CC BY-ND
0
https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.14329
Exploring Translanguaging during Metacognitive Strategy Use on L2 Listening and Writing Skills
Roderick Julian Robillos ®
Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
ABSTRACT
Background: The educational concept of translanguaging has garnered significant attention over the past decade. Its significance in fostering language acquisition in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classroom has been increasingly acknowledged. However, there is an emerging necessity to strategically implement this pedagogical approach to enhance learning outcomes and improve overall effectiveness.
Purpose: The present study sets out to investigate the influence of translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use and its impact on second language (L2) listening and writing abilities. Method: The present study employed sequential mixed-method research involving a pre-and post-test design. A total of 16 college students was purposively selected as samples and underwent 11 sessions of applying translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use (the intervention used).
Results: Study results reveal a significant difference on participants' pre- (x=9.19) and post-(x=15.56) listening comprehension tests. An increasing trend of improvement on their quizzes in terms of writing components namely: grammar and structure, content, lexical resource, logical order, and supporting details was also found. In addition, the components on "grammar and structure" and "supporting details" have improved considerably. The participants, likewise, perceived translanguaging as a normal and not a disrespectful practice for them as EFL learners. Qualitative findings revealed that participants have welcomed the use of the intervention as it aids them to process their listening comprehension and writing skills in L2. Conclusion: The pedagogical application of translanguaging approach during metacognitive strategy use is concluded as an agentive and facilitative pedagogical strategy that helps learners to not only improve their listening comprehension and writing skills but also promotes deeper cognitive fluency, improves L2 learning, and fosters them to become more involved in the learning processes of metacognitive planning, monitoring, and evaluating.
Citation: Robillos R. J. (2023). Exploring Translanguaging during Metacognitive Strategy Use on L2 Listening and Writing Skills. Journal of Language and Education, 9(3), 110-128. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2023.14329
Correspondence:
Roderick Julian Robillos, rodero@kku.ac.th
Received: May 02, 2022 Accepted: September 15, 2023 Published: September 30, 2023
KEYWORDS
listening skill, metacognitive approach, second language (L2) learning, translanguaging, writing skill
INTRODUCTION
The present study attempts to investigate whether a pedagogical application of translanguaging can be utilized in the EFL classroom, and how the L2 listening comprehension and writing skills of the students is impacted by using translan-guaging during metacognitive strategy use, where no studies, to date, have been conducted in the EFL field. In the educational system of Thailand, EFL listening skill is put aside, meaning, it is just embedded in the instruction of speak-
ing skill in the classroom, and thus, EFL learners do not have many opportunities to improve their listening skill (Robillos, 2019). In fact, listening activities are often used as a test of comprehension questions (e.g., multiple choice, fill in the blanks) (Goh, 2008; Robillos, 2019; Robillos & Bustos, 2022). Thus, the process of explicitly teaching listening skills is neglected. Lack of exposure to listening tactics and strategies means students may be left with unresolved difficulties in their own understanding of the subtleties of linguistic and non-linguistic stim-
uli (Bozorgian, 2014; Graham, 2017). Furthermore, L2 learners should develop their communicative skills that can give them the confidence to use strategies in solving problems when their language skills are not sufficient (García, 2017) and since every successful communication starts from effective listening which is one most important skill in L2 learning (Robillos, 2019; 2020), this should be given utmost attention. One possible strategy of supporting listening in the EFL classroom which might help meet these demands is the incorporation of first language or L1 into an L2 instructional setting and this is often termed as 'translanguaging' (García, et al., 2017; Moody, Chowdhury, & Eslami, 2019)
Translanguaging is the act of using different languages interchangeably, in order to overcome language constraints, to deliver verbal utterances or written statements effectively (García & Li, 2014; García et al., 2017), to make - meaning (Rivera & Mazak, 2017) and, to effectively attain successful communication (Csillik & Golubeva, 2019b). Li (2018) describes translanguaging as the use of more than one linguistic repertoire and other meaning-making (semiotic) and cognitive resources in learning a target language (TL). The belief is, when it comes to languaging, if we can get our students to engage in ideas and let them use their linguistic repertoire or all the languages that they know, conceptual knowledge and language will blossom. Previous studies claimed that a strategic use of learners' L1 will not slow down or impede their process of learning a language, but rather scaffold both their L1 and their TL (Csillik & Golubeva, 2019b; García & Li, 2014). Translanguaging allows students to use their L1 as a first step to comprehend and enables them to generate new ideas and help promote their cognitive fluency. Furthermore, EFL learning is reframed as bilingual education (Turnbull, 2018) where both the teacher and the students can translanguage to generate learning opportunities, and as such, is still not given much attention in the EFL research field.
It is well-known that incorporating bilingual practices into the classroom (e.g. translanguaging) promotes language learning (Csillik & Golubeva, 2019b; García & Li, 2014; Garcia et al., 2017; Li, 2018; Otheguy et al., 2015; Sobkowiak, 2022). Many SLA researchers also claim that a tactical, metacognitive approach to second language instruction can provide learners with the proper guidance in learning their L2 (Oxford, 1993; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Robillos, 2019). For instance, the teaching of writing and listening skills is considered complex and requires a strategic approach. This approach has been proven to enhance the control, confidence, and overall proficiency of EFL learners (Bozorgian, 2014; Goh, 2008; Robillos, 2020; Robillos & Thongpai, 2022; Van-dergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010; Zheng, 2018). When students acquire the ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate their tasks, they develop metacognitive awareness. This awareness allows them to assume more responsibility for their learning, identify and address gaps in their understanding, and re-
flect on their performance (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012; Robil-los & Phantharaphong, 2020).
The paper first describes the term "translanguaging" as a pedagogy, followed by the discussion of translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use in EFL listening and finally, summary of research findings and their contribution to the existing literature on translanguaging and L2 listening.
LITERATURE REVIEW Application of TLAN to L2 Learning
The term "translanguaging" was first coined by Cen Williams (1994) -a Welsh scholar, to emphasize the role of L1 in the development of L2. Williams was in contrary to the norm of splitting named languages and believed that learners' L1 can be beneficially utilized in learning an L2. That is, in an L2 classroom that implements translanguaging, an "English-only" policy is abandoned, and learners are not thought of as deficient, non-native speakers of English, defined by what they lack, but as resourceful agents with multilingual repertoires, abilities, and talents (García & Kleif-gen, 2018). They are encouraged to use all their linguistic resources, sustain their culture and identities while expanding their repertoire by learning features of the target language (Sobkowiak, 2022). This flexible use of linguistic resources promotes deep and critical thinking, and enables rigorous cognitive engagement with such tasks. Furthermore, the pedagogical application of translanguaging allows users to access their full linguistic repertoire without having to be constantly aware of socially and politically defined boundaries of named languages (Otheguy et al., 2015). Cumminns (2000) suggested that knowledge about the world is not bound to a specific language, and thus learners should use the language(s) in which they feel most comfortable." This de-emphasizes all knowledge and also emphasizes the point of translanguaging by including languages. This is supported by Cohen (1995) emphasizing that L2 leaners persistently shift between their various language resources. Therefore, L2 learners should be encouraged to use any of their linguistic repertoires for academic purposes (Garcia & Otheguy, 2020).
