Metacognitive Strategies and Perceived Factors Affecting the Speaking Performance of ESL Learners

Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 547 ISSN 1989 – 9572 DOI: 10.47750/jett.2023.14.02.049 Metacognitive Strategies and Perceived Factors Affecting the Speaking Performance of ESL Learners Maricel L. Dayag-Tungpalan Journal for Educators,Teachers and Trainers, Vol. 14 (2) https://jett.labosfor.com/ Date of reception: 21 Jan 2023 Date of revision: 16 Mar 2023 Date of acceptance: 18 Mar 2023 Maricel L. Dayag-Tungpalan (2023). Metacognitive Strategies and Perceived Factors Affecting the Speaking Performance of ESL Learners.Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers,Vol. 14(2). 547-556. 1Cagayan State University, Philippines Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, Vol. 14 (2) ISSN 1989 – 9572 https://jett.labosfor.com/ Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 548 Metacognitive Strategies and Perceived Factors Affecting the Speaking Performance of ESL Learners Maricel L. Dayag-Tungpalan Cagayan State University, Philippines Email:[email protected] ABSTRACT This study aimed to identify the metacognitive strategies that ESL learners use when performing speaking activities. It further investigated the relationship between their speaking performance and other perceived factors that effect it. Using descriptive research design, the specific dominant strategies that are often used by learners under planning, monitoring and evaluating, were investigated. The findings showed substantial result on thought-process as the dominant metacognitive strategies the ESL learners employ when involved in speaking activities. Moreover, the findings revealed that ESL learners rarely connect with their prior knowledge or their circumstances when comprehending the topics, they discuss about. In terms of correlation between students’ speaking performance and perceived factors that influence their speaking performance, significant relationships are established along level of exposure to social media, listening ability, communication anxiety, knowledge of English vocabulary, mastery of grammar rules, exposure to speaking activities in and outside the classroom, exposure to English language, amount of time needed to prepare and perform in a speaking task, and topical knowledge. Meanwhile, the only factor that does not have positive correlation with the speaking performance of the respondents is speech impediments. These findings are expected to provide pedagogical implications for metacognitive instruction in ESL speaking classrooms from the perspectives of ESL learners. Keywords: Metacognitive Strategies, Speaking Performance, Communication Anxiety, Topical Knowledge INTRODUCTION One of the most significant aspects of metacognition is the use of metacognitive strategies, which also play an essential part in the process of acquiring English as a second language (ESL). Learners of English as a second language need to grasp metacognitive methods in order for their progress along the different skills to be sustainable, making them achieve efficient and productive learning results. In metacognitive instruction, understanding ESL learners' perceptions of metacognitive strategies for completing the tasks can inform teachers of whether the tasks they adopt for their teaching, activate their students' metacognitive strategies in order to achieve the learning competencies set on purpose. To be more specific, having this understanding can assist educators in determining whether or not the activities they use in their classrooms activate the metacognitive processes of the students they educate in order to accomplish their educational objectives. When seen from the perspective of pedagogy, acknowledging the significance of metacognitive strategies in language learning propels the worth of research along this field. In view of available researches related to this study, there is a dearth of research conducted in assessment environments, despite the fact that the majority of the literature on metacognitive training is based on evidence from daily classrooms. Listening, reading, vocabulary, and writing have all been the primary foci of previous empirical research on this topic. This has led to a severe lack of attention being paid to the art of persuasion through speech, despite the fact that proficient speaking abilities are associated with increased academic success for students and that effective speech calls for the effective application of metacognitive strategies. According to some scholars, when compared to other language abilities such as reading and writing, speaking has higher expectations of L2 speakers due to the immediate characteristics of speaking (Barkaoui, et. al, 2013). Because students often struggle with speaking, it is essential for teachers to equip them with strategies that will enable them to communicate effectively. The instructor is responsible for developing the lesson plan for teaching speaking, which will allow the students to more easily enjoy the class and follow the instructor's directions. In the process of achieving proficiency in speaking, which will help the students improve their communication and become more self-assured. Students need to have an understanding of the methodologies that contribute to their achievements in order for them to continue to be successful with learning tasks. