The Journal of Educational Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Exploring the relationship between metacognitive

awareness, motivation, and L1 students’ critical
listening skills

Heleen Bourdeaud’hui, Koen Aesaert & Johan van Braak

To cite this article: Heleen Bourdeaud’hui, Koen Aesaert & Johan van Braak (2021)
Exploring the relationship between metacognitive awareness, motivation, and L1
students’ critical listening skills, The Journal of Educational Research, 114:1, 40-51, DOI:
10.1080/00220671.2021.1872474

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1872474

Published online: 21 Jan 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1322

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjer20
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
2021, VOL. 114, NO. 1, 40–51
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2021.1872474

Exploring the relationship between metacognitive awareness,

motivation, and L1 students’ critical listening skills
Heleen Bourdeaud’hui , Koen Aesaert, and Johan van Braak
Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study aimed to provide a more comprehensive view on the relationship between metacogni- Received 16 July 2020
tive awareness, intrinsic and extrinsic listening motivation, and L1 primary school students’ critical Revised 21 December 2020
listening skills. A critical listening test and different self-report questionnaires were administered to Accepted 26 December 2020
649 native Dutch-speaking sixth-grade students. Quantitative data analysis techniques, including a
KEYWORDS
series of one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVAs) and a structural equation model Metacognitive awareness;
(SEM) were used to analyze the data. The results indicated that high-level listeners were more motivation; listening
aware of different factors of metacognition (i.e., person knowledge, problem-solving, and directed comprehension; primary
attention) and more intrinsically motivated to listen compared to average and low-level listeners. school students
Further, complex structural relationships among students’ motivation, metacognitive awareness,
and critical listening skills were found. The results showed that both intrinsic and extrinsic listen-
ing motivation were antecedents of students’ reported awareness of metacognition. The findings
also suggested that metacognitive awareness mediated the relationship between motivation and
critical listening skills.

Introduction should listen critically to the myriad of persuasive messages,

such as commercials or political ads (Floyd & Clements,
Among the four communication skills, listening in the
2005; Wallace, 2013). They need effective critical listening
mother tongue (further referred to as L1 listening) is the
skills to evaluate their acquisition of new knowledge and
first developed and most frequently used language skill
reconstruct existing knowledge (Sungur, 2007).
(Janusik & Wolvin, 2009). Listening is a multi-layered pro-
Critical listening is a complex activity because students
cess and young learners have to develop different types of
not only have to comprehend the message but should also
listening skills, such as discriminative (to distinguish sounds
evaluate the credibility of the speaker, interpret stress and
in the message), comprehensive (to understand the factual
ideas), and critical listening skills (to evaluate and judge) intonation, and judge the message for accuracy and reliabil-
(Adelmann, 2012; Brownell, 2016; Johnson & Long, 2007). ity within the sociocultural context (Thompson et al., 2004;
Discriminative listening skills assist learners to distinguish Wolvin & Coakley, 1996). Due to the complex nature of
and identify aural stimuli, whereas comprehensive listening critical listening skills, variation among students may exist,
skills refer to retaining and remembering the listening stim- and it is interesting to reflect on these differences. Knowing
uli. Critical listening is the highest level of listening, going the factors that influence students’ listening performance is
beyond discriminative and comprehensive listening levels. necessary to improve their critical listening skills.
According to Wolvin and Coakley (1996, p. 316), “Critical It is widely accepted that students who have higher meta-
listening is listening to comprehend and then evaluate cognitive awareness will likely do better than students who
the message.” do not (Pintrich, 2003). Metacognitive awareness may be
Critical listening skills play an integral role in students’ essential to manage, oversee, direct, and regulate the listen-
learning processes in and outside the classroom. Inside the ing process (Imhof, 2001; Trace, 2013; Vandergrift et al.,
class context, students need critical listening skills as they 2006). However, possessing knowledge of how to regulate
should be able to separate facts from opinions, fantasy from the listening process is not enough to enhance student
reality, and accurate from inaccurate content and ideas from learning, as students must also be motivated to complete the
the teacher and their peers during all facets of the school listening task (Pintrich, 2003). According to D€ ornyei (1998,
day (Ediger, 2015; Ferrari-Bridgers et al., 2015). In today’s p. 273), “without sufficient motivation, even individuals with
society, which heavily relies on information transfer, young the most remarkable abilities cannot accomplish long-term
learners have easy access to multiple communication sources goals.” As critical listeners have to deal with complex proc-
(e.g., the Internet, social media, radio, and television) and esses, they may need high levels of motivation to stay

CONTACT Heleen Bourdeaud’hui Heleen.Bourdeaudhui@ugent.be Department of Educational Studies, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, Gent
9000, Belgium.
ß 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 41

