The Correlations among Listening Comprehension

Achievement, Learning Strategies, and Anxiety of the Fourth Semester

Students of English Education Study Program, Baturaja University

Yenny Karlina
Sriwijaya Univeristy

Abstract: The objectives of this study were to find out whether or not (1) there
was any significant correlation between listening comprehension achievement
and learning strategies, (2) there was any significant correlation between
learning strategies and anxiety, (3) there was any significant correlation between
anxiety and listening comprehension achievement, and (4) listening anxiety and
listening strategies contributed to listening comprehension achievement of the
fourth semester students of English Education Study Program, Baturaja
University. In this study, total-sampling technique was applied, and it involved
122 fourth semester students at English Education Study Program, Baturaja
University. This was a correlation study. A listening comprehension test and two
questionnaires, FLLAS and English Listening Comprehension Strategy Scale,
were used to collect the data. The data analyzed by using Pearson Moment
Product showed a positive correlation between learning strategies and listening
comprehension achievement, a negative correlation between anxiety and learning
strategies, and a negative correlation between anxiety and listening
comprehension achievement. Three learning strategies, metacognitive, cognitive,
and socio-affective strategies, also correlated to listening comprehension
achievement and anxiety. Furthermore, the regression analysis showed that
learning strategies and anxiety contributed 18.8% to the listening comprehension
achievement and 81.2 % was contributed by other factors that were not included
in this study.
Key words: learning strategies, anxiety, and listening comprehension
achievement.

INTRODUCTION
Listening, a complex active process Moreover, a language acquisition theory
that discriminate between sounds, (Krashen, 1985) states that people
understand vocabulary and grammatical acquire language by understanding the
structures, interpret stress and linguistic information they hear.
intonation, and interpret all immediately In spite of its importance in
(Vandergrift,1997,p.168), has a critical language learning, listening has been
priority as three other English skills, neglected in the foreign literature until
writing, speaking, and reading, for recently. Alderson (2005, p. 6) says that
language students. Rost (2002, p. 36) listening is a highly complex ability to
says that because developing understand spoken texts has received
proficiency in listening is a key of much less attention in the literature. Not
achieving proficiency in speaking. surprisingly, an intense amount of