Moreover, the utilization of translanguaging acts as a support system for comprehending lessons, saving time, and maximizing students' linguistic abilities in problem-solving, constructing meaning, and acquiring knowledge (Tian et al., 2020). Numerous studies have provided empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of translanguaging in EFL macro-skills. For instance, in the context of L2 reading, Mgijima & Makalela (2021) discovered a positive relationship between the application of translanguaging techniques and learners' performance in composing summary writing. In L2 writing, Chen et al. (2019) asserted that employing translanguaging techniques helped college students enhance
their ESP writing skills across three domains: content, literacy, and academic style. Regarding language improvement, Elashhab (2020) argued that translanguaging contributed to the improvement of medical students' four English language skills, highlighting its significance as an educational practice. This perspective is supported by Moody et al. (2019), who claimed that students' use of translanguaging is a natural linguistic resource that does not hinder successful communication. The students in their study expressed pos-itivity towards the idea that implementing translanguaging techniques empowers them to enhance their proficiency in L2. This current study aims to expand on this research by examining the potential role of translanguaging pedagogy in improving listening skills, an area that has not yet been explored in previous studies.
Metacognitive Approach to L2 Listening
One of the most preeminent pedagogical approaches that are widely recognized in the education field is metacogni-tion. As coined by Flavell (1979), metacognition refers to the knowledge about and regulation of the cognitive processes during learning. In short, metacognitively aware students recognize the gaps in their understanding and are willing to seek out strategies to help fill these gaps. Several researchers in second language acquisition (SLA) have acknowledged that learners' awareness of their learning processes, cognitive functions, and use of strategies can have positive effects on learning tasks (Bozorgian et al., 2021; Goh, 2008; Robillos, 2019; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). For instance, Bozorgian et al. (2021) conducted a study in Iran to explore the impact of metacognitive intervention in the learners' native language (L1) on the listening performance of EFL learners. The experimental group received an eight-week intervention conducted in L1, focusing on metacognitive strategies for the listening task. The results demonstrated a significant improvement in the overall listening performance of the learners. Similarly, Goh (2008) advocated for a metacogni-tive-based approach to teaching listening, as it enables the instruction of skills and processes related to listening comprehension. This approach enhances control, confidence, and proficiency among EFL listeners. Goh argues that solely testing listening without teaching the necessary tactics for gaining control over the listening process and improving listening skills only generates concerns for students without providing much assistance (Goh, 2008; Robillos, 2020; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010).
The current study aims to build upon existing research by incorporating translanguaging pedagogy in conjunction with metacognitive strategy use to facilitate L2 listening comprehension and writing tasks. Specifically, metacognitive skills are instructed in the L2 language to support students' listening comprehension tasks. However, during paired or group activities that involve extensive discussions, students are allowed to utilize their linguistic resources freely. This
enables them to deepen their understanding of the listening selections and engage in more meaningful discussions with their peers about listening strategies and their own insights and understanding. It is believed that metacognitively aware students are more likely to plan, monitor, and evaluate the strategies or effective tactics they use for learning, adapting these strategies based on their learning environment (Goh, 2008; Robillos, 2019; Robillos & Bustos, 2022; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010). Implementing a metacognitive approach to listening has been shown to enhance control, confidence, and proficiency among EFL listeners (Bozorgian et al., 2021; Goh, 2008; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010; Robillos, 2019; Robillos & Bustos, 2022). Therefore, translanguaging pedagogy is integrated into the stages of the metacognitive approach, which include (i) the planning stage involving relevant planning tactics such as advance organization and establishing background knowledge; (ii) the monitoring stage that entails collaborating with peers to compare, discuss differences, identify listening problems, and plan for subsequent listening processes; and (iii) the evaluation stage, which involves evaluation and reflection (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Listeners engage in translanguaging to express themselves creatively, connect with the given listening materials, and promote their own development as listeners. When listeners can express their ideas fully and meaningfully without language barriers, they can achieve a deeper understanding of the subject matter and enhance their L2 learning. Similarly, when they possess sufficient metacognitive knowledge and actively participate in planning, monitoring, and evaluating their listening comprehension, they can prepare themselves, check, assess, and reflect on their listening achievements (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012).
Although previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of translanguaging in various pedagogical approaches, such as its use in Content and Language Integrated Learning (Lin & He, 2017), Task-Based Language Teaching (Seals et al., 2020), and a Project-based approach (Carpenter & Matsugu, 2020), no prior research has explored the application of translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use to the teaching of listening comprehension and writing skills. Additionally, there is a lack of studies on the pedagogical application of translanguaging in the Thai educational context. Therefore, the present study aims to address this research gap by investigating the impact of implementing translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use to improve students' listening comprehension and writing skills in L2. Specifically, the study focuses on the following research questions (RQ's):
RQ1. Is there a significant difference between the participants' listening comprehension performance before and after implementing translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use (the intervention used in the study)?
RQ2. Is there an improvement on participants' listening comprehension and writing skills in L2 as manifested on their quizzes after the strategy intervention was provided?
RQ3. How do the participants perceive the use of translanguaging as practice, translanguaging for L2 learning, and translanguaging for listening comprehension task processes?
RQ4. What experiences have the participants gained in improving their listening comprehension and writing skills in L2 after the intervention?
Table 1
Participants' Demographic Information
METHOD
Research Design
The current study utilized a sequential mixed-method research design, which incorporated both quantitative and qualitative components (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011). The quantitative data were employed to examine the influence of implementing translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use on students' listening comprehension and writing skills in L2. On the other hand, the qualitative data were utilized to explore students' perspectives regarding the implementation of the intervention to facilitate their listening comprehension and writing tasks.