focused and finish the listening task (Wolvin & Coakley, (p. 232). Flavell (1976) classifies metacognitive knowledge
1996). Student motivation and metacognitive awareness are two according to whether it focuses on the learner, the learning
components that are conceived as interacting constructs in task or the learning process.
research regarding the theory of self-regulated learning Vandergrift et al. (2006) identified in their empirical study
(Zimmerman, 2008). Self-regulated students are motivationally, five types of metacognitive awareness, i.e., four about students’
metacognitively, and behaviorally active participants in the listening strategy use and one about themselves as listeners.
learning process (Bembenutty, 2008; Zimmerman, 2008). Many The first type, directed attention, refers to strategies that listen-
researchers reported that motivational and metacognitive varia- ers use to concentrate on the text during a listening task after
bles are positively related, as students with a higher motivation losing concentration or having difficulties with understanding.
are often more willing to invest time and effort in applying The second factor, problem-solving, refers to strategies that lis-
metacognitive strategies to attain their goal than lower moti- teners use to make inferences when the information is not
vated students (e.g., Berger & Karabenick, 2011; Pintrich, 2003; clear for them, for example, when they use familiar words to
Sungur, 2007; van Kraayenoord & Schneider, 1999). guess the meaning of unknown words. The third type, plan-
Until now, the significant role of motivation and metacog- ning/evaluation, represents the strategies that listeners use
nitive processes has been primarily documented in studies on before or after the listening task to prepare them for listening
second language (L2) listening (e.g., Rahimi & Katal, 2013; or evaluate their listening efforts. The fourth factor, mental
Vandergrift et al., 2006). Research on primary school students’ translation, refers to students’ ability to translate unknown
L1 listening skills is largely lacking and, to our knowledge, words and to find equivalents in their native language. Finally,
previous research does not seem to have addressed motiv- person knowledge, refers to judgments and knowledge about
ational and metacognitive challenges in the context of L1 crit- students’ own listening abilities and factors that affect success
ical listening skills. More insight is needed into how or failure, such as confidence, anxiety, and self-efficacy (Goh
motivational and metacognitive processes interact with each & Hu, 2013; Vandergrift et al., 2006).
other and are related to students’ critical listening skills. Metacognitive awareness has been examined much more
Therefore, this study will add empirical evidence of what con- extensively in the L2 listening context, resulting in considerable
stitutes primary school students’ critical listening skills. The proof of its powerful role to enhance success in listening to a
goal of the present study is twofold: (1) to explore the differ- foreign language (e.g., Baleghizadeh & Rahimi, 2011; Berne,
ences between low and high-level L1 critical listeners on their 2004; Goh & Hu, 2013; Graham & Macaro, 2008; Ratebi &
motivation and metacognitive awareness, and (2) to assess the Amirian, 2013; Vandergrift, 2003; Vandergrift & Goh, 2012;
complex relationships among motivation, metacognitive Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). Whereas low-level L2 listen-
awareness, and L1 critical listening skills. ers rely more on lower-order cognitive strategies, such as mem-
orizing, and expend much time on processing single words or
sentences, high-level L2 listeners save more energy to apply
Literature review higher-order metacognitive strategies (Berne, 2004; Goh & Hu,
Critical listening skills 2013; Graham & Macaro, 2008). Although L2 listening studies
showed consistent results about the importance of overall meta-
Primary school students are expected to master discriminative, cognitive awareness in listening, varying results were found on
comprehensive, and critical listening skills (Al-Musalli, 2001; the impact of the different factors according to Vandergrift
Brownell, 2016; Field, 2008; Ganske & Fisher, 2009). Critical et al. (2006). Chang (2013), for example, showed that three fac-
listening skills incorporate discriminative and comprehensive tors – namely problem-solving, person knowledge, and directed
listening skills but stretches well beyond it, activating multiple attention – significantly attributed to L2 listening. Goh and Hu
higher-order cognitive abilities. At this level, students should (2013) found that only two types – problem-solving and
be able to determine and evaluate the quality, value, signifi- directed attention – were significantly correlated with the score
cance, accuracy, and truthfulness of the message and draw on the listening test, whereas Wang and Treffers-Daller (2017)
appropriate conclusions from it (Deveci, 2013; Ferrari- concluded that solely person knowledge was significantly corre-
Bridgers et al., 2015; Floyd & Clements, 2005; Wallace, 2013). lated with L2 listening skills.
To be an effective critical listener, students have to possess Although the significant role of metacognitive awareness
different competencies, such as the ability to identify bias in has been well documented in L2 listening research, metacog-
the message, evaluate the speaker’s arguments, analyze and nitive research on L1 listening skills is largely lacking
uncover the speaker’s intention, and separate facts from opin- (Imhof, 2001; Lau, 2017). It is not self-evident that the cog-
ions (Al-Musalli, 2001; Deveci, 2013; Ferrari-Bridgers et al., nitive processes in L2 listening are equally applicable in the
2015; Floyd & Clements, 2005; Fogelsong, 2016). L1 listening context (Berne, 2004; Buck, 2001), as a large
difference lies in L2 listeners’ linguistic constraints and lim-
ited background knowledge of the spoken language.
Metacognitive awareness
Students who are listening in their native language are sup-
According to Flavell (1976), metacognitive awareness is posed to automatically decode acoustic inputs and often
essentially “thinking about thinking” (p. 906). More specific- have a relatively low level of word recognition problems
ally, it is “one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive (Rost, 2014; Siegel, 2014; Vandergrift, 2004). To our know-
processes and products or anything related to them” ledge, only the study of Lau (2017) found that
42 H. BOURDEAUD’HUI ET AL.

metacognition was an essential factor in facilitating L1 stu- listening activities than low-level listeners. However, this study
dents’ listening skills. More specifically, she found that high- did not distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic listening
level listeners used more frequently planning, monitoring, motivation. Further, Bourdeaud’hui et al. (2020a) found that
and evaluation strategies than low-level listeners. However, higher extrinsically motivated Dutch L1 listeners scored signifi-
no distinction was made between the different types of cantly lower for listening skills, whereas no significant relation-
metacognitive awareness according to Vandergrift et al. ship with intrinsic listening motivation could be found.
(2006). In this study, we aimed to investigate if L1 students It is worth further investigating the potential relationship
with a higher metacognitive awareness about listening strat- between different orientations related to motivation and L1
egy use and themselves as listeners are also better critical lis- critical listening performance. In this respect, we suppose that
teners. In summary, we assumed that: higher intrinsically motivated students will achieve higher crit-
Hypothesis 1: High-level L1 listeners use more problem-solving, ical listening levels as they may persist with more difficult lis-
directed attention, and planning/evaluation strategies, and score tening tasks (Wery & Thomson, 2013). In contrast, it is
higher on person knowledge than low-level L1 listeners. arguable whether extrinsic motivation can contribute to crit-
ical listening skills, as extrinsically motivated students will lis-
ten to demonstrate their ability to others or get better grades,
Orientations related to listening motivation and thus, may not engage deeply with the listening task or
tend to pass with minimal efforts (Covington & M€ ueller,
Motivation is understood as students’ readiness to initiate
2001; Lepper et al., 2005). Based on these theoretical assump-
learning activities and may determine the success or failure
tions, the following hypotheses were put forward.
of learning (Schiefele et al., 2012). The intrinsic and extrin-
sic orientations of motivation, as conceptualized in the self- Hypothesis 2a: High-level L1 listeners are more intrinsically
determination theory, constitute a useful framework for motivated to listen than low-level L1 listeners.
studying motivation in educational contexts. Intrinsic and Hypothesis 2b: High-level L1 listeners are less extrinsically
extrinsic motivation are not simply two opposite ends of a motivated to listen than low-level L1 listeners.
continuum but are different factors that may occur simul-
taneously and have varying effects on learning (Stutz et al.,
2016). Intrinsically motivated students are involved in an The mediating role of metacognitive awareness
activity for internal purposes, such as enjoyment and satis-
According to the self-regulation theory, motivation may play
faction. Intrinsically motivated students listen because they
a significant role in facilitating students’ metacognitive
find the process of listening is rewarding in itself, or they
awareness (Zimmerman, 2008). The mechanisms of how
enjoy doing listening tasks. On the other hand, extrinsic
motivation may predict critical listening skills via metacog-
motivation is manifested through a focus on achieving
nitive awareness can be explained by the following assump-
instrumental goals that lie beyond the actual learning pro-
tions. Highly motivated students may be more willing to
cess. Extrinsically motivated students may listen to satisfy
their teachers’ requirements, to get praise by their parents, invest time and effort in listening and more intensively plan,
to get a good grade, or to obtain their peers’ recognition monitor, and evaluate their understanding of the listening
(Noels et al., 2001; Schiefele et al., 2012; Stutz et al., 2016; text (Sungur, 2007). Further, highly motivated students may
Vandergrift, 2005). Self-determination theory suggests that actively listen more often, and therefore, become more
teachers are more likely to intrinsically motivate students aware of their metacognitive processes (Cox & Guthrie,
when fostering students’ needs for competence (i.e., the 2001). Although limited, there is empirical evidence that
experience of feeling confident), autonomy (i.e., the sense of supports the mediating role of metacognitive awareness on
choice and volition), and relatedness (i.e., the need to feel the relationship between listening motivation and listening
socially connected to others) (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2017). outcomes. However, this research has been exclusively focus-
So far, primarily L2 listening studies have investigated the ing on L2 listening skills (e.g., Baleghizadeh & Rahimi, 2011;
relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic orientations of Bang & Hiver, 2016; Vandergrift, 2005; Vandergrift & Goh,
motivation and listening skills. These studies showed that 2012). In the last phase of this study, we investigated the
high-level listeners are often more intrinsically motivated in relationships between motivational beliefs, metacognitive
doing listening exercises than low-level listeners awareness, and L1 critical listening outcomes. More specific-
(Baleghizadeh & Rahimi, 2011; Noels et al., 2001; ally, we expected that:
Vandergrift, 2005). However, a different picture emerged for Hypothesis 3: The relationship between listening motivation and
extrinsic listening motivation, as a significant correlation L1 critical listening skills is mediated by students’
between extrinsic motivation and L2 listening performance metacognitive awareness.
could usually not be found (Baleghizadeh & Rahimi, 2011;
Noels et al., 2001; Vandergrift, 2005).
In the L1 listening context, research investigating the link Methodology
between different orientations related to motivation and listening
Participants
skills, is rather limited. The study of Lau (2017) investigated the
relationship between Chinese L1 listeners’ level and motivation, Data were collected from March till May 2019. The sample
and showed that high-level listeners were more motivated to do consisted of 649 native Dutch-speaking primary school
 THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 43