1
sources dealing with the importance of Table 1
Students’ Listening Achievement
listening does not exist though the N Min. Max. Mean Std. Deviation
Listening1 122 15 90 47.21 13.482
literature of the language skills is very Listening2 122 20 85 46.10 14.338
Listening3 122 20 90 45.14 14.176
dense. Valid N 122
Source: English Education Study Program, Baturaja University.
The neglecting of the listening skill
is accompanied with an ongoing debate Thus, some questions were asked to
about teaching and learning listening. them to see their listening problems.
Mandelson (1994, p. 9) reported that Their responses indicated that 70.7 % of
listening has long been avoided and them underestimated their listening skill
poorly taught as an English aspect in and 80.1% of them recognized that they
many English foreign language applied infrequently strategies in
programs. In other hand, it is not listening. Underestimating themselves
practiced as a skill in English foreign showed negative feeling towards the
language course books, but it is often skill, and it was because of anxiety.
used as a means of exposing students Anxiety is feeling fear of
the language (White, 2006, p. 11 & understanding and interpreting
Yang 2006, p. 2). messages correctly because of thinking
In Indonesia context, the teaching over listening as a complex skill
of EFL listening can be learnt as a part (Alderson, 2005, p. 138). The anxious
of language curriculum at the higher feeling mostly appears when listening to
education level, especially at English new information or illogical passages,
study program. The program provides thinking of performance that reflects
three or four listening courses. their abilities or intelligence, and getting
However, some of the students still face a new situation (King and Behnke,
difficulties in that skill as the example 2004, p. 76).
English Education Study program In dealing with the difficulties,
students of Baturaja University. learning strategies has nothing to do
Although they have studied listening for without frequently application. It has to
three semesters, listening problems still do with the way students absorb and
hampered them. It is reflected in their process information affects their
listening scores (Table 1). The mean listening skill frequently. The students
listening score taken in different who prefer to absorb and process
listening level did not significantly information through listening might
change. have a better listening skill than those
2
who do not because they are more
accustomed to listening activity.
Listening strategies are the steps to help
students acquire, store, retrieve, and use
information (O’Malley, Chamot, &
Kupper, 1989). Three strategies used in
listening are metacognitive, cognitive,
and socio-affective strategies. Those
strategies require students to organize,
monitor, and evaluate their learning
(metacognitive strategies), or emphasize
brain works only to manipulate their
learning tasks and facilitate acquisition
of knowledge (cognitive strategies), or
actively find information through
collaborations with others (socio-
affective strategies).
From the facts and reasons, this
study was basically intended to see
anxiety and learning strategies partially
correlated and contributed to listening
comprehension achievement of the
fourth semester students of English
Education Study Program, Baturaja
University.
METHODOLOGY
This study was a correlation study.
There were three variables, listening
comprehension achievement, learning
strategies, and anxiety. The sample of
this study was all fourth semester
students of English Education Study
Program, Baturaja University in
3
academic year 2013/2014. They were
taken by using total sampling technique.
Population and sample were 122
students.
Data collection was conducted by
means of two questionnaires and a
listening test. The two questionnaires
were ready-made questionnaires. First,
English listening comprehension
strategy scale questionnaire was taken
from Ho (2006). The questionnaire
consisted of 30 listening strategy items
divided into three categories, namely,
metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-
affective. To identify the students'
learning strategies, the mean of each
strategy items were compared. The
highest mean among those strategies
represented the students’ strategies. The
internal consistency estimated for
reliability of these 30 items was 0.920.
The classification of the questionnaires
as Table 2 shows:
 Table 2 Table 3
The Classification of Listening Strategy Questionnaire The Classification of FLLAS Questionnaire
STRATEGIES INDICATORS Anxiety Causes Indicators
Metacognitive Planning Tension and worry situation related listening
Advanced organizer over English listening apprehension
Direct attention process related listening
anxiety
Selective attention
Lack of Self low self-confidence in English
Self management confidence listening
Self monitoring Experiences of failure in
Problem identification conversation or listening
Self-evaluation activities
Functional planning Both of the low self-confidence
Cognitive Repetition and the experience of failure
Resourcing
Grouping
Note-taking
Further, listening test was
Deduction
Substitution
administered to the samples to measure
Elaboration
the students’ listening comprehension
Summarization
Translation achievement. The test was consisted of
Transfer
Inferencing 25 essay items. The test was used with a
Imagery
Recombination consideration of its validity and
Socio-affective Questioning for clarification
Cooperation/ sharing reliability information. The reliability
Empathy
Self-talk coefficient of the listening
Self-reinforcement
comprehension achievement test was

Second, foreign language listening 0.826. The classification of the listening

anxiety scale questionnaire (FLLAS) comprehension achievement test is

consisted of 33 items was developed by shown in Table 4.

Kim (2000). The questionnaire items

Table 4
The Classification of LCA Test
were classified into two parts, tension or Sub-skills of Listening
Linguistic Knowledge Word level
worry over English listening and lack of (Decoding Process) Syntax level
Intonation group level
self-confidence. To identify the Non-Linguistic Knowledge Context
(Building Meaning Process)
students’ anxiety, means of students’ Selecting information
Integrating information
FLLAS scores was calculated. Those
The scoring measure scale of
whose score was higher than the mean
listening test by Flowerdew and Miller
were classified into high anxiety group,
(2005, p. 208) was used in this study,
and those whose score was lower than
and two questionnaires used five Likert-
the mean were in low anxiety group.
scale system (Table 5).
The internal consistency estimated for
reliability of these 33 items was 0.949.
The classification of the questionnaires
as Table 3 shows:

4
 Table 5 categorized into five categories
The Scoring Measure Scale
Scoring
Scale
Questionnaires (Q.)
Listening
(excellent, very good, good, adequate,
Listening Test
Q. LT. FLLAS Strategy (LT.) and poor). The highest score was 92 and
5 100 Strongly Agree Always Excellent the lowest score was 20. Most students'
Very
4 80-99 Agree Usually
Good scores were in adequate category 79
Neither agree
3 60-79 Sometimes Good
nor disagree (64.75%), followed by poor 24 (19.67
2 40-59 Disagree Seldom Adequate
Strongly
1 10-39
disagree
Never Poor %), good 16 (13.12 %), and very good 2
Source: Second language listening: Theory and practice,
Flowerdew and Miller (2005) (2.46 %) out of 122 students.
Obviously, none of the students (0%)
Techniques for Analyzing the Data
was in excellent category.
Pearson product moment
Second, learning strategies scale
coefficient was used to find the
questionnaire results showed that each
correlations of anxiety and learning
student preferred one of three learning
strategies partially to listening
strategies (metacognitive, cognitive, and
comprehension achievement.
socio-affective strategies) as the most
Meanwhile, the contributions of
dominant applied. In order to know
listening anxiety and learning strategies
which strategy was the most dominant,
partially to listening to listening
the mean scores of each strategy item
comprehension were analyzed through
were compared, and the highest mean
regression analysis. Besides, the data
represented the students’ strategies.
obtained from the test and
From the three learning strategies,
questionnaires were statistically
cognitive was the most preferred
calculated by SPSS.
strategies in listening to English,
followed by socio-affective and
FINDINGS
metacognitive with total number 44
There were three kinds of data
(36.06 %), 40 (32.79%), and 38
under analysis of this study. They were
(31.15%) out of 122 students.
the data of students’ listening
The last, foreign language listening
comprehension achievement test,
achievement scale (FLLAS)
learning strategies questionnaire, and
questionnaire classified students into
foreign language listening anxiety scale
two anxiety levels (high and low level).
(FLLASS) questionnaire (Table 6).
In order to determine the high and low
First, the students' listening
anxious students, the median of the
comprehension test scores were
scoring scale was calculated, and the

5
median score of the data obtained was students whose score below the median
118.00. 73 (59.84 %) students whose as in the low anxiety group.
score above or equal to the median as in
high anxiety group, and 49 (40.1 %)

Table 6
The Distribution of Listening Comprehension Achievement, English Foreign Listening Strategies, and Listening Anxiety
Listening STRATEGIES ANXIETY
Comprehension Socio- TOTAL
Metacognitive Cognitive HIGH LOW
Achievement affective
Excellent 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0%)
Very good 1 1 0 0 2 2 (1.64%)
Good 6 6 9 9 11 20 (16.40 %)
Adequate 23 32 24 51 28 79 (64.75 %)
Poor 9 5 7 13 8 21 (17.21 %)
TOTAL 38 (31.15 %) 44 (36.06 %) 40 (32.79 %) 73 (59.84 %) 49 (40.16 %) 122 (100 %)

Correlation between Learning Strategies

and Listening Comprehension Achievement
Table 7 shows the correlation
between learning strategies and listening
comprehension achievement; and each
sub-learning strategy and
comprehension achievement.
correlations showed positive correlation.
The positive correlations among the
correlations indicated that the more
listening strategies as a whole or one of
listening learning strategies used, the better their
All listening comprehension achievement
was.

Table 7
Learning Strategies Metacognitive Cognitive Socio-affective
Listening Pearson Correlation .409** .499** .320* .443**
Comprehension
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .014 .004
Achievement
N 122 38 44 40
**. Correlation is *. Correlation is **. Correlation is
**. Correlation is
significant at the significant at the significant at the
significant at the 0.01
0.01 level (2- 0.05 level (2- 0.01 level (2-
level (2-tailed).
tailed). tailed). tailed).

For learning strategies and listening
comprehension achievement, Pearson r
indicated a fair and positive correlation
with r = + 0.409, and p < 0.05. At the
significance level of 0.01 in two tailed
testing, r-obtained > r-table (0.428 >
0.209) showed a significant correlation.
For metacognitive strategies,
Pearson r indicated a fair and positive
6
correlation with r = + 0.409 and p <
0.05. At the significance level of 0.01 in
two tailed testing, r-obtained > r-table
(0.499 > 0.413) showed a significant
correlation.
For cognitive strategies, Pearson r
showed a significant and week
correlation with r = +0.320 and p <
0.05. At the significance level of 0.05 in
two tailed testing, r-obtained > r-table Correlation between Learning
(0.320 > 0.297) showed a significant Strategies and Listening Anxiety
correlation. Table 8 shows negative correlations
For socio-affective strategies, between listening anxiety and learning
Pearson r indicated a fair and positive strategies; and listening anxiety and
correlation with r = + 0.443 and p < each sub-learning strategy. The negative
0.05. At the significance level of 0.01 in coefficient showed that the more
two tailed testing, r-obtained > r-table learning strategies or one of the
(0.443 > 0.403) showed a significant strategies used, the lower their listening
correlation. anxiety was.