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 549 Metacognition, also known as metacognitive awareness, is the general term used to refer to an individual's awareness of their own thinking processes. In other words, it means processes designed for students to "think" about their "thinking," or to control or regulatory processes such as planning, monitoring, and evaluation, which individuals use to ensure that particular goal has been met. Metacognitive strategies are the strategies that refer to the methods that are used to help students understand the way that they learn. Students are expected to utilize all of these strategies concurrently, and as they gain an understanding of how they learn, they will apply these procedures to effectively acquire new information and, as a result, become more independent thinkers. When they are able to carry out all of these procedures, it enables them to construct important aspects of learning that can inform planning, monitoring, and expanding while they are carrying out the process. When they use metacognitive strategies, it teaches them how to control the cognitive process that they are going through (Mahdavi, 2014). On the other hand, students who are just starting out haven't yet realized how important it is to control their metacognitive strategies in their language learning (Dwina, 2016). According to the earlier theories, which described the phases of applying metacognitive strategy as include planning, monitoring, and assessing as part of the process, language learners who manage their own learning are considered to be autonomous learners. In order to provide evidence in favor of the claim, Stewner-Manzanares et al (1985) presented an argument to the effect that there is a significant connection between employing metacognitive technique and maturing into an independent ESL student. Because metacognition plays such an important part in language acquisition and instruction (e.g., Oxford, 2017), metacognitive strategies are now recognized as a subset of language learning strategies. According to research, metacognitive strategies are the most crucial LLSs for a learner's achievement in language acquisition (Zhang and Zhang, 2018; Gan et al., 2020). In addition to this, a significant body of research has demonstrated that metacognitive processes play a role in individual differences and are a factor that contributes to these disparities (e.g., Oxford and Amerstorfer, 2018; Psaltou-Joycey and Gavriilidou, 2018). Because metacognition plays such an important part in language acquisition and instruction (e.g., Oxford, 2017), metacognitive strategies are now recognized as a subset of language learning strategies (LLSs). According to research, metacognitive strategies are the most crucial LLSs for a learner's achievement in language acquisition (Zhang and Zhang, 2018; Gan et al., 2020). However, such a significant role of metacognitive strategy use in ESL speaking classes has not been given sufficient attention, and the existing literature along this line of research inquiry primarily focuses on how speakers of a second language use metacognitive strategies in contexts that do not involve assessment (Zhang et al., 2021a). Hence, with this study, the metacognitive strategies of ESL learners were investigated, with an aim of identifying relationship between their speaking performance and the perceived factors that influence their speaking performance. Furthermore, the researcher looked into the dominant strategies used by the respondents along planning, monitoring and evaluating, during involvement in speaking activities. As an end, this research was conducted to guide ESL learners towards a more proficient speaking skill in English as a second language. METHODOLOGY This study employed the descriptive method to carry out successfully the research question on the metacognitive strategies used by ESL learners in L2 speaking activities. Generally, a survey was conducted to gather pertinent data and was treated using descriptive statistics. This study used a sample of 120 respondents from Cagayan State UniversityCarig Campus. Convenience random sampling was used because the survey forms were administered online. The metacognitive strategies of the respondents were measured with items associated with three levels: Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating. This instrument was adapted and modified from Metacognitive Awareness Inventory. Mean was used to describe the metacognitive strategies of the students. In the identification of the dominant metacognitive strategy used, the weighted mean was computed in all levels and the highest mean determines the level. Meanwhile, for the test of relationship, T-test was used. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The metacognitive strategies that can be used in conjunction with planning for speaking activities are outlined in Table 1. After using weighted mean to determine which strategies are most frequently utilized by the learners, the figures revealed that constantly, the learners organize their thoughts first before performing speaking tasks, as represented by the mean score of 3.72; think of several ways as to how they were going to accomplish the task give to them and eventually chose the best (3.41); listen for/read instruction carefully before doing the tasks (3.84); consider their pronunciation (3.44); and consider their pronunciation (3.44). It 's possible that the students' preparation of their comprehension on doing a speaking task before presentations could serve as a basis for how they could best immerse themselves in a conversation. Such is the case due to the fact that along Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 550 respondents' preparations, appropriate expressions or vocabulary to use and the correct pronunciation of these expressions, the formality of their language, and their grasp of the words that signals their time to take turns in a conversation, and so on, are being facilitated and considered ahead of time, as they say when asked by their teacher after doing simulation activities. Generally, with the weighted mean score of 3.16, the respondents conveyed that they use the metacognitive