Table 1. Test framework and example items from the listening test.
Sub-skill Example items Number of items
1. Ability to identify and evaluate the inherent With this message, the author wants …  5
purpose of the speaker. a. To provide information on how to lose weight.
b. To sell the product.
c. To demonstrate the importance of a healthy weight.
2. Ability to identify and evaluate which With XLS medical, you lose three times more weight than with better food 7
information is true and relevant and to and exercising more. Is this information true? 
distinguish facts from opinions. a. Yes, because the product is natural and clinically tested.
b. Yes, because several women can confirm the effects of this product.
c. No, because advertising does not always provide correct information
about a product.
3. Ability to identify and evaluate the speakers’ What does the psychiatrist think of the use of tablets by young children? 8
tone, language, attitude, and point of view. He sounds
a. Negative
b. Positive
c. Hesitating

4. Ability to identify and evaluate the arguments Complete the following sentences: 3
and evidence of the speaker. The children want the long summer vacation to continue, because
The policymaker wants the long summer vacation to be
shortened, because

students (48.7% boys, 51.3% girls) from 61 sixth-grade identify the inherent purpose of the speaker, (2) evaluate the
classes and 48 schools in Flanders (the Dutch-speaking part tone, language, attitude, and point of view of the speaker, (3)
of Belgium). Schools were stratified for school size (i.e., evaluate the arguments and evidence of the speaker, and (4)
small school <180 students; large school
180 students), identify which information is true and relevant. The test
province, and educational network (i.e., official public edu- framework and some example items can be found in Table 1.
cation, subsidized public-authority education, and subsidized The listening instrument was administered to all students
private-authority education). The listening test was adminis- during regular class time, and it took about 40 minutes to com-
tered to all sixth-grade students of the participating schools. plete the test. During test administration, the students were
However, students who do not speak Dutch as their native asked to listen and watch nine video fragments. The video frag-
language were excluded from the data analysis. Besides, ments were concerned with different situations in which critical
active informed consent was obtained from the parents of listening was required, such as an authentic dialogue between
the students to participate in the present study. The mean peers or a commercial. The listening test consisted of video
age of the students was 11 years and 11 months, with a min- fragments instead of audio-only fragments, as excluding non-
imum of 10 years and 7 months and a maximum of 13 years verbal aspects, such as eye contact, facial expressions, and body
and 9 months. Class sizes ranged from 7 to 30 students per language from listening tests, may lead to construct under-rep-
class. The teachers’ experience ranged from 1 to 38 years resentation of students’ listening skills (Buck, 2001; Rost, 2013;
(M ¼ 17, SD ¼ 9.62), and of the teachers, 26.1% were male Sulaiman et al., 2017; Wagner, 2008, 2013).
and 73.9% were female. Further, every video fragment was played only once to
the students to better replicate real-life world listening situa-
Measurement instruments tions (Green, 2017). Note-taking was also not allowed dur-
ing test administration as students who lack note-taking
The materials used in this study consisted of: (1) a perform- skills can feel overwhelmed and spend more time writing
ance-based critical listening test, (2) a metacognitive aware- down notes than listening to the recording (Piolat et al.,
ness listening questionnaire, and (3) a motivation 2005). Finally, the test items were presented in written form
questionnaire.
on the test paper but were also read-aloud to the students to
reduce the influence of reading capacity on their listening
Critical listening test outcomes (Chang & Read, 2013).
Students’ critical listening ability was measured using a per-
formance-based listening test. The psychometric quality of the
listening instrument was examined using item response theory Metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire
and classical test theory with a large group of sixth-grade pri- Students’ metacognitive awareness was measured using an
mary-school students in Flanders (Bourdeaud’hui et al., adapted version of the Metacognitive Awareness Listening
2020b). The listening test had an acceptable overall empirical Questionnaire (MALQ) of Vandergrift et al. (2006). The ori-
reliability (r ¼ .69). The critical listening test was comprised of ginal scale consisted of eighteen randomly ordered state-
23 multiple-choice questions with three answering options ments and the students have to rate the extent to which
and open-ended questions. All items were scored dichotom- these statements describe their actual awareness of listening
ously (1 ¼ correct; 0 ¼ incorrect), and an answering rubric was metacognition on a six-point Likert-type scale, including
developed to guide the assessment of the open-ended items. strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), partially disagree (3), par-
The critical listening test gauged students’ ability to (1) tially agree (4), agree (5), or strongly agree (6). Cronbach’s
44 H. BOURDEAUD’HUI ET AL.

Table 2. Adapted items of the MALQ.

Factor a Statement K
Planning/ evaluation .74 Before I start to listen, I plan in my head about how I am going to listen. .53
Before listening, I think of similar texts that I may have listened to. .44
After listening, I think back to how I listened and what I might do differently next time. .54
As I listen, I periodically ask myself if I am satisfied with my level of comprehension. .50
I have a goal in mind as I listen. .52
Directed attention .70 I focus harder on the text when I have trouble understanding. .43
When my mind wanders, I recover my concentration right away. .64
I try to get back on track when I lose my concentration. .62
When I have difficulty with understanding what I hear, I give up and stop listening. .29
Person knowledge .55 I find that listening is more difficult than reading, speaking, or writing. .36
I feel that listening is a challenge for me. .32
I feel nervous when I have to listen. .12
Problem-solving .69 I use the words I understand to guess the meaning of the words I don’t understand. .47
As I listen, I compare what I understand with what I know about the topic. .51
I use my experience and knowledge to help me understand. .60
As I listen, I quickly adjust my interpretation if I realize that it is not correct. .38
When I guess the meaning of an unknown word, I think back to everything else that .55
I have heard, to see if my guess makes sense.
I use the general idea of the text to help me guess the meaning of the unknown words. .53

