JYPA administra la educación de Puka Puka: designa los profesores y al

I followed in this study a quasi-experimental, pre-test post-test, non-equivalent group design. This is considered as one of the most commonly used quasi- experimental designs in educational research (Cohen et al., 2011). It was not possible to randomly assign participants to control and treatment groups mainly because of ethical issues, since, as mentioned above, participation in the intervention had to be done on a voluntary basis. As a result, the study is not a true experiment. However, random assignment of students by researchers is seldom, if ever, possible in most educational settings (Dörnyei, 2007). Although there was no random assignment, the two groups were comparable in many respects. Students in both groups were from the same cohort, shared the same L1, were all females and of similar ages. Statistical measures were also used to ensure that, prior to the intervention, the two groups were at similar levels in terms of listening ability and metacognitive knowledge (see Section 4.2). Hence, even though it was not a true experiment, the study had the features of a typical quasi-experiment, in that I tried to make the two groups as comparable as possible.

Developing L2 listening expertise, as mentioned previously, is reached gradually (see Section 2.5). Due to the limited scope of this study, however, I was not able to fully adopt the framework put forward by Ericsson et al. (1993) (see Section 2.5.3). I was still able to follow some of the phases suggested which help to achieve the aim of improving the participants‟ EFL listening ability. The awareness-raising phase introduced in my study played the role of instruction and activities in the domain. This was hypothesized to equip the participants with the motivation required for commitment to deliberate practice. Another area of divergence from the deliberate practice theoretical framework was the amount of time dedicated to deliberate practice. The 10-year span of engaging in deliberate practice would be impossible to achieve in a study similar to mine, with limited time and resources. However, engaging students‟ in deliberate practice was hoped to put them on the right track to excellence in performance. Segalowitz (2003) states that even short periods of time spent on well-organized practice can in fact lead to improvements in an L2 skill.

Thus, this study was designed to consist of two phases to achieve an element of gradual movement. The first phase was concerned with metacognitive instruction whereas the second one was on deliberate practice in EFL listening. Prior to the start of the sessions, the TOEFL test and MALQ were administered as pre-tests to both comparison and experimental groups. The experimental group then took part in the two phases of the intervention; the comparison group, on the other hand, were not involved in any of the sessions over and above the normal Listening 4 classes. As was the case for Goh and Taib (2006), due to administrative constraints, effects of normal classroom instruction could not be eliminated.

The comparison group have exactly the same material in their Listening 4 classes as the experimental group. No data were collected about their listening experiences outside the classroom but based on my experience as a teacher in this context and informal discussions with both teachers and the students, it appears that their out of the class listening parallel that of the experimental group as described in Figure 4.1.

The fact that the experimental group received additional listening experiences was not an ideal feature of the research design. However, the issue is comparable to other studies. For example, Goh and Taib‟s study was based on an intervention involving one group of learners but without a comparison group. Additionally, there is a theoretical issue related to the importance of motivation in deliberate practice. In deliberate practice, the experimental group have to be well motivated and it would be ethically problematic to deny the opportunities of DP to all students who wanted the extra practice. So it is often difficult to avoid the experimental group in deliberate practice research receiving more attention than the comparison group.

3.4.1 Phase One

I based the design of phase one, the metacognitive instruction phase, on some of the studies reviewed in Section 2.5.2.2. Phase one took place over a period of three one- hour sessions. Details of each of these sessions are given in Section 3.7.2. However, I will shed light in this part on the purpose of this phase. The use of the MALQ as a pre-test served as the first step in the metacognitive awareness-raising process. Goh

(2008) states that “besides being a research instrument, the MALQ can also be used as a teaching tool for raising learners‟ awareness about L2 listening” (p. 206). Although used in this study mainly as a research instrument to track development in metacognitive knowledge, the effect the MALQ had on the participants cannot be overlooked. Further details on this phase are given under Section 3.7.2.1.

The aim of phase one was two-fold. One was to investigate the effect of metacognitive instruction on the participants‟ listening ability as well as metacognitive knowledge. Second, it was expected to serve as a lead-in to the second phase of the study: the deliberate practice phase. Metacognitive instruction has a motivational consequence in that it is intended to help students “feel

empowered to be successful and thereby invest effort in relevant and challenging

tasks” (Paris and Winograd, 1990, p. 43, italics in original). As explained in the literature review on deliberate practice, the most cited condition for improvement is the participant‟s motivation to practise. These metacognitive processes, according to Goh (2008), “not only raise learners‟ awareness about strategy use, but also offer much needed scaffolding while learners are working with listening texts” (p. 192). That is why this phase was planned to prepare the participants for the second phase. According to results of other studies in the field, I expected this phase to have a positive impact on the participants‟ metacognitive knowledge. Developing metacognitive knowledge consequently leads students to have more control over their learning and will be “more capable of regulating” it (Goh, 1998, p. 47). By the end of this phase, both the TOEFL listening test and the MALQ were administered for the second time to evaluate any impact this phase had on the participants‟ listening ability and their metacognitive knowledge respectively.

3.4.2 Phase Two

Having a high degree of metacognitive knowledge, which is crucial for the development of L2 listening expertise, is believed to have a positive impact on motivation and self-confidence (Goh, 2005). Johnson (2005) suggests a common instructional paradigm for developing expertise. According to him, to develop expertise one has to identify two comparable groups of relative novices. One group,

which is the experimental group, is trained using a chosen method to be investigated, while the second group acts as a control. After some time, the two groups are tested to determine whether the experimental group has gained from the training or not. However, a lot of work remains to be done to decide whether and how expertise can actually be taught (ibid). The application of deliberate practice in an L2 listening class, though it is crucial to listening development, may not be very apparent to the outside observer because many of the procedures in class are the same as they would be in a conventional listening class. The difference largely relates to the listeners‟ internal psychological processes.

As an attempt in this regard, I based the training in this phase on the elements of deliberate practice identified in the literature (see Figure 2.2.). In phase two, participants listened to the text first and took notes. They listened again and then were asked to give a summary of the text. If the text was a conversation or a short discussion, then they had to complete the task rather than write a summary. By the end of each task, however, they had to write in their guided listening diaries. Table 3.1. below illustrates the elements of deliberate practice and how I attempted to achieve them in the training sessions of phase two.

DP Elements Applications

1. Concentration  Reinforcing the significance of concentration

at the start of each session

2. Motivation  Voluntary participation in the study

 Increase in metacognitive knowledge (due to 1st phase)

 Reinforcing significance of motivation at the start of each session

3. Tutor  I was present in all sessions

4. Task  Tasks from published material

5. Feedback  Diaries

 Group discussions  Feedback on summaries

6. Repeated performance  Listening to a text twice (for lectures)

 2-3 listening texts per session

Table 3.1 DP Elements & their Applications in the Context of Listening

More details of each of the two phases are given in Section 3.7.2.