strategies along planning, from time to time. With this level of frequency, it manifests that learners, aware or not of applying any of these, find planning strategies helpful before they perform speaking simulation activities. This indicates that when learners are involved in speaking activities, they prepare their minds ahead of time by getting familiarity on the goals set forth. Through these strategies, learners are enabled to control their thoughts and choose appropriate cognitive strategies in doing such tasks; thus, students’ learning will likely be improved (Bahtilla, 2018). Table 1:Metacognitive strategies used along planning Strategies Weighted Mean Description 1. I pace myself while learning in order to have enough time. 3.16 Sometimes 2. I set specific goals before I begin the speaking activity 3.06 Sometimes 3. I organize my thoughts first before I perform in any speaking activities. 3.72 Always 4. I ask myself questions about the relevance of the context to me as an ESL learner. 2.69 Sometimes 5. I think of several ways as to how am I going to accomplish the task given and choose the best one. 3.41 Always 6. I listen to/ read instruction carefully before I begin the task. 3.84 Always 7. I think about how I should pronounce words before I perform speaking activities. 3.44 Always 8. I prepare fluency before presenting speaking tasks 3.00 Sometimes 9. I prepare vocabulary before presenting speaking tasks 3.16 Sometimes 10. I prepare comprehension before presenting speaking tasks 3.50 Always 11. I consider the grammaticality of my words before I utter them. 3.03 Sometimes 12. I observe the samples presented and decide the aspects of speaking that I need to practice later on 3.41 Always 13. I organize my time to best accomplish the tasks given. 3.44 Always Overall Weighted Mean 3.16 Sometimes Moreover, the metacognitive strategies used by the learners along monitoring was investigated. In detail, most of the learners signified their relentless monitoring of their pronunciation during the task as evidenced by the computed mean score of 3.34. This indicates that the learners are conscious of the correctness of their pronunciation and through the speaking simulation tasks, they were able to practice pronouncing English words. In addition, the learners always continue to listen for clarification before and during the speaking simulation activity in spite of difficulty (3.59). The respondents’ application of this strategy aided them to check the precision of their plans and actions before and during the performance. To simply put, this strategy can help them think of the appropriate response when in a conversation. Conversely, when learners do not apply this strategy, they tend to commit errors as they perform because of the inability to grasp what is expected of them. This is because of the fact that one’s ability to understand meanings of what he/she hears makes him/her knowledgeable and thoughtful person. On the other hand, the strategy in which the respondents’ use the least among all monitoring strategies is analyzing the usefulness of strategies while they prepare for simulation Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 551 activities (2.81). Reason for this might be that the learners are not aware of their use of these strategies and/or unaware of the strategy, itself, since this topic is not really taught and included in the basic education curriculum. The data project that with the overall computed mean score of 3.11, the learners, in general, occasionally monitor their way of thinking as they process the information presented to them. This result is an indicator that learners think over the correctness of how they deal with these simulation tasks. Further, this implies that these metacognitive monitoring strategies were used by the learners for these are beneficial to them when they perform simulation tasks. As Papaleontiou-Louca (2008) claims, when applying metacognitive strategies such as self-monitoring, learners are developed to be independent who can control their own learning and learn how to learn for life. Table 2: Metacognitive strategies used by ESL learners along monitoring Strategies Weighted Mean Description 1. I monitor the organization of my thoughts as I respond to ideas during speaking activities. 3.03 Sometimes 2. I focus more on the correctness of my ideas rather than its grammaticality. 3.06 Sometimes 3. I ask myself periodically if I am meeting my goals when I take part in speaking activities. 2.88 Sometimes 4. I find myself analyzing the usefulness of strategies while I prepare for speaking activities 2.81 Sometimes 5. I monitor the correctness of my grammar when speaking. 2.97 Sometimes 6. I monitor the correctness of my pronunciation when I speak. 3.34 Always 7. I monitor the correctness of my vocabulary when speaking. 3.03 Sometimes 8. I monitor my comprehension as I participate in speaking tasks. 3.25 Sometimes 9. I pay attention to discourse markers, visuals and body language, tones and pauses to understand better the messages when I partake in a conversation during speaking activities. 3.22 Sometimes 10. I monitor fluency when speaking. 2.84 Sometimes 11. I continue to listen for clarification before and during the speaking activity in spite of difficulty. 