alpha index of the original scale was .86, indicating a good motivation questionnaire was adapted to the context of lis-
internal consistency (Vandergrift, 2005). tening by replacing reading with listening in every statement.
As the MALQ was initially developed to think about and The RMQ-E was designed to capture two factors, i.e., intrin-
respond from the viewpoint of L2 listening, three modifica- sic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation referred to
tions were made for this study. First, the original MALQ the dimensions of curiosity (i.e., to learn more about inter-
comprised five metacognitive components, i.e., problem- esting topics) and involvement (i.e., to experience positive
solving, directed attention, planning/evaluation, person feeling states), whereas extrinsic motivation covered the
knowledge, and mental translation. The items of the mental dimensions of achievement (i.e., to increase performance),
translation factor were not retained, since these items specif- competition (i.e., to outperform classmates), and recognition
ically deal with translation from one language to another (i.e., to get praise) (Stutz et al., 2016). All twelve items were
and L1 listeners, in general, can decode the aural input rated on a six-point Likert-type scale, including strongly dis-
effortlessly (Rost, 2014; Siegel, 2014). Second, the original agree (1), disagree (2), partially disagree (3), partially agree
statements of the MALQ had to be reworded to make them (4), agree (5), or strongly agree (6).
applicable in an L1 context. For example, the statement “I The two-factor model of the motivation scale was tested
find that listening in French is more difficult than reading, through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for its ability to fit
speaking, or writing in French” was changed into “I find the current data. The results revealed a good fit to the data
that listening is more difficult than reading, speaking, or [v2 (31, n ¼ 649) ¼ 121.31, p < .001; CFI ¼ .96; TLI ¼ .93;
writing.” Finally, the items of the MALQ were translated RMSEA ¼ .07; SRMR ¼ .05]. The adapted motivation state-
from English to Dutch. ments and factor loadings are listed in Table 3. Cronbach’s
The four-factor model of the adapted scale was tested alpha for the intrinsic and extrinsic listening motivation scale
through confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) for its ability to was .84 and .70 respectively, indicating good to acceptable
fit the current data. The results revealed a good fit to the internal consistency of the scale. Students’ listening motivation
data [v2 (93, n ¼ 649) ¼ 243.5, p < .001; CFI ¼ .93; TLI ¼ .91; score was calculated by dividing the mean score of the differ-
RMSEA ¼ .05; SRMR ¼ .05]. The adapted items of the ent items through 6 and multiplying by 100.
MALQ and their factor loadings are listed in Table 2. One
item loaded very low on the expected factor, i.e., the last
item from person knowledge, and we eliminated this item Data-analysis
for further considerations. Because there remained only two
The present study intended to meaningfully elaborate on the
items loading on the person knowledge factor, the alpha was
relationship between metacognitive awareness, motivation,
low. However, in case of factors with only two items, alpha
and L1 critical listening skills. To answer the three research
values around .60 are acceptable (Iacobucci & Duhachek,
hypotheses, the data were analyzed in two steps. First, to
2003). Students’ metacognitive awareness score was calcu-
explore the differences in metacognitive awareness
lated by dividing the mean score of the different items
(Hypothesis 1) and listening motivation (Hypothesis 2)
through 6 and multiplying by 100.
between high and low-level listeners, students were classified
into high-level (HL), average-level (AL), and low-level (LL)
Listening motivation questionnaire listeners using percentile assignment based on their listening
In order to measure students’ intrinsic and extrinsic listen- test scores. Students scoring in the top 25th percentile on the
ing motivation, a modified version of the Reading critical listening test were categorized as HL listeners
Motivation Questionnaire for Elementary students (RMQ-E) (n ¼ 162), students scoring in the middle 50th percentile as
(Stutz et al., 2016) was administered to the students. This AL listeners (n ¼ 325), and students scoring below the 25th
 THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 45

Table 3. Adapted items of the RMQ-E.

Type scale a Motivation statements k
Intrinsic motivation
Curiosity .84 I listen because I am interested in what has been told. .64
Curiosity I listen because I want to learn more about interesting things. .67
Curiosity I listen because I want to learn something new. .64
Involvement I listen because the stories that are told are thrilling me. .65
Involvement I listen because it is fun. .54
Involvement I listen because I am curious about what the teacher has to say. .61
Extrinsic motivation
Achievement .70 I listen because I want to perform well in listening. .38
Achievement I listen because that’s the way I can learn new and difficult words. .38
Competition I listen because I want to outperform others in my class. .58
Competition I listen because it is important to be one of the best listeners in the class. .48
Recognition I listen because other people think it is good for me to listen well. .40
Recognition I listen because I like to talk to my parents and friends about what was told. .36

Figure 1. Hypothesized mediation model with intrinsic and extrinsic listening motivation as independent variables, the different factors of metacognitive awareness
as a mediator, and critical listening skills as the dependent variable.
Note. a ¼ direct effect from intrinsic (a1) and extrinsic (a2) listening motivation on aspects of metacognitive awareness
b ¼ direct effect from aspects of metacognitive awareness on critical listening skills
ab ¼ indirect effect from intrinsic/extrinsic motivation on critical listening skills
c ¼ direct effect from intrinsic (c1) and extrinsic (c2) motivation on critical listening skills
c’ ¼ total effect (direct þ indirect effect) from intrinsic (c’1) and extrinsic (c’2) motivation on critical listening skills

percentile as LL listeners (n ¼ 162). Further, the differences while controlling for metacognitive awareness). The path ab
between the three student groups in metacognitive aware- represented the indirect effect of listening motivation on crit-
ness and motivation were examined by a series of one-way ical listening through metacognitive awareness. The total effect
multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) in SPSS. The c’ is the sum of the direct and indirect effect of listening
listening level was categorized as the independent variable, motivation on critical listening skills. Mediation exists when
and the metacognitive and motivational factors as the the predictor affects the dependent variable through its influ-
dependent variables. ence on the intervening variable (Preacher & Hayes, 2008),
Second, to examine the complex relationships between the and will be tested through decomposing the total effect into
different orientations related to motivation, metacognitive direct and indirect effects (Preacher et al., 2010). A full media-
awareness, and L1 critical listening skills (Hypothesis 3), a ting effect is found when the total effect is significant, but the
structural equation model (SEM) was developed and tested. direct effect is non-significant (Baron & Kenny, 1986;
The model presented in Figure 1 shows the hypothesized rela- MacKinnon, 2008).
tionships between the different variables. The paths a, b, and Statistical modeling was carried out with Mplus version 6
c respectively included the direct effects of motivation on (Muthen & Muthen, 2010). As we are working with complex
metacognitive awareness, metacognitive awareness on critical data in our sample and students are nested in classes, a
listening, and motivation on critical listening skills (pathway multilevel approach with students at level one (within class-
46 H. BOURDEAUD’HUI ET AL.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the variables (n ¼ 649).