Table 8

Learning Strategies Metacognitive Cognitive Socio-affective

*
Listening Pearson Correlation -.194 -.305 -.031 -.272
Anxiety
Sig. (2-tailed) .032 .012 .840 .089
N 122 38 44 40
*. Correlation is significant *. Correlation is significant
at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

For learning strategies and listening very week and negative correlation with
anxiety, Pearson r showed a very week r = - 0.301, and the correlation interval
and negative correlation with r = -0.194, 0.00-0.199. For socio-affective
the correlation interval 0.00-0.199, and strategies and listening anxiety, Pearson
p < 0.05. At the significance level of r indicated a week and negative
0.05 in two tailed testing, r-obtained > r- correlation with r = -0.272 and the
table (0.194 > 0.176) indicated a correlation interval 0.20-0.399. Both of
significant correlation. these correlations were not significance
For metacognitive strategies and with p > 0.05.
listening anxiety, Pearson r indicated a
week and negative correlation with r= - Correlation between Listening
0.305, the correlation interval in 0.20- Anxiety and Listening
Comprehension Achievement
0.399, and p > 0.05. At the significance
Pearson r indicated a weak
level of 0.05 in two tailed testing, r-
correlation with r = -0.221, and its
obtained > r-table (0.305 > 0.320) meant
interval 0.20 – 0.399. At the
a significant correlation.
significance level of 0.05 in two tailed
For cognitive strategies and
testing, r-obtained > r-table (0.221 >
listening anxiety, Pearson r indicated a
0.209) showed a significant correlation.

7
 The negative coefficient meant that the between learning strategies and anxiety
higher anxiety was, the lower the together with (4) its influence indicated
listening comprehension achievement by t-obtained > t-table.
was. See Table 9. The learning strategies used in
listening to English influenced listening
Table 9
Listening comprehension achievement with
Comprehension
Listening Pearson Correlation -.221* listening anxiety since f obtained > f-
Anxiety Sig. (2-tailed) .014 table (13.794 > 3.072) with the
N 122
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). significance 0.05 (α = 5%) and the
freedom degree or df1 or 3-1=2 and df2
Contribution of Listening Anxiety (n-k-1) or 122-2-1=119 (Table 11).
and Learning Strategies to Listening For listening comprehension
Comprehension Achievement achievement, the highest value was
For listening comprehension influenced by learning strategies with t-
achievement, listening strategies and obtained (4.518) > t-table (1.972)
anxiety contributed 18.8 % with the followed by anxiety with the t-obtained
2
𝑅 value 188, and partially the highest (2.388) > t-table (1.972). T-table was
value was contributed by learning from the significance of each t-obtained,
2
strategies, 16.7% with 𝑅 =0.167 0.05 (α= 5%:2 = 2.5%), with the degree
followed by listening anxiety 4.9 % of freedom (df) n-k-1 0r 122-2-1= 199
2
with 𝑅 = 0.049 (Table 10). (Table 11).
Table 10
Table 11
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
R 𝑅2
Square Estimate Model F t Sig.
LCA, LS, & Regression 13.794 .000a
.434a .188 .175 10.950
LA
Learning Strategies 4.910 .000
LCA & LS .409a .167 .160 11.044
Listening Anxiety -2.486 .014
LCA & L A .221a .049 .041 11.803

To distinguish between the Contributions of Three Learning

influence of learning strategies and Strategies to Listening

anxiety, four factors were considered (1) Comprehension Achievement

Table 12 shows that metacognitive
the F-value of listening comprehension
achievement, learning strategies and strategies with 24.9 % (𝑅 2 = 0.249) was

anxiety, (2) the influence indicated by f the highest value contributing to

obtained > f table, (3) the t-value of gain listening comprehension achievement

8
followed by socio-affective strategies (two tailed) with the freedom degree
with 19.7 % (𝑅 2 = 0.197), and cognitive (df) n-k-1 or 44-2-1=41.
strategies 10.2 % (𝑅 2 = 0.102).
DISCUSSION
Table 12
Contribution of Each Learning Strategy to Statistically the data analyses found
Listening Comprehension Achievement
three correlations, between learning
Adjusted
R
Strategies R R T Sig.
Square
Square
strategies and listening comprehension

