Figure 1 shows the cognitive tactic

Figure 1 shows the cognitive tactics used by each group. Of the 10 tactics applied by a majority of high-ability listeners compared with just four tactics applied by the low-ability listeners, three were for inferencing, one each for elaboration and prediction, two each for contextualization and fixation, and the last one is for reconstruction. Figure 2 compares the use of metacognitive tactics. The highability listeners used eight. Two were directed attention tactics, three were for monitoring comprehension, another one was for assessing parts of input, and the remaining two were tactics for evaluating comprehension. The weaker listeners used only two of these.
A key difference between the two groups was the quality of the metacognitive tactics used. One possible reason for the poor metacognitive tactic use among low-ability listeners is their preoccupation with difficult words or ideas. One such tactic is to continue listening in spite of problems. All eight highability listeners used it compared with only three from the lowability group. In contrast, the weaker listeners appeared to be more concerned with trying to guess the meaning, and missed the other parts of the text as a result. As Steve Tauroza (1997, personal communication) has noted, this is a case of the high-ability listeners probably seeing the glass as half-full when the low-ability listeners regard it as half-empty.

Cognitive tactics in L2 listening

Figure 1 Cognitive tactics used by a majority of high-ability listeners compared with low-ability listeners’ use of the same tactics

Metacognitive tactics in L2 listening

Figure 2 Metacognitive tactics used by a majority of high-ability listeners compared with low-ability listeners’ use of the same tactics