Variables Items Min-max M(SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.Critical listening 23 -1.84-1.39 0.01 (0.57) 1
2.Planning/evaluation 5 16.67-100 56.42 (16.32) -.06 1
3.Directed attention 4 20.83-100 76.32 (14.31) .15 .44 1
4.Problem-solving 6 16.67-100 70.36 (15.35) .16 .56 .58 1
5.Person knowledge 2 16.67-83.33 60.29 (13.67) .24 .10 .24 .15 1
6.Intrinsic motivation 6 16.67-100 73.31 (14.20) .14 .45 .47 .46 .25 1
7.Extrinsic motivation 6 16.67-100 65.74 (14.07) -.08 .36 .25 .27 -.03 .40 1
Note. p < .05,  p < .01, p < .001.

level) and teachers at level two (between class-level) would listeners, a series of MANOVA’s were conducted. The
be appropriate. However, all the included variables were results indicated a statistically significant main effect (Wilks’
attributed at the within level. Mplus allows us to deal with k ¼ .94, F ¼ 5.27, p < .001, gp2 ¼ .03) between the three
this by taking clustering into account using the type ¼ two- student groups on metacognitive awareness. The effect size,
level command in conjunction with a specification of the calculated using eta squared, was .30, which in Cohen’s
class cluster variable (cluster ¼ class). Models were estimated (1988) term would be considered as small to medium.
using robust maximum-likelihood (MLR). The model fit in A series of follow-up F-tests were conducted to investigate
Mplus was evaluated by using the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), the group effect on each factor of the MALQ. The findings
the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Standardized Root- produced statistically significant differences between the
Mean-square Residual (SRMR), and the Root Mean Square three student groups in all types of metacognitive awareness,
Error of Approximation (RMSEA). For the CFI and the TLI, except for the planning/evaluation factor. More specifically,
we considered a critical value of .90 as a reasonable fit, HL reported higher problem-solving (p < .001), directed
although a fit larger than .95 is good (Hu & Bentler, 1999). attention (p < .01), and person knowledge (p < .001 and
For the SRMR and the RMSEA, a fit between .06 and .08 is p < .01) than AL and LL.
reasonable and below .06 was considered as good (Hu & Further, the findings of the MANOVA indicated
Bentler, 1999). The overall v2 is sensitive to the sample size a significant main effect (Wilks’ k ¼ .99, F ¼ 2.36, p ¼ .05,
and the number of parameters and is likely to sustain the gp2 ¼ .01) between the three student groups on motivation.
result that the model does not fit the data well. Therefore, The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was .10, which
this statistic is not commonly used in applied research as an in Cohen’s (1988) term would be considered as small. The
index of model fit within the SEM framework (Brown, results of the follow-up F-tests showed that HL reported
2006). In the following sections, we present and discuss the significantly higher intrinsic motivation scores than AL
results of the analyses. (p < .05) and borderline significantly higher scores than LL
(p ¼ .07). However, no significant differences for extrinsic
Results motivation could be found between the three student
groups. The mean differences of the student groups are
Descriptive statistics presented in Table 5.
Descriptive statistics on students’ reported metacognitive
awareness and their motivation are listed in Table 4. Among SEM-analysis measurement model
the MALQ subscales, students reported higher scores for
directed attention and problem-solving than for planning/ In the next step, the empirical analysis of the proposed
evaluation and person knowledge factors. Further, the results theoretical model is presented. The results showed a good fit
indicated that, in general, students were higher intrinsically between the data and the hypothesized model, based on the
than extrinsically motivated to listen. SRMR ¼ .05 and RMSEA ¼ .04; and an adequate fit, based
Pearson product-moment correlations were performed on the CFI ¼ .93 and TLI ¼ .91. In the model, residual errors
between the data obtained from the critical listening test of both latent predictor (exogenous) variables and latent
and the self-report questionnaires. The results showed a stat- mediator (endogenous) variables were allowed to correlate
istically significant correlation between critical listening skills freely in the model (if significant at p < .05, two-tailed). The
and three of the MALQ-factors, i.e., problem-solving path diagram for the final model is illustrated in Figure 2,
(p < .01), person knowledge (p < .01), and directed attention in which, non-significant relationships and error terms were
(p < .01). Further, intrinsic motivation was positively related omitted from the model for clarity.
(p < .01), and extrinsic motivation was negatively (p < .05) Mediation was tested following the four regression steps
related to L1 critical listening skills. recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986): (1) measuring
the total effect of the independent variable on the dependent
variable, (2) measuring the effect of the independent variable
Differences between low, average, and
on the mediator, (3) measuring the effect of the mediator
high-level listeners
on the dependent variable, and (4) measuring the direct
To find out the differences in metacognitive awareness and effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable
motivation between groups of low, average, and high-level controlling for the mediator.
 THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 47

First, the results of the SEM-analysis showed a total critical listening outcomes. Finally, the results showed that
positive effect from intrinsic motivation (ß ¼ .57, p < .001) the direct effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on lis-
and a small total negative effect from extrinsic motivation tening skills were non-significant. However, a significant
(ß ¼ .78, p < .05) on critical listening skills. Second, positive indirect effect was found of intrinsic listening
a direct relationship was found between intrinsic listening motivation via person knowledge (ß ¼ .19, p < .05) and
motivation and three subscales of the MALQ, i.e., problem- a borderline significant positive effect via problem-solving
solving (ß ¼ .64, p < .01), directed attention (ß ¼ .79, (ß ¼ .29, p ¼ .07) on listening skills. The results also showed
p < .001), and person knowledge (ß ¼ .63, p < .01). The a borderline significant negative indirect effect of extrinsic
relationship between extrinsic listening motivation and listening motivation via planning/evaluation (ß ¼ .18,
planning/evaluation was also highly statistically significant p ¼ .08) and person knowledge (ß ¼ .13, p ¼ .08) on critical
(ß ¼ .79, p < .001). Third, the results of the SEM-analysis listening skills. The relationship of listening motivation via
showed a positive relationship between two of the four directed attention to listening skills was non-significant.
factors of metacognitive awareness and critical listening These outcomes suggested that an indirect-only mediation
skills. More specifically, a higher awareness of problem- effect existed, and metacognitive awareness fully mediated
solving (ß ¼ .39, p < .05) and person knowledge (ß ¼ .24, the relationship between listening motivation and critical
p < .01) was significantly positively related to critical listen- listening test scores.
ing outcomes. Surprisingly, a borderline significant negative The standardized regression coefficients of the indirect
relationship between planning/evaluation strategies and effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation via metacogni-
critical listening outcomes (ß ¼ .34, p < .10) was found. tive awareness on students’ critical listening skills are
The factor directed attention was not statistically related to summarized in Table 6.