Metacognitive .499a .249 .228 3.453 .001

achievement, between learning

Cognitive .320a .102 .081 2.189 .034

strategies and anxiety, and between

Socio- .004
anxiety and listening comprehension
.443a .197 .175 3.049
affective achievement. However, the degree of
each correlation was different one and
For the listening comprehension the others.
achievement influence, t-obtained and t- The first correlation was a
table of each strategy was analyzed. If t- significant and positive correlation
obtained of each strategy was higher between learning strategies and listening
than t-table, it indicated its influence. comprehension achievement. It
Table 12 shows that metacognitive indicated that the more listening
strategies had the highest influence to strategies the students applied
listening comprehension achievement concurrently, the better their listening
followed by socio-affective strategies comprehension achievement was. The
and cognitive strategies. application of metacognitive, cognitive,
For metacognitive strategies, t- and social-affective strategies as
obtained (3.543) > t-table (2.030) at the listening strategies in the same time was
significance 0.05 (α = 5%): 2 = 2.5% associated with the increase in listening
(two tailed) with the freedom degree comprehension achievement. The
(df) n-k-1 or 38-2-1=35. For socio- statistical analysis also showed 16.7 %
affective strategies. t-obtained (3.049) > contribution of learning strategies
t-table (2.026) at the significance 0.05 contributed to listening comprehension
(α = 5%): 2 = 2.5% (two tailed) with the achievement. Though the learning
freedom degree (df) n-k-1 or 40-2-1=37. strategies had a little contribution to the
For cognitive strategies, t-obtained listening comprehension achievement,
(2.189) > t-table (2.015) at the the use learning strategies could be
significance 0.05 (α = 5%): 2 = 2.5% considered as one of solutions to

9
improve listening comprehension contribution was just 4.9 % to listening
achievement. It is in line with White comprehension achievement. The
(2006, p.128) who states that becoming second negative correlation indicated
a good listener in foreign language that the more three strategies used, the
requires the use of listening strategies lower the listening anxiety was.
when their listening skill fail. The sub-learning strategy
In dealing with the three sub- correlations across listening anxiety also
learning strategies, metacognitive, were considered. However, just
cognitive, and social-affective also metacognitive strategies had a
significantly correlated with the significant correlation. It was because
listening comprehension achievement. It metacognitive strategies dealt with goal
implied that each strategy had a charge setting, planning, and monitoring of
in listening comprehension learning, which somehow lessen
achievement. Metacognitive strategies anxiety, thus, possibly making them
regulated and directed the listening have less feelings of communication
comprehension achievement process, apprehension and fear (Siason, 2011,
and cognitive strategies that include p.25). Moreover, listening anxiety that
synthesis skill could assist by using appeared in listening tasks or exams
background knowledge as one of the took such a gradual process as
skills making up listening ability (Rost, metacognitive strategies concern.
2002, p.3-4). Socio-affective strategies Golchi (2012, p.124) emphasizes that
are essential to know how to promote metacognitive strategies require the
personal motivation in improving application of the strategies gradually,
listening competence by doing such a and it is helpful to anticipate listening
learning collaboration with others lessons and make confident in learning.
(Vandergrift, 1997, p. 352). Besides, the insignificant cognitive
Further, the other correlations were and socio-affective correlations
the correlations between anxiety and occurred since those strategies focus
listening comprehension achievement, more on achieving listening
and between learning strategies and comprehension. In the term of the
anxiety. The first negative correlation cognitive strategies, the cognitive works
indicated that the higher anxiety was, tend to manipulate learning materials by
the lower the listening comprehension recalling their previous experience and
achievement was. Besides, the anxiety knowledge to achieve listening

