metacognitive awareness listening questionnaires (MALQs), learning journals, and interviews. The data from three GEPT tests and MALQs were analyzed by applying the Independent Sample T-tests, the Paired Sample t-tests and the Pearson Product Moment Correlation on SPSS. Furthermore, the interviewed data and learning journals, representing the experimental group’s attitudes, were analyzed as well. 
    The results revealed no significant differences between the experimental and the control groups in GEPT listening post- and delayed tests, showing metacognitive strategy instruction was ineffective for learners in the experimental group. In addition, the experimental group’s participants had metacognitive concepts in mind showing by paired t-tests after ten weeks of instruction, presenting significant positive but low correlations between metacognitive awareness and participants’ post-tests demonstrating by independent t-tests. Moreover, 67% of the interviewees’ attitudes toward this instruction were positive, with 20% neutral, and 13% negative. 
    Finally, interview data showed some constraints, such as learners’ individual differences (learning preferences), the willingness to learn, their low learning motivations, and the active or passive roles (integrating the learned metacognitive strategies into their own learning) in the present study. The findings suggest that future research could (1) employ the metacognitive strategy instruction by cooperating with different areas of teachers, (2) take individual characteristics (learning styles) into consideration, and (3) engage more participants at different English proficiency (high-, mid-, and low-level) in the metacognitive listening studies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT................................................i
DEDICATION............................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................v
LIST OF TABLES........................................vii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study.................................1
Purposes of the Study...................................4
Significance of the Study...............................5
Research Questions......................................6

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
Listening Comprehension.................................7
Listening Difficulties for L2 Learners..................8
Definitions of Metacognitive Strategies................10
Metacognitive Strategies and Listening.................14
Metacognitive Strategy Instruction.....................17
Metacognitive Strategy Instruction in ESL Countries: Singapore, U.S., Canada................................22
Metacognitive Strategy Instruction in EFL Countries: Iran, Turkey, China, Taiwan............................24

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY
Participants
    The experimental group.............................44
    The control group..................................44
Data Collection
    Materials..........................................46
　　    The textbook Network 2.........................46    
        In-class learning worksheets...................47
    Instruments........................................48
　　　  The background questionnaires..................48
       The listening comprehension (pre-, post-, and delayed) tests..................................................49
       The Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire..........................................51
       Learning journals...............................52
       Semi-structured interviews......................53
Procedures.............................................53
Data Analysis...............................................56

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results
    Research Question 1................................61
    Research Question 2................................63
    Research Question 3................................64
    Research Question 4................................67
    Research Question 5................................69
Discussion.............................................83

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION
Summary of the Findings in the Current Study...........97
Limitations of the Present Study......................100
Pedagogical Implications..............................102
Suggestions for the Future Studies....................103

REFERENCES............................................104
APPENDIXES............................................115
Appendix A. In-class Learning Worksheets
Appendix B. English Background Questionnaire
Appendix C. Chinese Background Questionnaire
Appendix D. GEPT Listening Comprehension Sample Test
Appendix E. English Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire
Appendix F. Chinese Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire
Appendix G. Learning Journals
Appendix H. Semi-structured Interview Questions
Appendix I. Sample Lesson Plan (The Experimental Group)
Appendix J. Sample Lesson Plan (The Control Group)
Appendix K. The SPSS Cronbach’s Alph Result

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Oxford’s (2011) Categorizations of Language Learning Strategies....................................11
Table 2. O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) Classifications of Language Learning Strategies............................................12
Table 3. Vandergrift’s (1996) Taxonomies of Language Listening Strategies..................................14
Table 4. Vandergrift and Tafaghodtari (2010)Instructional Stages and Metacognitive Processes....................21
Table 5. Metacognitive Strategy Instruction Studies in ESL / EFL Countries...................................37
Table 6. Participants’ Background Information........ 46
Table 7. Five Listening Variances in MALQ.............52
Table 8. Research Procedures..........................56
Table 9. Independent Sample T-test of the English Listening Comprehension Pre-tests.....................62
Table 10. Independent Sample T-test of the English Listening Comprehension Post-tests....................63
Table 11. Independent Sample T-tests of the English Listening Comprehension Delayed tests.................64
Table 12. Experimental Group: Descriptive Statistics	 ......................................................65
Table 13. Experimental Group: Paired Sample T-tests of Pre- and Post- MALQs...............................66
Table 14. Experimental Group: Correlation between the Post-listening Performance and the Five Factors Related Metacognitive Awareness in MALQ.......................68
Table 15. Experimental Group: Correlation between the Delayed Listening Performance and the Five Factors Related Metacognitive Awareness in MALQ...............69
Table 16. Interviewees’ Background Information........69
Table 17. Experimental Group’s Attitudes toward the Metacognitive Strategy Instruction....................70
Table 18. Employing the Metacognitive Strategies in the Experimental Group’s..................................75
Table 19. Experimental Group’s Perceived English Improvements..........................................76
Table 20. Experimental Group’s Suggestions............82

