Remaining Issues In metacognitive instruction for second or foreign language listening development

Abstract

A review on recent research on second or foreign listening instruction suggested a

need for an analysis of the effectiveness of metacognitive instruction for developing

L2 listening comprehension. Current approaches for effective L2 listening were

toward real-life authentic ample-input listening with more of top-down approaches

and process instruction. Most of the studies, if not all, supported for real-life

listening with authentic materials (Buck, 2002; Goh, 2008; Richards, 2005;

Vandergrift, 2007; Veenman et a1., 2006). The importance of greater exposure to

comprehensible spoken input has been widely asserted (Field, 2008; Krashen, 2008;

Beasley & Chuang, 2008; Derwing, Munro & Thomson, 2008; Rost, 2007).

Top-down approaches have drawn more recent favors than bottom-up approaches

(Goh, 2008; Rost, 2002; Vandergrift, 2004). Process listening was favored to product

listening (Vandergrift, 2004; Field, 2003; Buck, 1995; Krashen, 2008). Interest was

also indicated in raising student awareness of the listening process (Vandergrift,

1999; Mendelsohn, as cited in Vandergrift, 2004). Among the approaches to L2

listening, metacognitive instruction for L2 listening was noted to be a most recent trend (Annevirta et al., 2007; Beasley et al., 2008; Chen, 2007; Derwing, 2008; Field,

2008; Goh, 2008; Graham et al., 2008; Lee & Oxford, 2008; Vandergrift, 2007;

Veenman et al., 2006; Zohar & Peled, 2008). In a state-of-the-art review article on

recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension by

Vandergrift (2007), the suggested instructional model for L2 listening was

metacognitive instruction. The favored process instruction also underlies

metacognitive teaching (Vandergrift, 2004:1l).