10
comprehension (O’Malley and Chamot,
1990). Whereas social-affective
strategies stimulating learning through
involving others did not appropriately
applied, those who claimed using these
strategies have over thinking about
learning style differences (Golchi, 2012,
p.124).
Further, the insignificant
correlations indicated that learning
strategies were not the only one factor
that affected the students' listening
anxiety. Some other factors have not
been discussed in this study could also
be the factors affecting the students'
listening anxiety. Xu (2011), Sharif and
Ferdous (2012) found that students
suffer from anxiety in relation to a
number of factors. The factors are not
only because of inappropriate strategies,
but also input (nature of speech, level of
difficulty, lack of clarity, lack of visual
support, or repetition of input), process
(plummeting motivation, attitude and
beliefs, or lack of time to process),
instructional factors (lack of listening
practice, the test things, or
uncomfortable environment), and
personal factors (fear of failure, nerves,
or instructor’s personality). As well,
another factor that should not be
neglected was the condition of the
students when having listening tasks or
test. Scarcella and Oxford (1992),
11
agrees that listening anxiety possibly
occurs because students’ factor. This
anxiety is exacerbated if they are under
the false impression that they must
understand every word they hear. The
difference condition caused them to
have difference listening anxiety. It is in
line with King and Behnke (2004, p. 76)
who state that the anxious feeling
mostly appears in the difference
condition.
Furthermore, the results of the
learning strategies and anxiety showed
that significantly correlated to listening
comprehension achievement though
their contribution affects listening
comprehension achievement in a small
scale. The small contribution indicated
that other factors also affect on listening
comprehension achievement.
Mandelson (1994, p. 32) revealed that
linguistic features (phonetic,
phonological, morphological, syntactic,
semantic, pragmatic and language
variations), and inappropriate learning
environments (monolingual contexts,
unauthentic teaching materials or tasks,
lack of interaction in English, etc.) may
support listening comprehension
achievement. Teng’s (2002) also agrees
that other factors influencing listening
comprehension achievement; they were
classified into listener factors, speaker
factors, stimulus factors, and context
factors. Besides that, he indicated that ameliorating learning outcomes (White,
EFL proficiency was the most important 2006, p. 113).
listener factor for EFL listening
problems. It implies that students’ CONCLUSIONS
difficulties may directly result from Based on the above description it
their deficient linguistic knowledge. can be concluded that (1) the more
However, Goh (2000) indicated that the learning strategies used, the better
most common problem was quickly listening comprehension achievement.
forget what is heard (parsing). The use of the strategies appropriately
Similarly, Hamouda’s study (2013) and effectively can help for having
discovered that forgetting to apply better listening comprehension
strategies, using inability and ineffective achievement, (2) the more learning
strategies and feeling anxious might be strategies used, the lower the anxiety
considered as factors, but linguistic was. Besides, the results of the
knowledge, familiarity with topic, rate strategies questionnaire showed that
of speech too fast to comprehend, the cognitive strategies was the most
inability to concentrate, different preferred, followed by socio-affective
accents and dialects, inside and outside strategies and metacognitive strategies
learning environment, and other respectively, (3) the higher anxiety was,
affective factors such as motivation, the lower the listening comprehension
attitude, belief, learning style, student’s achievement was. Moreover, the result
condition should be impeded in of listening comprehension achievement
listening comprehension. test also showed those who had high
However, it should not be simply anxiety level got lower listening
ignored as already revealed in this study comprehension achievement, (4)
that the more listening strategies used, learning strategies and anxiety just
the higher the listening anxiety was; and contributed 18.8 % to the listening
the lower listening anxiety was and the comprehension achievement. Other
more listening strategies used, the better factors not considered in this study
their listening comprehension influenced the listening comprehension
achievement. Further, the awareness of achievement such as listener factors,
the use of the strategies and anxiety in speaker factors, stimulus factors, and
listening to English are in an attempt to context factors, (5) partially learning
strategies (16.7%) had high contribution

