Diary Probe (3): What has helped you to

Diary probe 3, „what has helped you to understand?‟, led to the elicitation of strategic knowledge, which did not emerge previously in reply to probes one and two. This probe elicited instances of task knowledge and person knowledge as well. Table 4.9 summarizes these three types of metacognitive knowledge as they occurred across phase one three sessions.

Session Idea units Not relevant Task Knowledge Person Knowledge Strategy Knowledge 1 32 1 20 5 7 2 36 3 17 7 12 3 26 3 15 1 10 Total 94 7 52 13 29

Table 4.9 Phase 1: Summary of Probe 3 Categories

The following part will illustrate these three types of metacognitive knowledge as they appeared in the participants‟ diaries. I start with the most frequent one which is task knowledge.

 Task knowledge: Probe 3

All instances of task knowledge that were elicited by the third probe in the listening diaries were sub-categories of factors that affect listening comprehension, according to Goh‟s coding scheme. This is similar to what has occurred in the participants‟ responses to probe two. Table 4.10 below indicates that the most frequent occurrences of task knowledge emerged in the first session. The most prominent theme occurring here was „types of input‟, with 50% of the total responses that fell under task knowledge. The fact that so many responses related to types of input as a factor affecting their comprehension indicates it was a common perception among the participants. Some of the students‟ actual responses included:

The examples that the lecturer give Clear examples *

The definitions, example that they given And the kind of topic

The organization of the lecture*

Sub-category session 1 session 2 session 3 Total

1. Types of input 10 7 9 26

2. (Un)familiar vocabulary 3 1 3 7

3. Different varieties and local accents 2 3 2 7

4. Speech rate 3 1 -- 4

5. Prosodic features 1 1 1 3

6. Physical features 1 1 -- 2

7. Difficulty/ simplicity of task or questions

-- 2 -- 2

8. Emotional states -- 1 -- 1

Total 20 17 15 52

Table 4.10 Task Knowledge: Probe 3

There were also instances that commented on the vocabulary of the text, as well as the accent of the speaker. These two themes occurred as the second most frequent responses, with 13% for each sub-category. Table 4.10 above presents the other sub- categories of task knowledge that emerged in response to diary probe 3, but these sub-categories were not so frequent across the sessions.

 Strategy Knowledge: Probe 3

Most instances of strategy knowledge elicited by the probe “what has helped you to understand?” fell under strategies that assist comprehension and recall, according to Goh‟s coding scheme. Table 4.11 below illustrates the sub-categories that have been

identified in the diary entries and the number of occurrences for each per session. I treated the students‟ response „to read the questions before listening‟ as a form of activating knowledge from context. Some instances of this theme are found in the following extracts:

Reading questions before *

Also the chance to read the questions beforehand

Sub-category session 1 session 2 session 3 Total

1. Selective attention 2 3 4 9

2. Activate knowledge of context from title, questions, etc.

1 4 2 7

3. Directed Attention 2 2 2 6

4. Guess or infer meanings -- 2 1 3

5. Take notes 2 1 -- 3

6. Pay attention to repetitions -- -- 1 1

Total 7 12 10 29

Table 4.11 Strategy Knowledge: Probe 3

Selective attention and directed attention were among the most frequent strategies used in response to this diary probe. Yet, they did not lend themselves easily to Goh‟s coding scheme, and were thus categorized under metacognitive strategies. Metacognitive strategies are defined by Goh (1998) as “manifestations of the executive dimension of metacognition” (p. 225). Metacognitive strategies are divided into three categories according to the role they play in managing cognition: planning, monitoring and evaluation (ibid). The literature on language learning strategies identifies a number of metacognitive strategies, which includes: pre- listening preparation, selective attention, directed attention, comprehension monitoring and comprehension evaluation” (Goh, 1998, p. 226). The first two fall under planning strategies, the following two under monitoring, and the last ones under evaluation. As mentioned previously, the taxonomy developed by Vandergrift

(1997a) formed the framework for identifying and categorizing metacognitive strategies ( see Appendix K).

Most of the responses that fell under metacognitive strategies were examples of selective attention, which relates to noticing specific parts of input, that is in itself grouped under planning strategies, according to Vandergrift‟s taxonomy. The following are extracts from students‟ response illustrating this strategy:

Started (of) the main ideas first time, and second time (took) details

Focus on what is required from the questions*

Following my strategies and understanding the questions and focus on what is necessary to answer them

Focusing on the main ideas or details

Reading and understanding the questions in the paper first, so I know the things that I need to concentrate on

Key words

Instances of directed attention were all manifested in responses that mention the word “focus” in general. Further, another response which did not belong under any of Goh‟s categories was an illustration of another planning strategy, labelled by Vandergrift as self-management. The following is the participants‟ response:

Getting prepared before listening*

There was one no response to probe three in session one. There was also another problematic response which was not easily classified, as it seemed to be a reply to probe four rather than this probe. The following is the problematic response:

Nothing, I would do better if I could read the questions before listening to the lecture, that will make me prepared better

The student‟s response is quite awkward because they are always given the chance to read the questions before listening to the text. Hence, I decided to disregard this response.

 Person Knowledge: Probe 3

Table 4.12 below indicates that background knowledge, as an aid or obstacle to listening comprehension, emerged as the most frequent response by participants when asked about what has helped them to understand the text. Some extracts from the participants‟ diaries which illustrate this major theme included:

The information I have from before * I have some previous information * Previous readings on the subject *

Some of the words and information that I know

Sub-category session 1 session 2 session 3 Total

1. Obstacles/ aids to listening comprehension

a) Background knowledge 4 6 1 11

b) (un)limited vocabulary & academic terms

1 1 -- 2

Total 5 7 1 13

Table 4.12 Person Knowledge: Probe 3