Demographic Profile N %
Gender Male 3 18.75
Female 13 81.25
Total 16 100
Age 18 and below 15 93.75
19-20 1 6.25
21 and above 0 0
Total 16 100
First Language Used Thai 16 100
Isarn 16 100
Lanna 4 25
Phu Thai 4 25
Language/s Proficiently Spoken Thai 16 100
English 8 50
Chinese 5 31.25
Japanese 7 43.75
Khmer 2 12.5
Years of Experience in Using 1 year and below 0 0
English language 1-2 years 2 12.5
3-4 years 4 25
5-6 years 6 37.5
7-8 years 4 25
over 9 years 0 0
Total 16 100
Note. The demographic information is self-reported and emphasized that language proficiency is solely based on speaking - not listening/reading/writing skills
Participants
In this study, the researcher used a single group of pre- and post-test design and a semi-structured interview for collecting data to explore the effect of applying the strategy intervention on the students' listening comprehension of short informative video items manifested on their writing products. Furthermore, the researcher used a total of 11 sessions constituted of 9 sessions for the implementation of the strategy intervention, and one session each for the administration of the pre- and post-listening tests. All the 16 First Year college students majoring in the program of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) at the study-university located in the Northeastern part of the country, were purposively selected as samples. These EFL participants are enrolled in the Intermediate Academic Listening and Speaking course aimed at developing their listening and speaking skills. Specifically, participants must take the course to improve both of their communicative and linguistic competencies which is the focus of the academic listening and speaking program. The course taken during their first year is generally one of the students' listening courses to expose them to learn how to listen and not only to listen to learn. However, the TESOL program required English language as the medium of instruction to almost all of the subjects the students are studying. Many of these students struggle to comprehend academic listening selections in English. This might be due to the traditional way of teaching listening (e.g., focusing only on the listening product by testing listening and the strict English-only policy of the program) (Author 1; Authors 5). This has been a cause for concern at the study-university. Thus, the researcher as a lecturer in the program, decided to embark on this inquiry using translanguaging pedagogy within metacognitive approach to help students develop metacognitive skills that will aid them in dealing with listening comprehension problems and challenges.
It is worthy to note as well that all of the participants are simultaneous Thai-Isarn bilinguals with English as the third (or fourth) language. Albeit all the participants use Thai and Isarn as their first languages, some of them are not proficient to speak Isarn language. In order to yield more understanding with regard to participants' demographic information, table 1 below was presented.
Instruments and Data Collection
Short Informative Video Items
There were four short informative video items used throughout the intervention. The choice of this material is based on the fact that the learners participating in the study are exposed to this authentic material on a regular basis. These short informative videos focused on global issues and are aligned to the topics indicated in the subject "Intermediate
Academic Listening and Speaking" they were studying. The videos were ranging from approximately 2.0 minutes to around 3.0 minutes long. The four (4) short informative video items used were : (1) Living in the city or countryside with 2.53 minutes long; (2) Causes, Effects of Climate Change with 2.48 minutes long; (3) Noise Pollution: causes, effects and solution with 2.40 minutes long; and (4) Does Saving more Lives Lead to Overpopulation? with 2.05 minutes long. Each of the 4 videos used as listening selections was divided into three segments. There were paired and group sharing activities to happen in each listening segment (see: the intervention programme) and they were permitted to use any of their linguistic repertoires to enable them to understand the listening segment/s more deeply and more meanifully before writing down their comprehension into paragraph/s. The informative videos were piloted to students similar to the current participants. The short informative videos received a mean rating of 4.37 out of 5.0 for cognitive appropriateness with a Cronbach alpha result of 0.89.
Scoring Rubric
The responses for the two tests as well as the participants' quizzes were scored based on the scoring rubric. There were two scoring rubrics utilized to score students' listening performances: one scoring rubric for their pre- and posttests and another rubric for their listening quizzes. Whilst the scoring rubric for students' listening quizzes (see Appendix A) constituted of grammar and structure, content, lexical resource, logical order, and supporting details, the scoring rubric for their pre- and post-tests included 5 writing components such as main idea, supporting details, logical order, content, and paraphrasing (see Appendix C). The writing rubric is designed by the researcher himself, however, checked by the three English experts of the study-university for cognitive appropriateness. A total of 20 marks would be yielded with 4 marks as the highest, and 1 mark as the lowest.
Pre-and Post-Tests
Pre-andpost-tests were conducted to assess the participants' listening comprehension performance for short informative video items. The pre-listening test was administered one week prior to the intervention, and activities such as posing questions and group brainstorming were conducted to activate their background knowledge before they wrote their comprehension of the listening selection. Participants were given 60 minutes to complete their written compositions. The post-test took place one day after the intervention, using the same short informative video as the pre-test. Prior to writing their compositions, participants were provided with the intervention. They were given 60 minutes to complete their written compositions. The topic for both the pre- and post-tests was "My family influences my life more than my peers/friends." Additionally, a separate scoring rubric (Appendix C) was utilized to assess and score the students' pre-and post-tests.
Students' Listening Comprehension Quizzes
There were four short informative video items used throughout the intervention program. The participants engaged in metacognitive stages to support their listening tasks. Subsequently, they completed a comprehension quiz by writing paragraphs based on the listening selection. Each written paragraph was evaluated using a writing rubric, considering factors such as grammar and structure, content, lexical resources, logical order, and supporting details. The students' written work was first scored and then returned to them. During group activities, consisting of skilled, unskilled, and average students, participants identified errors in their papers, which were highlighted, encircled, or underlined by their teacher. The purpose of the group activities was to allow students to identify and discuss the errors they made (e.g., grammar, structure, vocabulary, logical connections, content, supporting details) and share successful strategies for future use. However, the scores obtained from the written paragraphs remained unchanged to encourage students to practice evaluation sub-stages, such as problem identification and strategy evaluation. Furthermore, students were permitted to use any language they were proficient in to express their opinions about the errors in their papers more comprehensively. Examples of questions students might ask include: What errors did you identify? Why do you think the errors occurred? What do you believe is the correct version? Why do you think so?.
Students' Perceptions on TLAN during Metacognitive Strategy Use
This questionnaire was administered after the intervention was implemented to the students in order to determine the participants' perceptions towards translanguaging and requested the participants to rate the statements on a Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Item-level descriptive results are reported in Table 4. The first section focused on students' perceptions on "translanguaging as a practice" whilst the second section focused on "translanguaging for L2 learning" (Moody et al., 2019). The last section of the questionnaire, however, focused on "translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use to process their listening comprehension" is designed by the researcher himself. The questionnaire was then checked by the three English experts, piloted to 26 Second Year EFL college students to further identify any potential issues with the questionnaire items. The reported reliability value was 0.87. Minor adjustments were made to the order of the questionnaire items before its final administration.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted after the intervention was provided. This is to yield more in depth information from the
participants in regards to how often and when they used the intervention in facilitating their listening comprehension tasks and be able to explore the planning, monitoring, evaluation, and reflection strategies that they implemented before, during, and after processing their listening comprehension and writing tasks.
Research Procedures and the Intervention Programme
The researcher used a total of 11 sessions constituted of: 1 session each for the administration of pre- and post- listening comprehension tests; 9 sessions (180 minutes/session) for implementing listening comprehension task/s on participants through metacognitive stages of planning, monitoring, and evaluation along with its subcomponents where they can translanguage every time they communicate whether in pairs or in groups to fully understand the listening selection as well as improve their writing skill. Figure
1 below displays the intervention programme implemented to the participants.