104
REFERENCES
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second
language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language
Journal, 78, 465–483.
Anderson, A., & Lynch, T. (1988). Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language
reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.
Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and
learning. ERIC Digest, 4, 3-4.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. (1991). What does language testing have to offer? TESOL Quarterly, 25,
671-704.
Birjandi, P., & Rahimi, A. H. (2012). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction
on the listening performance of EFL students. International Journal of Linguistics,
4, 495-517.
105
Bozorgian, H. (2014). The role of metacognition in the development of EFL learners’
listening skill. The International Journal of Listening, 28, 149-161.
Brown, H. D. (2001). New Vistas: An interactive course in English. Book 4. White
Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White
Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Chamot, A. U. (1995). Implementing the cognitive academic language learning
approach: CALLA in Arlington, Virginia. The Bilingual Research Journal, 19,
379-394.
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and
research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130.
Chang, C. W. (2013). Metacognitive awareness in English listening: A study of
Taiwanese non-English majors. Journal of National Huwei University of Science
and Technology, 31, 75-90.
Chang, I. C. (2010). A study on the effects of listening strategy instruction on Taiwanese
EFL freshmen’s listening comprehension. M. A. Thesis, National Changhua
University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan.
106
Cheng, C. H. (2002). Effects of listening strategy instruction on junior high school
students. Selected Papers from the Eleventh International Symposium on English
Teaching / Fourth Pan-Asian Conference (pp.289-297). Taipei: Crane.
Chien, C. N., & Kao, L. H. (2002). Effects of metacognitive strategy on listening
comprehension with EFL learners. Selected Papers from the 11th International
Symposium on English Teaching Fourth Pan-Asian Conference (pp.298-307).
Taipei: Crane Publisher Co.
Chien, C. Y. (2005). A study on the effects of listening strategy instruction on Taiwanese
industrial vocational high school students’ EFL listening comprehension. M. A.
Thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan.
Coşkun, A. (2010). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on the listening
performance of beginner students. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and
Language), 4, 35-50.
Denes, P. B., & Pinson, E. N. (1963). The speech chain. Philadelphia, PA: Williams &
Wilkins.
Dunkel, P. (1991). Listening in the native and second/foreign language: Toward
integration of research and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 431-457.
Elton, L. (1987). Teaching in higher education: Appraisal and training. London, UK:
Kogan Page.
107
Field, J. (2010). Listening in the language classroom. ELT Journal, 64, 331-333.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.),
The nature of intelligence (pp.231-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitivedevelopmental
inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2005). Second language learning: Theory and practice.
Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2003). An introduction to language.
Wadsworth, Canada: Cengage Learning.
Goh, C. (1997). Metacognitive awareness and second language listeners. ELT Journal,
5, 361-369.
Goh, C. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns.
System, 30, 185-206.
Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development:
Theory, practice and research implications. RELC Journal, 39, 188-213.
Goh, C., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners.
ELT Journal, 60, 222-232.
Graham, S. (2002). Experiences of learning French: A snapshot at years 11, 12 and 13.
Language Learning Journal, 25, 15-20.
108
Graham, S., & Macaro, E. (2008). Strategy instruction in listening for lowerintermediate
learners of French. Language Learning, 58, 747-783.
Griffiths, C., & Oxford, R. L. (2014). The twenty-first century landscape of language
learning strategies: Introduction to this special issue. System, 43, 1-10.
Haynie, W. J. (1990a). Anticipation of tests and open space laboratories as learning
variables in technology education. Journal of the North Carolina Council of
Technology Teacher Education, 1, 2-19.
Haynie, W. J. (1990b). Effects of tests and anticipation of tests on learning via
videotaped materials. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 27, 18-30.
Haynie, W. J. (1994). Effects of multiple-choice and short answer tests on delayed
retention learning. Journal of Technology Education, 6, 32-44.
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test anxiety. Education
and Educational Research, 58, 47-77.
Hutchinson, T., & Sherman, K. (2012). Network 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin
Books.
Imhof, M. (2001). How to listen more efficiently: Self-monitoring strategies in listening.
International Journal of Listening, 14, 2-19.
Kelly, H. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. Morristown: General Learning
Press.
109
Kim, J. (2005). The Reliability and Validity of a Foreign Language Listening Anxiety
Scale. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 5, 213-235.
Lai, Y. C. (2009). Language learning strategy use and English proficiency of university
freshman in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 255-280.
Li, P. C. (2009). Effects of listening strategy instruction on junior high school students’
EFL listening comprehension in Taiwan. M.A. Thesis. National Changhua
University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan.
Li, W. (2013). A study of metacognitive awareness of non-English majors in L2
listening. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4, 504-510.
Li, W. L. (2009). An action research of metacognitive strategy instruction in English
