THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN L2 LISTENING AND METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS ACROSS LISTENING TESTS AND LEARNER SAMPLES

References

• Aryadoust, V. (2015a). Application of evolutionary algorithm-based symbolic regression to language assessment: Toward nonlinear modeling. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 57(3), 301–337.
   Google Scholar
• Aryadoust, V. (2015b). Fitting a mixture Rasch model to English as a Foreign language listening tests: The role of cognitive and background variables in explaining latent differential item functioning. International Journal of Listening, 15(3), 216–238. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2015.1004409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachman, L. F. (2006). Generalizability: A journey into the nature of empirical research in applied linguistics. In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. A. Chapelle, & P. Duff (Eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives (pp. 165–207). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Bax, S. (2013). The cognitive processing of candidates during reading tests: Evidence from eye-tracking. Language Testing, 30(4), 441–465. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212473244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• British Council. (2021). IELTSTM: Listening practice tests. https://takeielts.britishcouncil.org/take-ielts/prepare/free-ielts-practice-tests/listening
   Google Scholar
• Brunfaut, T., Harding, L., & Batty, A.-O. (2018). Going online: The effect of mode of delivery on performances and perceptions on an English L2 writing test suite. Assessing Writing, 36, 3–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buck, G. (1991). The testing of listening comprehension: An introspective study. Language Testing, 8(1), 67–91. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229100800105
   Google Scholar
• Carrell, P. (2007). Notetaking strategies and their relationship to performance on listening comprehension and communicative assessment tasks (ETS Research Report No. RR-07-01, TOEFL Monograph No. MS-35). Educational Testing Service. https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-07-01.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Chalhoub-Deville, M. (2006). Drawing the line: The generalizability and limitations of research in applied linguistics. In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C. A. Chapelle, & P. Duff (Eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives (pp. 1–5). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Coniam, D. (2006). Evaluating computer-based and paper-based versions of an English-language listening test. ReCALL, 18(2), 193–211. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344006000425
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, D., & Hegelheimer, V. (2007). Assessing language using computer technology. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 115–132. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190508070062
   Google Scholar
• Educational Testing Service. (2017). TOEFL ITP test taker handbook. https://www.ets.org/s/toefl_itp/pdf/toefl_itp_test_taker_handbook.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Educational Testing Service. (2019). TOEFL iBT free practice test. https://www.ets.org/s/toefl/free-practice/start.html
   Google Scholar
• Educational Testing Service. (2021a). Comparing scores. https://www.ets.org/toefl/score-users/scores-admissions/compare/
   Google Scholar
• Educational Testing Service. (2021b). Research. https://www.ets.org/toefl_itp/research/
   Google Scholar
• Educational Testing Service. (2021c). Test content. https://www.ets.org/toefl_itp/content
   Google Scholar
• Educational Testing Service. (2021d). TOEFL iBT® Listening section. https://www.ets.org/toefl/test-takers/ibt/about/content/listening
   Google Scholar
• Educational Testing Service. (2021e). TOEFL iBT® test content. https://www.ets.org/toefl/test-takers/ibt/about/content
   Google Scholar
• Ercikan, K. (2009). Limitations in sample-to-population generalizing. In K. Ercikan & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Generalizing from educational research: Beyond qualitative and quantitative polarization (pp. 211–234). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Field, J. (2019). Rethinking the second language listening test: From theory to practice. (British Council Monographs Vol. 2). Equinox Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Ghorbani Nejad, S., & Farvardin, M. T. (2019). Roles of general language proficiency, aural vocabulary knowledge, and metacognitive awareness in L2 learners' listening comprehension. International Journal of Listening Advance online publication. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2019.1572510
   Google Scholar
• Goh, C. (1997). Metacognitive awareness and second language listeners. ELT Journal, 51(4), 361–369. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/51.4.361
   Google Scholar
• Goh, C. C. M. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: Theory, practice and research implications. RELC Journal, 39 (2), 188–213. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688208092184
   Google Scholar
• Goh, C. C. M. (2018). Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ). In D. Worthington & G. D. Bodie (Eds.) The sourcebook of listening research: Methodology and measures (pp. 430–437). Wiley Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Goh, C. C. M., & Hu, G. W. (2014). Exploring the relationship between metacognitive awareness and listening performance with questionnaire data. Language Awareness, 23 (3), 255–274. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.769558
   Google Scholar