The procedures used in sessions 2, 3, and 4 for the 1st video were followed as similar procedures for videos 2, 3, and 4. However, the number of sessions was reduced to two sessions for each video. Thus, sessions 5 and 6 for video 2 activity, sessions 7 and 8 for video 3 activity, and sessions 9 and 10 for video 4. Videos 2, 3, and 4 focused on listening topics such as "Causes and effects of climate change", "Noise pollution: causes, effects and solution", and "Does saving more lives lead to overpopulation?" respectively. The last session (Session 11) was used for the administration of the post-listening comprehension test.
Analysis of the Data Gathered
The quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, while the qualitative data were subjected to thematic analysis. Descriptive statistics, such as mean, frequency, and standard deviation (SD), were calculated using the SPSS tool. The t-test was employed to compare the means of the pre- and post-listening comprehension tests, determining the effect of the strategy intervention and whether there was a significant difference. ANOVA was used to assess any significant differences among the scores in the four quizzes. In the analysis of qualitative data, a thematic analysis approach was utilized to examine the data obtained from semi-structured interviews. The data from these interviews were analyzed and coded through topical coding to label text, subsequently interpreted and modified to identify emerging themes. The following themes emerged: Theme 1 - students' perception of translanguaging practices, Theme
2 - benefits of applying translanguaging during metacogni-tive strategy use, and Theme 3 - improvement in L2 writing and L2 learning.
Figure 1
The Intervention Programme
Session 1
Administration of Demographic Information Questionnaire
Pre-Listening test. The comprehension output was through writing.
Discuss the importance of translanguaging
Session 3
Session 4
Metacognitive PLANNING Stage
Advance Organization (using a short passage relative to the listening selection.
Brainstorm and
share initial understanding about the passage. Translanguaging is encouraged.
Metacognitive MONITORING Stage
First video
selection parts
1 & 2 of 3
First video
selection
complete parts
1, 2, & 3
Metacognitive EVALUATION Stage
Students' discussion of the listening selection. Attend points of disagreement and discuss listening strategies they had tried to use previously and consider using them the next time, Translanguaging is encouraged.
First Video selection part 1 of 3, entitled
"city vs countryside. "
Share understanding of the listening selection.
Discuss what they
Comprehension have got from the
monitoring. selection and share
Students successful strategies
monitor their they employed.
progress. Translanguaging is
encouraged.
Individual writing. Then
written composition is sent to the teacher.
Students evaluate and reflect on errors from the paper, collaborate to correct such errors. Translanguaging is encouraged.
RESULTS
Quantitative Analysis
Test of Difference on Participants' Listening Comprehension Performance (RQ1)
Figure 2 below compares the participants' listening comprehension scores before and after the intervention was implemented. The gray lines represent individual students, and the blue line represents the average. It can be gleaned that before the intervention was provided on participants, the majority of them performed below the passing score of 10 (68.75%) and only five (31.25%) of the participants got 10-11 marks. However, after the strategy intervention was implemented, five (31.25%) participants yielded a score ranging from 14-16 out of 20 marks, three of them got a score ranging from 11-13 (18.75%) marks, and eight or (50%) of them yielded a score ranging from 17-19 marks. Overall, students performed significantly better on the post-test (x = 15.56, SD = 2.34) than the pre-test (x = 9.19, SD = 1.11; t(15) = 13.23, p < .001, d = 3.30). The result is an indication that the participants performed better in their listening comprehension of short informative video items as none of them scored lower than 10 points. Figure 2 below shows the spaghetti plot of the participants' listening comprehension performance over time.
Listening Comprehension Quiz Results (RQ2)
Figure 3 displays the Mean results of the students' listening comprehension quiz scores as manifested on their written outputs by components over time. As noticed, the participants' quiz score began at a lower starting timepoint. However, the overall quiz scores they gained kept an increasing trend during the implementation of the programme as indicated by their overall mean scores of x=2.12, x=2.51, x=2.76, and x=3.02 for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quizzes respectively. Furthermore, as gleaned specifically from the figure, albeit all the components showed an improvement over time, the component on "grammar" (mean score quiz #1, x=1.89; mean score quiz #4, x=3.00 = mean improvement of 1.31), indicated the most improved component as compared to the rest. It is also worthy to note that the component on "logical order' has just started to improve during the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quizzes and was the least improved one. Notably, the students performed significantly differently across the four quiz timepoints: F (3,45) = 86.73, p<.001, partial n2 = 0.85.
Further, since the students' performances were assessed on two dimensions for each quiz, i.e., content and details for listening comprehension skill (orange line in figure 4), and grammar, lexical resources, and logical order for writing performance (solid green line in the figure), it is crucial to point out the distinctions between the two skills. As exhibited in the line graph, the students' listening performances
Figure 2.
Participants' listening comprehension tests over time
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Listening Comprehension Test Scores Over Time
Figure 3
Participants' listening comprehension quizzes by component over time
displayed a gradual increase from x =2.31; x =3.03; x =3.19; and x =3.40 for their quiz 1, quiz 2, quiz 3, and quiz 4 respectively. However, the components under the writing part climbed slightly as evidenced by quiz 1 (x =2.17), quiz 2 (x =2.17), quiz 3 (x =2.48), and quiz 4 (x =2.77). The result in listening part might be attributed to the fact that when they use metacognitive strategies and allowed to translanguage during collaboration, they were able to obtain more ideas and information from their peers and thus, deeper understanding of the content is achieved albeit new listening selection is discussed the next class.
Table 2 reports all pairwise comparisons between means on the four quizzes. All comparisons were significant at p < .001 even after applying a bonferroni correction, indicating that
scores between all quizzes were significantly different from one another. In particular, scores significantly increased over time (i.e. the mean Quiz 1 score was significantly lower than Quiz 2; the mean Quiz 2 score was significantly lower than Quiz 3; the mean Quiz 3 score was significantly lower than Quiz 4).
Descriptive Statistics for Participants' Perception on the Use of the Intervention (RQ3)
Table 3 presents the participants' perceptions regarding three aspects: Translanguaging as a practice, Translanguaging for L2 learning, and Translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use for facilitating listening comprehension tasks. Participants strongly agreed with statement #2, indi-
Figure 4
Students' Quiz Performances by Component and by Distinction between the Two Skills
4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5
Quiz Scores by component over time and Skills' Distinction
Quiz 1
Grammar Detail
Quiz 2 Quiz 3 Quiz 4 Content Lexical Order — Average -Writing -Listening
Table 2
Pairwise Comparisons of the Means of the Four Quizzes
First Quiz
Second Quiz
Mean Improvement
SE
95% CI for Mean Improvement
1.81 3.25 1.44 4.44 2.63 1.19
0.31 0.35 0.22 0.39 0.18 0.25
0.88 2.20 0.76 3.26 2.08 0.44
2.74 4.31 2.12 5.61 3.17 1.93
Note. All comparisons are p < .001 after Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons applied.
cating that translanguaging is a normal practice (mean=4.75, SD=0.40). Conversely, they strongly disagreed with statement #4, suggesting that translanguaging is disrespectful (mean=1.00, SD=0.00). These results indicate that participants view translanguaging as a normal pedagogy that can be used without negatively impacting the language they are studying.
