Diary Probes (1) & (2): Did you find the task easy

As stated previously in Table 3.2, the first two diary probes helped elicit two types of metacognitive knowledge: person and task knowledge. Hence, the following section of the results will be divided into two main parts, one for each of these two types of metacognitive knowledge. According to Goh (1998), task knowledge “includes the ability to recognise that some tasks are more demanding than others and to discern whether a particular task is easy or hard” (p. 347). Thus, question number one in the guided listening diaries elicited task knowledge, by having students decide on whether they found the listening text easy or difficult. Regarding session one, which was on Second Language Acquisition, the majority of participants thought the text was easy: 15 out of 19 responses, one said it was easy

but not very easy, one said it was somehow easy, while two others thought it was of medium difficulty. The second session, on Sleep Deprivation, was also thought to be

easy by the majority of participants: 16 out of 19 responses. One participant said the text was neither hard nor easy, one said it was of medium difficulty and one said it was easy to some extent. The third session, on Business, was thought to be easy by nearly half of the participants: 10 out of 18 responses. Three students thought the

text was of medium difficulty, one said it was kind of easy, one said it was difficult, and one wrote kind of with no clear indication of whether it was kind of easy or kind of difficult. This final session witnessed a decrease in the number of participants who thought the text was easy compared to the two previous sessions.

Even though the initial number of participants in the experimental group was 21, there were some absentees in some sessions, hence the difference in numbers throughout the three sessions. The following part will summarize the results of the participants‟ responses to the second probe, which elicited task and person knowledge, as previously stated. Table 4.6 below summarizes the idea units, and types of metacognitive knowledge elicited from student responses to probe 2 in each session. Session Idea units Not relevant Task Knowledge Person Knowledge 1 31 1 28 3 2 34 -- 31 3 3 31 1 27 4 Total 96 2 86 (90%) 10 (10%)

Table 4.6 Phase 1: Summary of Probe 2 Categories

I will now present the information in Table 4.6 above in more details. Due to its prevalence, I will start by presenting results relevant to task knowledge.

 Task Knowledge: Probe 2

The key words that I based my categorization on in regards to task knowledge were purpose, demands, nature and procedures of tasks, which all stem from the definition of task knowledge given by Goh (1998). Focusing on these four key words helped in identifying the responses which belonged under task knowledge and those which did not. Table 4.7 below indicates that 10 sub-categories of task knowledge have been found in the participants‟ responses to probe two across the three sessions of phase one. The table also illustrates that all of these instances fall

under the broad category of factors that affect listening comprehension, according to Goh‟s coding scheme (see Appendix J). The total numbers reveal the session that witnessed the most instances of task knowledge, in this case session two. It also clarifies the most frequent sub-categories identified in the participants‟ responses. These included comments on the familiarity of the vocabulary in the listening text, (* indicates the extract was originally in Arabic and has been translated for the purpose of illustration), such as:

Because it does not include any new words * And there was not any hard words

Because the lecturer used easy to understand terms* Without difficult vocabulary

Simple word

Also, statements on types of input and the role they play as a factor affecting listening comprehension was a major theme here. Instances included:

The topic was easy

The style of the lecturer was easy* Examples *

The lecture was organized

Another theme that emerged here was the impact of existing knowledge and experience on viewing the listening text as easy or difficult. Some of the participants‟ responses included:

The text was familiar *

Because sleep issue most (of) people have it It talks about a common topic*

Speech rate was another theme identified by participants‟ as one of the factors that have led them to finding the text easy or difficult. The following are samples from students‟ diaries:

And the speed of the speaker

Because the speed of the speaker was normal Not fast paced

Plus he wasn’t fast

Sub-category session 1 session 2 session 3 Total

1. (un)familiar vocabulary 7 7 6 20

2. Types of input 6 8 5 19

3. Existing knowledge & experience 7 9 2 18

4. Speech rate 4 3 2 9

5. Different varieties & local accents 1 3 2 6

6. Physical factors 1 -- 3 4

7. Difficulty of the task -- 1 3 4

8. Length & structure of sentences -- -- 2 2

9. Emotional states 1 -- -- 1

10. Interest in a topic 1 -- -- 1

Total 28 31 25 84

Table 4.7 Task Knowledge: Probe 2

Table 4.7 above shows the rest of the sub-categories that emerged from the students‟ responses to this diary probe. However, due to their low frequency, I did not regard them as major themes and thus do not expand on them here.

 Person Knowledge: Probe 2

The definition of person knowledge includes “general knowledge learners have acquired about human factors that facilitate or inhibit learning” (Wenden, 1998, p. 518), yet Goh in her coding scheme only identifies obstacles and problems to listening comprehension. Based on this definition of person knowledge, I decided to expand the categories in Goh‟s coding scheme to include, not just obstacles, but also aids to listening comprehension. I also included under obstacles and aids to listening

comprehension, the sub-category background knowledge which did not appear in Goh‟s coding scheme (based on decision 10, see Section 4.3.2.1).

Sub-category session 1 session 2 session 3 Total

1. Obstacles/ aids to listening comprehension

a) Background knowledge -- -- 3 3

b) (un)limited vocabulary & academic terms

1 1 1 3

c) Fast speech 2 -- -- 2

d) Inefficient memory -- 1 -- 1

2. Cognitive Processes during listening a) Reconstruct meaning from words

heard

-- 1 -- 1

Total 3 3 4 10

Table 4.8 Person Knowledge: Probe 2

Table 4.8 above illustrates the instances of person knowledge that appeared in the participants‟ diaries in response to probe 2. The table also shows that background knowledge, as an aid to listening comprehension, was the major category elicited from the students. Instances from the actual diary entries include:

Because it talked about something that I know I had previously listened and read a lot about it *

Because the speaker was talking about something I don’t have much knowledge about

However, as Table 4.6 above indicates, probe two elicited a lot more instances of task knowledge than those of person knowledge.