Table 5. Comparison of motivation and metacognitive awareness across lis- Discussion

tening level.
Dependent variable Groupa Mean difference (SD) gp2 This study aimed to provide valuable insights in the
Planning/evaluation ML 0.90 (1.59) .00 understanding of motivational and metacognitive factors
LL 0.52 (1.86) .00
Directed attention ML 3.96 (1.65) .01
LL 4.72 (1.91) .01 Table 6. Standardized indirect paths on critical listening skills.
Person knowledge ML 5.82 (1.08) .03 Predictor Mediator ß SE
LL 4.23 (1.54) .01 Intrinsic motivation Planning/evaluation .068 .067
Problem-solving ML 5.13 (1.48) .02 Intrinsic motivation Problem-solving .288 () .286
LL 5.96 (1.73) .02 Intrinsic motivation Directed attention .149 .155
Intrinsic motivation ML 3.19 (1.37) .01 Intrinsic motivation Person knowledge .185 .089
LL 2.70 (1.59) .01 () Extrinsic motivation Planning/evaluation .179 () .103
Extrinsic motivation ML 0.45 (1.37) .00 Extrinsic motivation Problem-solving .053 .081
LL 1.59 (1.60) .00 Extrinsic motivation Directed attention .043 .062
Note. areference group ¼ HL (High-level Listeners). Extrinsic motivation Person knowledge -.127( ) .075
() p < .10, p < .05, p < .01, p < .001. Note. () < .10; p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

Figure 2. SEM-model of motivation and metacognitive awareness related to students’ critical listening skills.
Note. a ¼ direct effect from intrinsic (a1) and extrinsic (a2) listening motivation on metacognitive awareness
b ¼ direct effect from metacognitive awareness factors on critical listening skills
ab ¼ indirect effect from intrinsic/extrinsic motivation on critical listening skills
c ¼ direct effect from intrinsic (c1) and extrinsic (c2) motivation on critical listening skills
c’ ¼ total effect (direct þ indirect effect) from intrinsic (c’1) and extrinsic (c’2) motivation on critical listening skills
() p < .10, p < .05, p < .01, p < .001.
48 H. BOURDEAUD’HUI ET AL.

that contribute to students’ L1 critical listening skills. Three hand, more extrinsically motivated students indicated a
research hypotheses were raised to guide this study. The first higher use of planning/evaluation strategies. These students
research hypothesis could be largely confirmed, as HL listen- may use more planning/evaluation strategies as they attach
ers had a higher awareness of various aspects of metacogni- more importance to the outcomes of their listening process.
tion than AL and LL listeners. More specifically, HL They may expect that the use of strategies, such as “As I lis-
listeners indicated they used more directed attention (e.g., to ten, I periodically ask myself if I am satisfied with my level
concentrate on the input during a listening task or refocus of comprehension”, will help them to get a better grade or
when distracted) and problem-solving strategies (e.g., to satisfy their teachers’ requirements.
make inferences) than AL and LL listeners. Further, HL lis- Finally, the results showed that the relationship between
teners scored higher on the person knowledge factor, which listening motivation and critical listening skills was mediated
implies they tend to show a lower level of anxiety for listen- by metacognitive awareness. Students who were more intrin-
ing and a higher level of linguistic confidence than AL and sically motivated tended to score higher on problem-solving
LL listeners. These individual components may work and person knowledge factors, and performed higher on
together to create a cycle of metacognitive awareness, which critical listening skills. Surprisingly, students who were more
in turn results in more effective critical listening skills. extrinsically motivated seemed to use more planning/evalu-
Surprisingly, no differences in planning/evaluation strategies ation strategies, scored lower on person knowledge, and
among students’ listening levels were found. It is possible scored borderline significantly lower on critical listening
that when students are strongly focusing on planning/evalu- skills. Future research should further examine and clarify
ating the outcomes of their listening efforts, they can easily these findings.
miss or neglect incoming information. However, these To conclude, a main contribution of the present study
results are not in line with the findings of Lau (2017). She was to investigate whether or not there is an association
found that HL listeners more frequently used planning and between motivation, metacognitive awareness, and students’
evaluation strategies than LL listeners. This theoretically critical listening performance. The results provided valid
unexpected finding also points at possible measurement empirical evidence for the importance of both motivational
issues with the self-reported student questionnaires measur- beliefs and metacognitive awareness in listening skills, con-
ing listening. firming previous language research.
The second research hypothesis sought to examine the
relationship between listening motivation and students’ lis-
Study limitations
tening level. As expected, the results indicated that HL lis-
teners reported a higher intrinsic motivation to listen than Notwithstanding the added value and contribution of this
AL and LL listeners. These findings are in line with the study to the current L1 listening research, some limitations
results of different L2 listening (e.g., Baleghizadeh & Rahimi, for future research should be mentioned. A first limitation is
2011; Noels et al., 2001) and reading research (e.g., Becker the use of self-report instruments to assess students’ motiv-
et al., 2010; Wang & Guthrie, 2004), reporting a positive ational and metacognitive processes, which implies to be
relationship between intrinsic motivation and learning out- cautious with the interpretation of the findings for different
comes. More intrinsically motivated students may exert reasons. Although self-report measures can easily be admin-
more effort and time, be more concentrated, and create istered, completed, and scored (Vandevelde et al., 2013;
more opportunities to increase their listening because they Zimmerman, 2008), the students might have answered the
listen for pleasure and enjoyment without the requirement questionnaire in a socially desirable way. Besides, the
of material compensation. Further, no apparent relationship answers could be influenced by the students’ mood at the
between reported extrinsic listening motivation and students’ time they completed the questionnaire, or there might be a
critical listening level could be found. These findings are discrepancy between what they actually do and what they
congruent with the results of different L2 listening studies reported on the questionnaire (Rotgans & Schmidt, 2012).
(e.g., Noels et al., 2001; Vandergrift, 2005), showing that lis- Finally, the scores on the scales reflect, to some extent, the
tening because of external pressure will not result in more students’ level of certainty (Goh & Hu, 2013). For example,
effective listening skills. answers such as partially agree or partially disagree would
The third research hypothesis explored the direct and suggest that the students were not entirely sure of their
indirect relationships between the different orientations of responses. Future research could focus on more direct meas-
motivation, metacognitive awareness, and students’ critical ures, such as observations, think-aloud techniques, or inter-
listening skills. The results of the SEM-analysis showed that views. However, these direct measures face difficulty in their
more motivated students, for either intrinsic or instrumental generalizability and cannot be easily standardized. Therefore,
reasons, reported a higher level of metacognitive awareness. future studies should focus on data triangulation, combining
In this respect, the results confirm the hypothesis that stu- more direct methods such as trace methodology, student
dents, who are more motivated to listen, are also likely to interviews, classroom observations, or think-aloud measures
have a higher metacognitive listening awareness. In particu- with Likert-type scale questionnaires (Phakiti, 2013). For
lar, more intrinsically motivated students indicated a higher example, self-report questionnaires can be used in combin-
use of problem-solving and directed attention strategies and ation with think-aloud data (i.e., students say aloud what
scored higher on the person knowledge factor. On the other they think while listening) (Alamargot et al., 2010).
 THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 49