In terms of "Translanguaging for L2 learning," participants expressed positive views, strongly agreeing with statements #1, #3, and #4, which highlight the benefits of translanguaging in learning English. They strongly disagreed with statements #2 and #5, indicating that translanguaging is not a sign of low proficiency in the target language and that language instructors should not avoid using it in the classroom. This suggests that participants perceive translanguaging as an effective pedagogy for facilitating listening comprehension, writing tasks, and L2 learning.
Regarding the last aspect, participants strongly agreed that translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use aids in facilitating their listening comprehension and writing tasks.
Their responses to all statements in this category were very positive. Statement #2 received the highest mean score of 4.81 (SD=0.40), indicating that translanguaging helps participants understand content and discuss listening difficulties with their peers. Statement #6 received the lowest mean score of 3.50 (SD=0.50), indicating that translanguaging provides opportunities to resolve discrepancies and adapt strategies.
Qualitative Analysis
Experiences the Participants Have Gained in Improving Their Listening Comprehension Performance and L2 Learning after the Strategy Intervention is Implemented (RQ4)
Theme 1: Students' Perceptions on translanguaging practices in the EFL classroom
This theme focuses on the participants' perspectives regarding the utilization of translanguaging in the EFL class-
Table 3
Mean and Standard Deviation for Students' Perception on the use of TLAN during Metacognitive Strategy Use
Statements Mean SD Description
TLAN as a Practice
1. Translanguaging should be avoided by bilinguals. 1.19 0.40 Strongly disagree
2. Translanguaging is a normal practice for bilinguals 4.75 0.45 Strongly agree
3. Translanguaging indicates a lack of linguistic proficiency in our second language. 1.75 0.68 Strongly disagree
4. Translanguaging is a disrespectful practice. 1.00 0.00 Strongly disagree
5. Translanguaging is confusing for me. 1.25 0.45 Strongly disagree
6. It is fine to apply translanguaging in listening tasks 4.00 0.73 Agree
TLAN for learning Second Language (L2)
1. Translanguaging helped me learn the English language. 4.56 0.51 Strongly agree
2. Translanguaging is a sign of low proficiency in L2 1.25 0.45 Strongly disagree
3. Translanguaging is essential for learning both L1 and L2. 4.50 0.52 Strongly agree
4. Translanguaging has assisted me in learning English. 4.75 0.45 Strongly agree
5. Language instructors should avoid translanguaging because it will prevent L2 learning. 1.31 0.48 Strongly disagree
TLAN during metacognitive strategy use
1. The use of translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use aids me link my background knowledge to the new topic. 4.06 0.25 Agree
2. The use of translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use helps me discuss strategies with my peers. 4.81 0.40 Strongly agree
3. The use of translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use provides an opportunity for us to resolve discrepancies, and adapt our strategies. 4.25 0.77 Strongly agree
4. The use of translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use aids me link my background knowledge to the new topic. 4.13 0.81 Agree
5. The use of tranlanguaging during metacognitive strategy use helps me discuss strategies with peers 4.44 0.51 Strongly agree
6. The use of tranlanguaging during metacognitive strategy use provides opportunity for us to resolve discrepancies and adapt our strategies. 3.50 0.52 Agree
7. The use of tranlanguaging during metacognitive strategy use assists us to share and compare what we have understood regarding the listening selection. 4.38 0.72 Strongly agree
room. The sub-themes identified were as follows: enhanced engagement with the concept, a more natural way of expressing ideas, and increased awareness of the structures and forms of their L1. When asked about their perception of using translanguaging in processing their listening tasks, participants expressed that translanguaging allowed for a deeper engagement with the topic compared to an English-only policy. It is evident that mental processes involved in L2 learning, such as comprehension, analysis, and reasoning, cannot occur solely in the L2 (Rivera & Mazak, 2017). By encouraging students to engage in ideas and utilize all the languages they know, deeper conceptual understanding and language proficiency can flourish. One respondent (R9) shared their experience as follows:
"Translanguaging allows us to engage in meaningful conversations and eases the process of clarifying and negotiating ideas. Solely depending on English as the language of thought can be quite challenging."R9
Translanguaging showcases the multifaceted linguistic abilities of L2 learners and users (Cook & Li, 2016). When participants are given the freedom and encouragement to trans-language and utilize their entire linguistic repertoire while sharing and collaborating, they are able to tap into their full potential and engage in discussions in a more empowered and natural manner. Respondent 7 conveyed his view:
"Because we don't hesitate to convey our thoughts in English and use Thai, Isarn, Lanna, it has enabled us to engage in discussions more naturally and fluently." R7
When students were given the opportunity to engage in translanguaging, they actively participated and perceived it as a valuable learning experience. Translanguaging facilitated a deeper understanding of the content, enabling them to engage in more critical thinking. As a result, they became more aware of the structures and forms of their L1 and attempted to connect and comprehend the new concepts in relation to their existing knowledge. This process provided them with a fresh perspective and allowed them to unpack their understanding of their L1. One participant expressed:
"Using Thai or Isarn language during the sharing activity made me acutely aware of my L1, including Thai idioms and complex expressions that are challenging to directly translate into L2. This self-examination has heightened my critical thinking compared to before." R11
Theme 2: Benefits of applying translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use on their listening comprehension task processes
This theme encompasses the participants' feedback regarding the advantages of employing translanguaging during the utilization of metacognitive strategies in their listening tasks. The sub-themes identified are as follows: improved planning activities, heightened engagement in collaboration activities, and the effectiveness of monitoring, evaluation, and reflective strategies in achieving better listening outcomes. During the planning and predicting stage, students were exposed to activities such as reading related texts and making predictions, which allowed them to activate their background knowledge and share it with peers using their native language (L1). As a result, participants obtained more information about the topic and demonstrated increased involvement with the upcoming listening content. Respondents 3 and 8 provided their perspectives on this matter:
"Utilizing the reading of a relevant short text as a planning technique has assisted me in generating more ideas and information related to the upcoming selection. It also facilitates the connection of my prior knowledge to the current topic." R3
"While employing the planning technique, I had the opportunity to translanguage, which greatly enhanced my comprehension of what to anticipate in the new topic." R8
During the second phase of the initial verification stage, participants engaged in peer collaboration. They were encouraged to utilize their native language (L1) to share and discuss their comprehension of the listening selection. This led to increased enthusiasm in expressing ideas, discussing opinions, identifying listening problems, and making plans for future listening activities. Respondent 10 expressed their experience in the following manner:
"I gained a sense of empowerment and increased confidence when participating in monitoring activities. This was largely due to the freedom to use my L1 to express myself among peers, which facilitated more in-depth exchanges as we could better understand each other." R10
Furthermore, during the final listening stage, the learners listened to the selection again in order to identify any dis-
crepancies, make corrections to their written work, and take note of additional information they understood. In essence, they engaged in monitoring, evaluation, and problem-solving by collaborating with the entire group to discuss, reconstruct, and reflect on strategies that were effective in addressing specific listening challenges for future listening sessions. Translanguaging was encouraged in these monitoring and evaluating activities to enable them to freely express their ideas. Participants R4, R5, and R2 shared their experiences as follows:
"Monitoring strategies promoted collaborative peer engagement, performance assessment, and the identification of listening challenges. Translanguaging further facilitated the confident exchange of ideas and enhanced communication effectiveness." R4
"The use of translanguaging in collaborative monitoring activities deepened our comprehension of the topic's context and boosted our proficiency in applying listening strategies." R5
"During evaluation, regrouping enhanced problem identification and strategy discussion. Translanguaging eliminated language barriers, enabling meaningful communication."R2
Theme 3: Improved L2 writing and L2 learning
The sub-theme that emerged from the study was related to gaining a deeper understanding of various aspects of language. The final phase of the listening comprehension activity involved students expressing their comprehension of the listening selection through written compositions. Once again, the students were grouped together and collaborated to identify and discuss errors in their papers. This included examining grammar and sentence structure, vocabulary usage, logical connections, supporting details, and overall content. To facilitate smooth communication, students were allowed to use their native language (L1) within the group. This activity heightened their awareness of mistakes and motivated them to avoid repeating them, resulting in improved L2 writing and learning, as evidenced by their quiz results. Two participants, specifically Respondents 7 and 13, expressed the following:
"My peers were instrumental in identifying and correcting errors in my paper during evaluation. Through collaborative discussions and translanguaging, we improved comprehension together." R7
"Using our L1 greatly improved our English learning process. I gained a deeper understanding during monitoring and evaluation, making me more cautious about avoiding similar mistakes in the future." R13
DISCUSSION
The present study explored the effects of employing metacognitive strategies and allowing translanguage use during listening comprehension tasks. Study findings revealed that utilizing translanguaging alongside metacog-nitive strategies improved learners' comprehension of listening material and enhanced their L2 writing skills. To illustrate:
Participants' Listening Comprehension Performance before and after the Implementation of Translanguaging during Metacognitive Strategy Use
The participants showed a positive improvement in listening comprehension performance based on their pre- and post-test results. This improvement is likely attributable to the utilization of translanguaging during the metacognitive strategy use, which aided in improving both their listening comprehension and writing skills. Translanguaging facilitated participants in expressing their ideas while comprehending listening selections with peers, making their listening tasks more enjoyable and productive. These findings align with previous studies by Chen et al. (2019), Elashhab (2020), and Sulaiman et al. (2020), which also supported the benefits of translanguaging in bilingual classrooms. These studies found that encouraging students to use their linguistic repertoires activated their prior knowledge, facilitated the exchange of information with peers, boosted confidence and communication fluency, and promoted higher levels of knowledge processing. Notably, the implementation of translanguaging in L2 classrooms supports sense-making and meaning negotiation among learners themselves and with their teachers.
Chen et al. (2019), Elashhab (2020), and Sulaiman et al. (2020) conducted studies that primarily focused on implementing translanguaging in specific areas like writing tasks, communication, and both oral and written exercises. In contrast, the present study employed translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use for both listening and writing tasks, encouraging participants to utilize their linguistic repertoires to express their comprehension of the listening selection, in line with findings by Chen et al. (2019), Elashhab (2020), and Sulaiman et al. (2020). Hence, it can be hypothesized that the participants' improved listening comprehension performance can be attributed to the effective use of translanguaging pedagogy during metacognitive strategy use, which enhanced their performance in both listening comprehension and writing tasks. Prior research has shown that structured procedures, encompassing planning, monitoring, and evaluation stages, enhance learners' control, confidence, and overall proficiency. These procedures allow learners to activate background knowledge, make comparisons, discuss differences, identify listening problems, and formulate plans for subsequent listening processes (Goh, 2008; Robillos, 2019; Robillos & Phantharakphong, 2020; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010; Vandergrift & Go, 2012). However, it is essential to consider potential practice effects in this study. While students wrote essays on the same topic for both the pre-test and post-test, different topics were used for each quiz. Essentially, pretest essay scores and quiz scores reflected students' initial attempts at composing on new topics, whereas the posttest essay did not.
Participants' Listening Comprehension and Writing Skills in L2 as Manifested on Their Quizzes
In terms of the participants' L2 writing skills, the findings of the study revealed a significant improvement in their written work. This improvement encompassed various aspects, including the use of academic vocabulary, sentence structure formation, appropriate deployment of transitional devices, content development, incorporation of supporting details, and adherence to correct grammar. In the present study, students' comprehension of the listening selection was assessed through written paragraphs. They were subsequently grouped with their peers and, using their native language (L1), collaborated to identify and discuss mistakes in their papers, with the aim of preventing them in future compositions. This evaluation, which allowed trans-languaging, likely contributed to the participants' progress in L2 learning by enabling a more thorough and meaningful error identification process, fostering greater vigilance against repeating those errors in their writing. Translan-guaging empowers learners to grasp and convey complex ideas, offer comprehensive explanations, persuade, and engage in persuasive arguments on various topics seamlessly. Sobkowiak (2022) supports this perspective, emphasizing that "...the free fusion and integration of languages in the L2 classroom can enhance students' cognitive engagement with learning activities and, consequently, enhance their linguistic performance (p. 1)."
Furthermore, findings of the study highlighted significant improvements in the "grammar" component of writing, with the least improvement observed in "logical order." This discrepancy can be attributed to the students' emphasis on discussing grammar errors during the collaborative metacognitive evaluation phase. Their prior exposure to grammar-focused instruction in elementary and secondary school English classes led to more meaningful discussions about grammar-related issues. However, the study also revealed that the "logical order" component exhibited the least improvement, indicating a challenge in the students' ability to establish logical connections between ideas, formulate strong topic sentences to initiate paragraphs, use effective transitions to link sentences, and employ diverse sentence structures. Despite their participation in collaborative activities and the allowance of translanguaging, the students still lacked the necessary skills to organize their ideas logically in their writing.
Interestingly, while the "logical order" component showed the least improvement, students did make gradual progress in their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quizzes, though these improvements remained the least among the components. This may be attributed to the increased difficulty of the intervention videos, particularly in the 2nd (Climate change), 3rd (Noise pollution), and 4th (Overpopulation) informative video items, which presented unfamiliar vocabulary and terms that challenged the students in expanding their un-
derstanding of these concepts. Nevertheless, the opportunity to translanguage during collaborative activities in the monitoring and evaluation stages allowed them to enhance their vocabulary and gain better comprehension of these ideas and information. Sobkowiak (2022) emphasized that engaging students in discussions and utilizing their linguistic repertoire, encompassing all the languages they know, can foster the development of conceptual knowledge and language proficiency. Similarly, various researchers and practitioners in SLA, including Bozorgian et al. (2021), Goh (2008), Robillos & Bustos (2022), Robillos & Thongpai (2022), and Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari (2010), have recognized the positive impact of learners' metacognitive awareness of their learning processes, cognitive functions, and strategic use in learning tasks.