• Greenwell, B. M. (2018). pdp: Partial Dependence Plots (Version 0.7.0) [Software]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/pdp/pdp.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., Strobl, C., & Zeileis, A. (2021). party (Version 1.3-6) [Software]. Retrieved from. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/party/party.pdf
   Google Scholar
• In’nami, Y., Koizumi, R., Jeon, E.-H., & Arai, Y. (manuscript in preparation). L2 listening and its correlates: A meta-analysis. In E.-H. Jeon & Y. In'nami (Eds.), Understanding L2 proficiency: Theoretical and meta-analytic investigations, John Benjamins
   Google Scholar
• Jin, Y. (2010). College English education in China: From testing to assessment. In Y.-I. Moon & B. Spolsky (Eds.), Language assessment in Asia: Local, regional or global? (pp. 1–27). Asia TEFL. http://www.asiatefl.org/main/main.php?main=3
   Google Scholar
• Karalık, T., & Merç, A.(2019). Correlates of listening comprehension in L1 and L2: A meta-analysis. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 353–383. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.651387
   Google Scholar
• Low, A. R. L., & Aryadoust, V. (2021). Investigating test-taking strategies in listening assessment: A comparative study of eye-tracking and self-report questionnaires. International Journal of Listening. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2021.1883433
   Google Scholar
• Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) Scoring and Interpretation Guide. (n.d.). [ Unpublished manuscript].
   Google Scholar
• Plonsky, L., & Ghanbar, H. (2018). Multiple regression in L2 research: A methodological synthesis and guide to interpreting R2 values. Modern Language Journal, 102(4), 713–731. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12509
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revelle, W. (2020). psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research (Version 2.0.12) [Software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
   Google Scholar
• Ridgway, T. (2000). Listening strategies—I beg your pardon? ELT Journal, 54(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.2.179
   Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawaki, Y. (2001). Comparability of conventional and computerized tests of reading in a second language. Language Learning and Technology, 5(2), 38–59. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.125/25127
   Google Scholar
• Sherman, J. (1997). The effect of question preview in listening comprehension tests. Language Testing, 14(2), 185–213. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229701400204
   Google Scholar
• Strobl, C., Hothorn, T., & Zeileis, A. (2009). Party on! A new, conditional variable importance measure for random forests available in the party package. The R Journal, 1(2), 14–17. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2009-013
   Google Scholar
• Strobl, C., Malley, J., & Tutz, G. (2009). An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods, 14(4), 323–348. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016973
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suvorov, R. (2018). Test takers’ use of visual information in an L2 video-mediate listening test. In G. J. Ockey & E. Wagner (Eds.), Assessing L2 listening: Moving towards authenticity (pp. 145–160). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Taguchi, N. (2001). L2 learners’ strategic mental processes during a listening test. JALT Journal, 23(2), 176–201. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ23.2-1
   Google Scholar
• Vafaee, P., & Suzuki, Y. (2020). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary knowledge in second language listening ability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(2), 383–410. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000676
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandergrift, L., & Baker, S. (2015). Learner variables in second language listening comprehension: An exploratory path analysis. Language Learning, 65(2), 390–416. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. M. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C. M., Mareschal, C., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire (MALQ): Development and validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431–462. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00373.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace, M. P. (2018). Second language listening comprehension: Relationships among vocabulary knowledge, topical knowledge, metacognition, and working memory [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. http://hdl.handle.net/10497/20331
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, M. P. (2020). Individual differences in second language listening: Examining the role of knowledge, metacognitive awareness, memory, and attention. Language Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12424.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang, Y., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2017). Explaining listening comprehension among L2 learners of English: The contribution of general language proficiency, vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive awareness. System, 65, 139–150. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, Y. (1998). What do tests of listening comprehension test?―A retrospection study of EFL test-takers performing a multiple-choice task. Language Testing, 15(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229801500102
   Google Scholar
• Yanagawa, K. (2012). A partial validation of the contextual validity of the Centre listening test in Japan [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Bedfordshire. http://hdl.handle.net/10547/267493
   Google Scholar