A second limitation is that the present findings were only Second, although we must be careful to not attribute
correlational and did not necessarily infer causations causal relationships, the results suggest that attention for
(Foster, 2010). Future intervention research is needed to metacognitive processes during listening is a promising way
draw conclusions on causal relations. Moreover, as the pre- to enhance students’ listening skills. Primary school teachers
sent findings are based on a sample of sixth-grade primary could explain what metacognition is, which role it plays in
school students in Flanders, it is not clear to what extent listening, and carry out activities where listeners are given
these findings can be generalized to other age groups and various opportunities to practice metacognition (Chang,
different countries. Mechanisms of how motivation and 2013; Lau, 2017).
metacognitive awareness contribute to listening achievement
may vary across groups and needs to be further investigated.
Acknowledgments
Finally, since this study only focused on L1 listening, no dir-
ect comparison with L2 listening processes could be made. We wish to thank the reviewers for the effort they put into reviewing
In future research, students’ L1 and L2 listening perform- our paper. We believe that their minor revisions have contributed to
the quality of our work. In the rebuttal, we give an overview of
ance could be considered simultaneously to examine the comments.
whether common metacognitive factors are effective across
both listening contexts.
Funding

Recommendations for future practice This work has been supported by the Research Foundation – Flanders
(FWO) (grant numbers 11B2417N).
Despite these limitations, the present study contributed to
the current understanding of L1 critical listening skills and
should be considered as a valuable starting point for further
ORCID
research on this largely unexplored topic. The major educa-
tional implication is that teaching learners how to enhance Heleen Bourdeaud’hui http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4361-4734
their motivational beliefs and use metacognitive strategies
could serve to increase their listening skills.First, the results References
may suggest that listening courses should focus on improv-
ing students’ intrinsic listening motivation and, therefore, Adelmann, K. (2012). The art of listening in an educational perspective:
Listening reception in the mother tongue. Education Inquiry, 3(4),
should help students realize that effective listening skills are
513–534. https:/doi.org/10.3402/-edui.v3i4.22051
indispensable (Lau, 2017). As traditional drill and repetitious Alamargot, D., Plane, S., Lambert, E., & Chesnet, D. (2010). Using eye
listening exercises may not favor students’ intrinsic listening and pen movements to trace the development of writing expertise:
motivation, a more communicative approach in which stu- Case studies of a 7th, 9th and 12th grader, 368 graduate students,
dents are given listening exercises that involve them in real- and professional writer. Reading and Writing, 23(7), 853–888.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9191-9
life listening situations, is more desirable (Field, 2008).
Al-Musalli, A. (2001). Listening comprehension as a complex skill and
According to the self-determination theory, teachers should the sub-skills involved in the process of speech perception. Journal
nurture their students’ need for autonomy, competence, and of the Document Center and Humanity Studies, 13, 35–84.
relatedness to create motivational listening experiences for Baleghizadeh, S., & Rahimi, A. H. (2011). The relationship among lis-
all students (Wang et al., 2019). For instance, supportive tening performance, metacognitive strategy use and motivation from
a self-determination theory perspective. Theory and Practice in
teachers can: (a) offer students the choice between different
Language Studies, 1(1), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.1.1.61-67
listening topics (cf. autonomy), (b) balance the challenge of Bang, S., & Hiver, P. (2016). Investigating the structural relationships
a given listening task with student ability or provide direc- of cognitive and affective domains for L2 listening. Asian-Pacific
tions in how to listen to the text (cf., competence), and (c) Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(7), 1–19.
be involved with students by showing interest in their listen- https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0013-8
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
ing experiences or foster a learning environment where stu-
distinction in social psychological research – conceptual, strategic,
dents can collaborate (cf., relatedness). Due to coronavirus and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
disease 2019, many schools transitioned from on-campus Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.
face-to-face learning to distance learning. Keeping students 6.1173
actively engaged while teaching via distance learning can be Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and
extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A lon-
difficult. Students may be less motivated to focus in a dis-
gitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 773–785.
tance-learning situation than in a physical classroom, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020084
because there are more distractions at home, they have low Bembenutty, H. (2008). Self-regulation of learning and academic delay
self-efficacy, or there are technology constraints (Hartnett of gratification: Gender and ethnic differences among college stu-
et al., 2011, 2014; Moos & Azevedo, 2008). To encourage dents. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 586–616. https://doi.
org/10.4219/jaa-2007-553
active listening during distance learning, supportive teachers
Berger, J.-L., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Motivation and students’ use
can, for example, subdivide online classes in small groups or of learning strategies: Evidence of unidirectional effects in mathem-
keep video screens on to improve the relatedness of the stu- atics classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 416–428. https://
dents (Hartnett, et al., 2014). doi.org/10.1016/-j.learninstruc.2010.06.002
50 H. BOURDEAUD’HUI ET AL.