Participants Perceptions on the Use of Translanguaging as Practice, Translanguaging for L2 Learning, and Translanguaging for Listening Comprehension Task Processes
Furthermore, participants in the present study did not perceive the use of translanguaging as disrespectful, even though they were aspiring English language teachers. Instead, they viewed translanguaging as a strategic and helpful tool for effectively grasping concepts and acquiring knowledge in an L2. This perspective is supported by Moody et al. (2019), who argue that students' application of translanguaging is a natural linguistic resource that does not hinder successful communication. Additionally, the participants considered the use of translanguaging in listening comprehension activities to be a normal practice that did not hinder their ability to use the L2. Moody et al. (2019) similarly found that participants in their study held neutral opinions regarding whether translanguaging should be avoided when confusing or seen as a disrespectful practice. Interestingly, the students in the present study had a positive view of translanguaging, understanding that it does not indicate a lack of proficiency in a L2. Rivera and Mazak (2017) emphasized that even proficient L2 learners regularly employ their L1 in their thinking processes. In fact, using L1 is commonplace in bilinguals' writing when planning, monitoring, and evaluating their performance, and listening follows a similar pattern as writing in terms of these cognitive stages.
Encouraging students to embrace translanguaging, the practice of using both their L1 and L2 interchangeably, yielded several profound benefits. This approach not only fostered active student engagement but also facilitated a deeper and more critical understanding of the subject matter. While English and Thai served as the primary languages for translanguaging within the classroom, it was notable that students attempted to bridge language gaps by experimenting with other languages like Isarn, Lanna, and Phu Thai, even if they weren't fully fluent in these secondary languages. When faced with language barriers, students em-
ployed various communication strategies, including hand gestures, fragmented phrases, and word root exploration, all in an effort to convey their thoughts, especially when confronted with unfamiliar or intriguing concepts. Beyond mere communication, translanguaging brought about increased linguistic awareness among students. They became more attuned to the structures and nuances of their native language (L1) and began making meaningful connections between new ideas introduced in the target language (L2) and their existing knowledge in their native language. This approach transcended the conventional notion of language learning solely as a means of overcoming language barriers; it became a way for students to delve into the intricate linguistic aspects of their L1 within diverse social contexts. Furthermore, this perspective resonates with Garcia's (2017) view, emphasizing that bilingual individuals don't compartmentalize languages as separate entities. Instead, they seamlessly draw upon their entire linguistic repertoire, encompassing all the languages they know, to construct meaning and communicate effectively. In essence, languages cease to exist as separate entities and become integral components of a unique linguistic repertoire, enriching the learning process and deepening the students' understanding of language and culture.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, our study sheds light on the promising potential of utilizing translanguaging during metacognitive strategy use in the Thai EFL classroom. The researcher has witnessed firsthand how this approach can significantly enhance students' comprehension and processing of listening and writing tasks in their L2. Importantly, it elevates their metacognitive abilities, empowering them to think, understand, monitor, and evaluate at a higher level.
What stands out from the study findings is the resounding consensus among participants: incorporating their linguistic repertoires during metacognitive strategy use is a valuable and effective tool for English language learning. It amplifies their grasp of grammar, vocabulary, content, logical connections, and supporting details in L2 writing. It's time for EFL educators to reconsider the dogmatic adherence to English-only policies and recognize the rich resource that students' L1 and other languages represent. However, we must tread carefully; overreliance on the L1 is a legitimate concern. To address this, teachers must become discerning guides, knowing when to permit students to leverage their linguistic diversity and when to steer them towards the target language. With this balance, learners will come to view translanguaging as a strategic learning aid, not a crutch.
Furthermore, the study underscores the role of translanguaging in facilitating metacognitive strategies within the EFL classroom. By integrating metacognitive practices like planning, monitoring, and evaluation into listening tasks
and encouraging the use of linguistic resources, teachers not only offer valuable support for task completion but also foster students' confidence and meaningful expression. The inclusion of translanguaging leads to skill development in planning, monitoring, evaluation, and reflection, nurturing metacognitive awareness and giving students greater control over their learning. In this supportive language environment, students can freely articulate their ideas without the constraints of language anxieties, resulting in deeper and more meaningful learning experiences.
Despite the insights gained, the present study has limitations. The small sample size, consisting of only 16 participants, restricts the generalizability of our findings. To strengthen the conclusions and validate our claims, future research should seek a larger and more diverse participant pool. Additionally, it would be worthwhile for forthcoming studies to explore the fusion of translanguaging with digital innovations, such as Web 2.0 applications and blended learning. In an age where technology is integral to education, investigating the
synergy between translanguaging and digital tools could unveil new dimensions of language learning potential.
In conclusion, our research underscores the transformative power of embracing linguistic diversity in the EFL classroom. It beckons educators to reevaluate their language policies and encourages students to harness their multilingual resources effectively. Translanguaging, when judiciously applied, not only enhances metacognitive skills but also empowers students to take charge of their language learning journey. As we look to the future, our findings beckon further exploration into the dynamic relationship between translanguaging and digital tools, promising an even brighter horizon for language education.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS
None declared.
REFERENCES
Bozorgian, H. (2014) Less-skilled learners benefit more from metacognitive instruction to develop listening comprehension. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(1), 3-12 https://dx.doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2014.748
Bozorgian, H., Fallahpour, S., & Alinasab Amiri, M. (2021). Listening for young-adult EFL learners: Metacognitive intervention through L1. International Journal of Listening, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2021.1923499
Carpenter, J., & Matsugu, S. (2020). Translanguaging in project-based language learning. Global perspectives on project-based language learning, teaching, and assessment: Key approaches, technology tools, and frameworks (pp. 49-68). Taylor and Francis.
Chen, F., Tsai, S. C., & Tsou, W. (2019). The application of translanguaging in an English for specific purposes writing course. English Teaching & Learning, 43(1), 65-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/S42321-018-0018-0
Cohen, A. D. (1995). In which language do/should multilinguals think? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8(2), 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908319509525194
Cook, V., & Li, W. (Eds.). (2016). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence. Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2022.2046231
Csillik, É., & Golubeva, I. (2020). Translanguaging practices in early childhood classrooms from an intercultural perspective. In International perspectives on modern developments in early childhood education (pp. 15-39). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2503-6.ch002
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.
Elashhab, S. (2020). The impact of translanguaging on the EFL competence development of Arabic speaking learners. The Asian EFL Journal, 27(3.1), 393-413.