listening. M. A. Thesis. Tamkang University, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Lin, C. H. (2012). The effects of metacognitive listening instruction on EFL listening
comprehension of sixth graders. M. A. Thesis. National Taiwan University of
Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.
Mansoor, F., & Ebrahim, F. A. (2014a). Exploring the effect of the model of
metacognitive instruction on the listening performance of EFL learners.
International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 3, 3-20.
Mansoor, F., & Ebrahim, F. A. (2014b). Maximizing learners’ metacognitive awareness
in listening through metacognitive instruction: An empirical study. International
Journal of Research Studies in Education, 3, 79-91.
110
Mendelsohn, D. (1998). Teaching listening. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18,
81-101.
Mendelsohn, D. (2001). Listening comprehension: We’ve come a long way, but….
Contact, 27, 33-40.
Ministry of Education. (2000). General guidelines of Grade 1-9 curriculum for
Elementary and Junior High School Education. Retrieved August 26, 2014, from
http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=391&ctNode=784&mp=1
Movahed, R. (2014). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on listening
performance, metacognitive awareness and listening anxiety of beginner Iranian
EFL students. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4, 88-99.
Nungester, R. J., & Duchastel, P. C. (1982). Testing versus review: Effects on retention.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 18-22.
O’Bryan, A., & Hegelheimer, V. (2009). Using a mixed methods approach to explore
strategies, metacognitive awareness and the effects of task design on listening
development. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 9-38.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning
approach: A bridge to mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 227-249.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
111
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzaneres, G., Russo, R. P., & Kupper, L.
(1985). Learning strategy application with students of English as a second
language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 285-296.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. L. (1993). Instructional implications of gender differences in second/foreign
language (L2) learning styles and strategies. Applied Language Learning, 4, 65-
94.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow,
UK: Pearson Education.
Rahimirad, M., & Shams, R. (2014). The effects of activating metacognitive strategies
on the listening performance and metacognitive awareness of EFL students. The
International Journal of Listening, 28, 162-176.
Richards, J. C. (1983). Listening comprehension: Approach, design, procedure. TESOL
Quarterly, 17, 219-240.
Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching listening. Pearson Education: Longman.
Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. The
Modern Language Journal, 78, 199-221.
Saslow, J. M., & Ascher, A. (2006). Summit: Complete Assessment Package. Pearson
Education: Longman.
112
Seligman, M. E. P. (1972). Learned Helplessness. Annual Review of Medicine, 23, 407-
412.
Snyder, C. R. (1999). Hope, goal-blocking thoughts, and test-related anxieties. The
Psychological Reports, 84, 206-208.
Tavakoli, W., Shahraki, S. H., & Rezazadeh, M. (2012). The relationship between
metacognitive awareness and EFL listening performance: focusing on IELTS and
lower scores. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2, 24-37.
Teng, H. C. (2006). A study of listening strategy instruction for EFL college students.
Studies in English Language and Literature, 18, 29-38.
Teng, H. C., & Chen, Y. S. (2013). The effect of listening anxiety on EFL listeners’
comprehension and vocabulary performance. Studies in English Language and
Literature, 31, 75-86.
Ur, P. (1984). Teaching listening comprehension. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Ur, P. (2000). A course in language teaching: Practice and theory. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Vandergrift, L. (1996). The listening comprehension strategies of core French high
school students. Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 200-223.
Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language (French)
listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 387-409.
113
Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension:
Acquiring successful strategies. ELT Journal, 53, 168-176.
Vandergrift, L. (2002). “It was nice to see that our predictions were right:” Developing
metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 58, 555-575.
Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second
language listener. Language Learning, 53, 463-496.
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Learning to listen or listening to learn? Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 24, 3-25.
Vandergrift, L. (2006). Second language listening: Listening ability or language
proficiency? The Modern Language Journal, 90, 6-18.
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C. M., Mareschal, C., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The
Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ): Development and
validation. Language Learning, 56, 431-462.
Vandergift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does
make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60, 470-497.
Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. A., & Afflerbach, P. (2006).
Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations.
Metacognition Learning, 1, 3-14.
114
Wilson, M. (2003). What do tests of listening comprehension test? －A retrospection
study of EFL test-takers performing a multiple-choice task. Language Testing, 15,
21-44.
Yang, C. (2009). A study of metacognitive strategies employed by English listeners.
International Education Studies, 2, 134-139.
Yang, C. (2013). The effects of metacognitive strategy training on the graduates’
listening. International Academic Workshop on Social Science, 50, 918-923.