Ling-Yao Ko


The purpose of this study was to analyze English-learners’ metacognition when engaged in reading and listening tasks, to determine if there was a correlation between their reading metacognition and listening metacognition, and to determine if metacognition levels differed between students of basic, intermediate, and advanced English levels. One class of 50 nursing students in a 5-year nursing program was assigned to participate in this study for one semester. The learners were divided into three groups (high, intermediate, and low) based on their score on an English listening test. At the beginning of the semester, they listened to a lesson called “Dangerous Dining.” Five months later, the students were presented with the same lesson, though this time in written form rather than spoken form, and their reading comprehension was tested using the same questions. Then the learners were asked to fill out two online questionnaires: a 21-question questionnaire about their reading strategies, and a 30-question questionnaire about their listening strategies. The surveys were designed to gauge the participants’ metacognitive awareness. The results showed that there was a positive and strong significant correlation between the learners’ listening metacognitive strategy and reading metacognitive strategy, r=0. 775, p<0.01. With regard to the first factor (Global Reading Strategies) for high-level learners there was a positive and strong significant correlation between listening and reading strategies, r=1, p<0.01, but there was no significant correlation between the second factor (Problem-Solving Strategies) and the third factor (Support reading Strategies). As to the first factor (Global Reading Strategies) and the third factor (Support Reading Strategies) for intermediate-level learners, there was no significant correlation between listening and reading strategies, but there was a significant correlation to the second factor (Problem-Solving Strategies), r=0. 656, p<0.05. As regards the first factor (Global Reading Strategies), the second factor (Problem-Solving Strategies) and the third factor (Support Reading Strategies) for low-level learners, there was a significant correlation between listening and reading strategies, r=0. 73, p<0.01, r=0. 67, p<0.01, r=0. 44, p>0.01, respectively. The results revealed that there was a positive significant correlation between reading comprehension and listening comprehension for low-level learners. The intermediate and advanced language learners reported applying fewer listening metacognitive strategies to reading metacognitive strategies than the low-level language learners because they had internalized the listening/reading metacognitive strategies to experience them automatically and didn’t report the automated process. They thus used fewer metacognitive strategies.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



metacognitive awareness, listening comprehension, reading comprehension, questionnaire of listening metacognitive strategy, questionnaire of reading metacognitive strategy

Full Text:



Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader. Educational Psychology Review1(1), 3-38.

Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. Handbook of Reading Research 1(353), 353-394.

Bereiter, C. (1995). A dispositional view of transfer. Teaching for Transfer: Fostering Generalization in Learning, 21-34.

Bremner, S. (1999). Language learning strategies and language proficiency: Investigating the relationship in Hong Kong. Canadian Modern Language Review 55(4), 490-514.

Chen, Y. (2007). Learning to learn: The impact of strategy training. ELT Journal 61(1), 20- 29.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive– developmental inquiry. American Psychologist 34(10), 906-911.

Goh, C. (1997). Metacognitive awareness and second language listeners. ELT Journal, 51(4), 361-369.

Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly 29(2), 261-297.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading 3(3), 231-256.

Haller, E. P., Child, D. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1988). Can comprehension be taught? A quantitative synthesis of “metacognitive” studies. J Educational Researcher 17(9), 5-8.

Kramarski, B., & Feldman, Y. (2000). Internet in the classroom: Effects on reading comprehension, motivation and metacognitive awareness. Educational Media International 37(3), 149-155.

Markman, E. M. (1979). Realizing that you don’t understand: Elementary school children’s awareness of inconsistencies. Child Development, 50, 643-655.

Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.

O'malley, J. M., O'Malley, M. J., Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. L., & Cohen, A. D. (1992). Language learning strategies: Crucial issues of concept and classification. Applied Language Learning 3, 1-35.

Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 2083-2093.

Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology 8(3), 293-316.

Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. Dimensions of Thinking Cognitive Instruction, 1, 15-51.

Phillips, V. (1991). A look at learner strategy use and ESL proficiency. CATESOL Journal 4(1), 57-67.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (2012). Verbal Protocols of Reading: The Nature of Constructively Responsive Reading: Routledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Snow, C., Burns, MS, & Griffin, P.(eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 343-344.

Vandergrift, L. (2006). ‘It was nice to see that our predictions were right’: Developing metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review 58(4), 555-575.

Wade, S. E., Trathen, W., & Schraw, G. (1990). An analysis of spontaneous study strategies. Reading Research Quarterly 147-166.

Wu, M. L. (2009). SPSS Operation and Application: The Practice of Quantitative Analysis of Questionnaire Data. Taipei: Wu-Nan Book Co., Ltd.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.2317


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2019 Ko Ling-Yao

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2015-2022. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).