Flavell, J. H. (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34. 10.906
García, O. (2017). Translanguaging in schools: Subiendo y bajando, bajando y subiendo as afterword. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 16(4), 256-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2017.1329657
García, O., Johnson, S.L., & Seltzer, K. (2017). The translanguaging classroom: Leveraging student bilingualism for learning. Caslon. https://doi.org/10.21283/2376905X9.165
García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.
García, O., & Otheguy, R. (2020). Plurilingualism and translanguaging: Commonalities and divergences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(1), 17-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1598932
Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: Theory, practice and research implications. RELC Journal: A Journal of Language Teaching and research in Southeast Asia, 39(2), 188-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688208092184
Graham, S. (2017). Research into practice: Listening strategies in an instructed classroom setting, Language Teaching, 50(1), 107-119. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000306
Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ amx039
Lin, A. M. Y., & He, P. (2017). Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL Classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 16(4), 228-244.
Mgijima, V. D., & Makalela, L. (2021). Developing summary writing skills through translanguaging, South African Journal of African Languages, 41(2), 196-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/02572117.2021.1948223
Moody, S., Chowdhury, M., & Eslami, Z. (2019). Graduate students' perceptions of translanguaging. English Teaching & Learning, 43(1), 85-103. https://doi.org/10.1007/S42321-018-0019-Z
O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/CB09781139524490
Oxford, R.L. (1993). Research update on teaching L2 listening. System, 2(2), 2005-2011.
Otheguy, R., Garcia, O., & Reid, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(3), 281-307. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2015-0014
Robillos, R. J. (2019). Crossing metacognitive strategy instruction in an EFL classroom: Its impact to Thai learners' listening comprehension skill and metacognitive awareness. Asian EFL Journal, 21(2), 311-336.
Robillos, R.J. (2020). Instruction of metacognitive strategies: Its role on EFL learners' listening achievement and awareness of their metacognitive listening strategies and selfregulation. Asian EFL Journal, 27(3.2), 442-452.
Robillos, R.J. & Phantharakphong, P. (2020). Enhancing EFL learners' argumentative abilities in written composition and critical thinking dispositions through argument mapping within metacognitive approach. Asian EFL Journal, 27(3.3), 181-208.
Robillos, R. J., & Thongpai, J. (2022). Computer-aided argument mapping within metacognitive approach: Its impact on students' argumentative writing performance and self-regulated learning. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 15(2), 160-186. . https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/index
Robillos, R. J., & Bustos, I. G. (2022). Learners' listening skill and metacognitive awareness through metacognitive strategy instruction with pedagogical cycle. International Journal of Instruction, 15(3), 393-412. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15322a
Rivera, A. J., & Mazak, C. M. (2017). Analyzing student perceptions on translanguaging: A case study of a Puerto Rican university classroom. How, 24(1), 122-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.19183/how.24.1312.
Rost, M. (2001). Listening. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp 7-13). Cambridge University Press.
Seals, C. A., Newton, J., Ash, M., & Nguyen, B. T. T. (2020). Translanguaging and Task- based language teaching: Crossovers and challenges. In Envisioning TESOL through a translanguaging lens (pp. 275-292). Springer.
Sobkowiak, P. (2022). Translanguaging practices in the EFL classroom- the Polish context. Linguistics and Education, 69, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.linged.2022.101020
Tian, Z., Aghai, I., Sayer, P., & Schissel, J. (2020). Envisioning TESOL through a translanguaging lens in the era of post-multilin-gualism. In Z. Tian, L. Aghai, P. Sayer, & J. Schissel (Eds.), Envisioning TESOL through a translanguaging lens- global perspectives (pp. 1-20). Springer
Turnbull, B. (2018). Reframing foreign language learning as bilingual education: Epistemological changes towards the emergent bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(8), 1041-1048. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1238866
Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, H.M. (2010). Teaching L2 students how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning: A Journal of Research in Language Studies. 60(2), 470-497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467922.2009.00559.x
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. ELT Journal, 68(2), 211-213. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu003
Williams, C. (1994). An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual secondary education [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Wales.
Zheng, J. (2018). The metacognitive strategy in English listening comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(2) 226-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0802.07
APPENDIX A
Writing Rubric for Quizzes
Criteria
4 points
3 points
2 points
1 point
Grammar and Structure
Content
Lexical Resource
Logical order
Supporting Details
Maintain a high degree of grammatical and structural accuracy; errors are difficult to be spotted
Demonstrate clear understanding of information in the short informative video clip
Use a range of appropriate, relevant, and innovative vocabulary to express ideas
Details are in logical order
All important details are included
Use compound grammatical and structural forms to express ideas. Does not make errors which cause misunderstanding
Demonstrate adequate understanding in the short informative video clip
Use a range of appropriate and related vocabulary to present the ideas
Ideas are in logical order
Important details are included but some might be missing
Use simple grammatical and structural forms to express ideas but still make basic mistakes
Demonstrate basic information in the short informative video clip
Use appropriate vocabularies to express ideas; some irrelevant vocabularies may be spotted
Ideas are in random order and not logical
Some critical information is missing
Limited control of a few simple and structural structure
Demonstrate little or no understanding in the short informative video clip
Limited vocabulary using isolated words and phrases
Ideas are not in a logical order
Contains only some details
APPENDIX B
Questionnaire (part 1)
Name (optional)_
Please put a check mark (✓) on the space next to the answer of your choice or write in the space provided as the case may be.
Age
( ) 18 and below ( ) 19-20 ( ) 21 and above
1. What is your First Language?
( ) Thai ( ) Phu Thai
( ) Isarn ( ) others, pls specify ( ) Lanna
2. Languages you speak proficiently. Mark as many if you speak those languages proficiently.
( ) Thai ( ) French
( ) English ( ) Japanese
( ) Chinese ( ) others, pls specify_
3. How much experience do you have in using English?
( ) below 1 year ( ) 5-6 years
( ) 1-2 years ( ) 7-8 years
( ) 3-4 years ( ) over 9 years
APPENDIX C
Writing Rubric for Pre- and Post- Tests
Writing Scales
Components 4 points 3 points 2 points 1 point
Main Idea
Supporting Details
Logical Order Content
Paraphrasing
Clearly states the overall main idea of the video clip
All important details are included
Details are in logical order
Demonstrate clear understanding of information in the video clip
Is characterized by paraphrasing of the main idea and significant details
Clearly states the main idea of the video clip
Important details are included but some might be missing
Ideas are in logical order
Demonstrate adequate understanding in the video clip
Is characterized by paraphrasing of the main idea and significant details
Main idea is unclear - not specifically stated in the writing
Some critical information is missing Contains only some details
Ideas are in random order and not logical
Demonstrate basic information in the video clip
Is characterized by substantial copying of key phrases and minimal paraphrasing
The main idea is not present
Contains only some details
Ideas are not in a logical order
Demonstrate little or no understanding in the video clip
Is characterized by substantial copying of indiscriminately selected phrases or sentences