12
to listening comprehension achievement cognitive, and socio-affective aspects,
than listening anxiety (4.9%), and (6) and creating less stressful, friendly, and
the contribution of each learning lively learning environment for
strategies to listening comprehension increasing the students’ self confidence
achievement, metacognitive strategies and reducing anxiety in listening to
highly contributed to listening English, (4) the lecturers are also
comprehension achievement followed expected to select and use of variety of
by cognitive strategies and socio- comprehensible listening materials, (5)
affective strategies. the lecturers and the students should
Thus, it is suggested that (1) the consider other factors influencing
fourth semester students of English listening comprehension achievement,
Education Study Program, Baturaja (6) the lecturers and students are
University in academic year 20l3/20l4 required to provide learning feedback in
need to improve their listening order to promote error correction and
comprehension achievement by having encouragement as well. It can aid
more listening practices so that the students to heighten their confidence in
listening comprehension will not be an their ability to tackle listening problems
obstacle for acquiring English covered the use of strategies, the
proficiency. The students who prefer to awareness of anxiety, and other
absorb and process information through listening factors. Meanwhile, the
listening might have a better listening students’ feedback can assist the teacher
skill than those who do not. It is because to judge where the class is going and
they are more accustomed to listening how it should be, and after all (7) the
activity. Hence, they can absorb and findings of this study could not be
process information well, (2) they are generalized to the overall students in
expected to empower their learning Indonesia because the sample of this
strategies to fit the demands of listening study was limited only at one semester,
comprehension as an English aspect and the results were beyond the
because the way students absorb and discourse itself in the context of the
process information affects their sample of this study.
listening skill, (3) listening lecturers
have to maximize their roles to
encourage the students’ listening skill
by stimulating their metacognitive,

13
REFERENCES
Alderson, J. C. (2005). Diagnosing
foreign language proficiency: The
interface between learning and
assessment. New York, NY:
Continuum..
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2005).
Second language listening: Theory
and practice. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Goh, C. C. M. (1998). How ESL
learners with different listening
abilities use comprehension
strategies and tactics. Language
Teaching Reserch, 2(2). 124-147.
Golchi, M. (2012). Listening anxiety
and its relationship with listening
strategy use and listening
comprehension among Iranian
IELTS learners. International
Journal of English Linguistics;
2(4), 115-128.
Ho, H. Y. (2006). An investigation of
listening comprehension strategies
used among English major college
students in Taiwan: A case of
Chaoyang Univesity of
Technology (MA thesis).
Department of Applied Foreign
Languages, Chaoyang University
of Technology.
Kim, J. H. (2000). Foreign language
listening anxiety: A study of
Korean students learning English
(Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Austin: University of
Texas.
King, P. E. & Behnke, R. R. (2004).
Patterns od state anxiety in
listening performance. The
Southern Communication Journal,
20(1), 72-79.
14
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input
hypothesis: Issues and
implications. London, UK.:
Longman.
Mendelsohn, D. J. (1994). Learning to
listen: A strategy-based approach
for the second-language learner.
San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U.
(1990). Learning strategies in
second language acquisition.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., &
Küpper, L. (1989). Listening
comprehension strategies in
second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics, 10(4), 418-
437.
Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and
researching listening. London,
UK: Longman.
Scarcella, R. C., & Oxford, R. L.
(1992). The tapestry of language
learning: The individual in the
communicative classroom. MA:
Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Sharif, Y. and Ferdous, F. (2012).
Sources and suggestions to lower
listening comprehension anxiety in
the EFL classroom: A case study.
English Language Teaching;
5(10). (92-104).
Sioson, C. I. (2011). Language learning
strategies, beliefs, and anxiety in
academic speaking task.
Philippine ESL Journal, (7) 3-27.
Teng, H. C. (2002). An investigation of
EFL listening difficulties for
Taiwanese college students. The
Eleventh International Symposium
on English Teaching/ Fourth Pan-
Asian Conference, 526-533.
Vandergrift, L. (1997). The strategies of
second language (French)
listeners. Foreign Language
Annals, 30(3), 387-409.

White, G. (2006). Teaching listening:

Time for a change in
methodology. In E. U. Juan & A.
M. Flor (Eds.), Current trends in
the development and teaching of
the four language skills (pp. 111-
135). Berlin, DEU: Walter de
Gruyter & Co.Kg Publishers.

Xu, Fang. (2011). Anxiety in EFL

listening comprehension. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies,
1(12), 1709-1717.

Yang, C. (2006). The dominant listening

strategy of low-proficiency level
learners of Mandarin Chinese:
Bottom-up processing or top-down
processing (M.A thesis). Center
for Language Studies: Brigham
Young University. Retrieved from:
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/
image/etd1221.pdf

Young, D. J. (1992). Language anxiety

from the foreign language
specialist’s perspective: Interactive
with Krashen, Omaggio Hadley,
Terrell, and Rubin. Foreign
Language Annuals, 25(2), 157-
172.

15