Berne, J. E. (2004). Listening comprehension strategies: A review of the Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.
literature. Foreign Language Annals, 37(4), 521–531. https://doi.org/ 19173/irrodl.v12i6.1030
10.1111/j-.1944-9720.2004.tb02419.x Hartnett, M., St. George, A., & Dron, J. (2014). Exploring motivation
Bourdeaud’hui, H., Aesaert, K., & van Braak, J. (2020a). Identifying in an online context: A case study. Contemporary Issues in
student and class- level characteristics. L1 Educational Studies in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 31–53.
Language and Literature, 20, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL- Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
2020.20.01.0 covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alter-
Bourdeaud’hui, H., Aesaert, K., & van Braak, J. (2020b). Exploring the natives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
validity of a comprehensive listening test to identify differences in 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/-10705519909540118
primary school students’ listening skills. Language Assessment Iacobucci, D., & Duhachek, A. (2003). Advancing alpha: Measuring
Quarterly, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2020.1860059 reliability with confidence. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4),
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 478–487. https://doi.org/-10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_14 https://doi.
The Guilford Press. org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_14
Brownell, J. (2016). Listening: Attitudes, principles, and skills (5th ed.). Imhof, M. (2001). How to listen more efficiently: Self-monitoring strat-
Routledge. egies in listening. International Journal of Listening, 15(1), 2–19.
Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.056 https://doi.org/10.1080/
Chang, A. C. S., & Read, J. (2013). Investigating the effects of multiple- 10904018.2001.10499042
choice listening test items in the oral versus written mode on L2 Janusik, L. A., & Wolvin, A. D. (2009). 24 hours in a day: A listening
listeners’ performance and perceptions. System, 41(3), 575–586. update to the time studies. International Journal of Listening, 23(2),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013-.06.001 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904010903014442
Chang, C. W. (2013). Metacognitive awareness in English listening: A Johnson, D. I., & Long, K. M. (2007). Student listening gains in the
study of Taiwanese non-English majors. Journal of National Huwei basic communication course: A comparison of self-report and per-
University of Science and Technology, 31(3), 75–90. formance-based competence measures. International Journal of
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences Listening, 21(2), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904010701301990
(2nd ed.). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Lau, K. L. (2017). Strategy use, listening problems, and motivation of
Covington, M. V., & M€ ueller, K. J. (2001). Intrinsic versus extrinsic high- and low-proficiency Chinese listeners. The Journal of
motivation: An approach/avoidance reformulation. Educational Educational Research, 110(5), 503–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Psychology Review, 13(2), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1023/ 00220671.2015.1134421
A:1009009219144 Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and
Cox, K. E., & Guthrie, J. T. (2001). Motivational and cognitive contri-
extrinsic motivational orientation in the classroom: Age differences
butions to Students’ Amount of Reading. Contemporary Educational
and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2),
Psychology, 26(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1044
184–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.184
Deveci, T. (2013). Promoting lifelong learning. Asian EFL Journal, 7(4),
MacKinnon, D. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis.
4–19.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
D€ornyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learn-
Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2008). Exploring the fluctuation of motiv-
ing. Language Teaching, 31(3), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/
ation and use of self-regulatory processes during learning with
S026144480001315X
hypermedia. Instructional Science, 36(3), 203–231. https://doi.org/10.
Ediger, M. (2015). Listening in the language arts. Reading
1007/s11251-007-9028-3
Improvement, 52(2), 69–71.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2010). Version 6 mplus user’s guide.
Ferrari-Bridgers, F., Vogel, R., & Lynch, B. (2015). Fostering and
Muthen & Muthen.
assessing critical listening skills in the speech course. International
Noels, K. A., Clement, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (2001). Intrinsic, extrinsic,
Journal of Listening, 31(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.
2015.1020231 and integrative orientations of French Canadian learners of English.
Field, J. (2008). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 424–440. https://doi.org/
University Press. 10.3138/cmlr.57.3.424
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Phakiti, A. (2013). Questionnaire development and analysis. In A. J.
Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence. Erlbaum. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment. John Wiley &
Floyd, J. J., & Clements, S. M. (2005). The vital importance of critical Sons. Chapter 74.
listening: An extended example. International Journal of Listening, Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of
19(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/-10904018.2005.10499072 student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of
Fogelsong, D. F. (2016). Promoting a pedagogy for listening instruction: Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Primary grade Teachers perceptions of teaching listening through 0022-0663.95.4.667
interactive read alouds [Doctoral dissertation]. Virginia Tech. Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during
Foster, E. M. (2010). Causal inference and developmental psychology. note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 291–312. https://
Developmental Psychology, 46(6), 1454–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/ doi.org/10.1002/-acp.1086
a0020204 Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling
Ganske, K., & Fisher, D. (2009). Comprehension across the curriculum: strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple
Perspectives and practices K-12. Guilford Press. mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Goh, C. C. M., & Hu, G. (2013). Exploring the relationship between https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879
metacognitive awareness and listening performance with question- Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel
naire data. Language Awareness, 23(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10. SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation . Psychological
1080/09658416.2013.769558 Methods, 15(3), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141.supp
Graham, S., & Macaro, E. (2008). Strategy instruction in listening for https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141
lower-intermediate learners of French. Language Learning, 58(4), Rahimi, M., & Katal, M. (2013). The impact of metacognitive instruc-
747–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00478.x tion on EFL learners’ listening comprehension and oral language
Green, R. (2017). Designing listening tests: A practical approach. proficiency. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 32(2), 69–90.
Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.22099/JTLS.2013.-1555
Hartnett, M., St. George, A., & Dron, J. (2011). Examining motivation Ratebi, Z., & Amirian, Z. (2013). Use of metacognitive strategies in lis-
in online distance learning environments: Complex, multifaceted tening comprehension by Iranian university students majoring in
and situation-dependent. The International Review of Research in English: A comparison between high and low proficient listeners.
 THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 51

Journal of Studies in Education, 3(1), 140–154. https://doi.org/10. Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual
5296/jse.v3i1.2969 Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/
Rost, M. (2013). Teaching and researching listening. Routledge. S0267190504000017
Rost, M. (2014). Listening in a multilingual world: The challenges of Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations,
second language (L2) listening. International Journal of Listening, metacognitive awareness and proficiency in L2 listening. Applied
28(3), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2014.937895 Linguistics, 26(1), 70–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amh039
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2012). The intricate relationship Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. (2012). Teaching and learning second lan-
between motivation and achievement: Examining the mediating role guage listening: Metacognition in action. Routledge.
of self-regulated learning and achievement-related classroom behav- Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H.
iors. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire:
Education, 24(2), 197–208. Development and validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431–462.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination theory and the https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00373.x
facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well- Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners
being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/ how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language
0003-066X.55.1.68 Learning, 60(2), 470–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic psy- 00559.x
chological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Vandevelde, S., Van Keer, H., & Rosseel, Y. (2013). Measuring the
Press. complexity of upper primary school children’s self-regulated learn-
Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., M€ oller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012). ing: A multi-component approach. Contemporary Educational
Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading Psychology, 38(4), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.
behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 09.002
427–463. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.030 Wagner, E. (2008). Video listening tests: What are they measuring?
Siegel, J. (2014). Exploring L2 listening instruction: Examinations of Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(3), 218–243. https://doi.org/10.
practice. ELT Journal, 68(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ 1080/15434300802213015
cct058 Wagner, E. (2013). Assessing listening. The Companion to Language
Stutz, F., Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2016). Relations among reading Assessment, 1(2), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118411360.
motivation, reading amount, and reading comprehension in the wbcla094
early elementary grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, Wallace, R. (2013). Critical listening: Sensible ways to teach a neglected
101–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.022 skill. The Missouri Reader, 37(1), 20.
Sulaiman, N., Muhammad, A. M., Ganapathy, N. N. D. F., Khairuddin, Wang, J. H., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic
Z., & Othman, S. (2017). Students’ perceptions on using different motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past read-
listening assessment methods: Audio-only and video media. English ing achievement on text comprehension between U.S. and Chinese
Language Teaching, 10(8), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt. students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 162–186. https://doi.
v10n8p93 org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2
Sungur, S. (2007). Modeling the relationships among students’ motiv- Wang, C. K. J., Liu, W. C., Kee, Y. H., & Chian, L. K. (2019).
ational beliefs, metacognitive strategy use, and effort regulation. Competence, autonomy, and relatedness in the classroom:
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 51(3), 315–326. Understanding students’ motivational processes using the self-deter-
https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383-0701356166 mination theory. Heliyon, 5(7), e01983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heli-
Thompson, K., Leintz, P., Nevers, B., & Witkowski, S. (2004). The inte- yon.2019.e01983
grative listening model: An approach to teaching and learning lis- Wang, Y., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2017). Explaining listening comprehen-
tening. The Journal of General Education, 53(3), 225–246. https:// sion among L2 learners of English: The contribution of general lan-
doi.org/10.1002/9781444314908.ch12 guage proficiency, vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive
Trace, J. (2013). Designing a task-based critical listening construct for awareness. System, 65, 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.
listening assessment. University of Hawaii Second Language Studies 2016.12.013
Paper, 32(1), 59–111. Wery, J., & Thomson, M. M. (2013). Motivational strategies to enhance
van Kraayenoord, C. E., & Schneider, W. E. (1999). Reading achieve- effective learning in teaching struggling students. Support for
ment, metacognition, reading self-concept and interest: A study of Learning, 28(3), 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604
German students in grades 3 and 4. European Journal of Psychology Wolvin, A. D., & Coakley, C. G. (1996). Listening. McGraw-Hill.
of Education, 14(3), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173117 Zimmerman, B. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation:
Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of Historical background, methodological developments, and future
the skilled second language listener. Language Learning, 53(3), prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.
463–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00232 https://doi.org/10.3102/000283-1207312909