The Impact of Listening Strategy Training on the Meta-Cognitive Listening Strategies Awareness of Different Learner Types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated the effectiveness of listening strategy instruction on the metacognitive listening strategies awareness of different EFL learner types (LTs). To achieve this goal, 150 EFL students took part in the study and were taught based on a guided lesson plan regarding listening strategies and a pre-test/post-test design was applied. The degree of change occurring as a result of intervention was measured through one way ANOVA test. The results indicated that there was a significant improvement after the onset of the instruction, and that the intervention was effective. Although there were some differences between the four learner types (visual learners, auditory learners, kinaesthetic learners, and tactile learners) on the post test, the auditory learner type had the most significant improvement in metacognitive awareness of listening strategies (MALS). The finding of this quantitative research study led us to conclude that learners make noticeable progress in MALS via listening strategy instruction and that the level of improvement varies across the LTs with the auditory group improving most significantly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".