3.59 Always 12. I ask myself questions about how well I am doing while learning something new. 3.25 Sometimes Overall Weighted Mean 3.11 Sometimes Finally, students’ metacognitive strategies along evaluating were also explored in this study. As shown in Table 3, the mean score of 3.44 projects that they frequently reflect on an easier way to accomplish the task after doing it. The fact that people always try to look for a shortcut goes along with this strategy. Applying this helps the learners to determine how they could manage their time as they do the speaking task since by doing so, they will be able to have enough time improving the skills that they still have to in order to have better performance when they take part in similar activity. Similarly, the respondents indicated that they as well evaluate their own performance after accomplishing the (3.28) and how well they attained their goals (3.44). Likewise, constantly doing this can contribute to the speaking skills of the learners since critiquing one’s own performance means self-reflecting and considering his/her own strengths and weaknesses in speaking, which is important in gaining insight that helps him/her improve. Meanwhile, results show that the respondents sometimes summarized their learning (3.03)) and evaluate their comprehension during the preparation stage and performance of the speaking activity using context, prior knowledge and available resources (2.78). All in all, with the mean score of 3.19, the respondents indicate their use of metacognitive strategies along evaluating. With all the conveyed metacognitive strategies used, the weighted mean scores revealed that the learners had perceptibly applied these strategies when they do speaking simulation activities, even with or without their Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 552 mindfulness in doing so. This implies that learners considered using these strategies as they seemingly find it useful in their learning specifically in the accomplishment of the speaking simulation tasks. In support to this, Anderson (2002) claims that the use of metacognitive strategies ignites one’s thinking and can lead to higher learning and better performance. Table 3:Metacognitive strategies used by ESL learners along evaluating Strategies Weighted Mean Description I know how well I did once I finish the task given. 3.28 Always I ask myself if there was an easier way to do things after I finish the task. 3.44 Always I summarized what I have learned after I finish the speaking activity. 3.03 Sometimes I evaluate my comprehension during the preparation stage and the actual speaking activity using contexts, my prior knowledge and available resources. 2.78 Sometimes I ask myself how well I accomplished my goals once I am finished. 3.44 Always Overall Weighted Mean 3.19 Sometimes This study hypothesized that there is no relationship between the learners’ select profile variables specifically the learners’ extent of experience and/ or possession of perceived factors that might influence the speaking performance. As shown in Table 10, several independent variables have computed values with probability values lower than 0.01 and 0.05, thus the null hypothesis is rejected. In terms of the relationship between the students’ level of exposure to mass media and their speaking performance, the variables are found to be significantly associated at 0.01 level of significance as projected by the computed correlation coefficient value of 0.600. The data suggest that as the students exposed themselves to media, their speaking performance is likely to be improved. This is for the reason that learners can learn a lot from what they view in televisions, internet, magazines, and so on, as mass media can supply the words which go beyond the experience of the students (Heinich, Molenda, Russel & Smaldino, 1996). In fact, when teacher use multi-media materials during the preparation of simulation activity such as the video clips, it is evident that the respondents learned new English expressions as they emulated the words or phrases from the videos and used them in their performance. This means that through the speaking simulation activity, the learners simulated the situations from the media presented and at the same time practiced using the target language. Therefore, it can be said that exposing one’s self to mass media helps in enhancing his/her speaking skills. In support to this, Yanar & Albayrak (2013), inferred in their study that authentic mass media are useful tools which can arouse curiosity and let students develop their own practice ability, and therefore perceive their creative capacity while producing natural-speaking expressions. Similarly, this result is congruent to the conclusions of Alaga & Palencia (2015) that print and audio-visual media affect the speaking performance of their ESL respondents. They further recommended for an enhanced communicative ESL classroom instruction through the use of the different forms of media. Conversely, the variable on speech impediments is found to have no significant relationship to the students’ speaking performance as shown by the computed correlation coefficient value of -0.004 with a probability of 0.984. This implies that learners’ speech defects do not really influence their speaking performance. Reason could be that only the students’ inability to produce correct consonant sounds like ‘s’ and ‘r’ was observed by the researcher as the respondents’ problem regarding speech impediments, but as the result shows, this problem did not hamper the improvement of their skills in speaking. As to the listening ability of the student, with the correlation coefficient computed value of 0.546 and a probability of 0.001, results reveals that at 0.01 level of significance, this perceived factor significantly influence the students speaking performance, thus, the null hypothesis must also be rejected. This positive and significant coefficient value suggests that as the level of the listening ability of the respondents increases, so is their performance in speaking. This implies, further, that the students listening ability is closely related to the performance of the students in speaking; hence, it must also be enhanced. Relevantly, this finding means that in the respondents’ preparation and performance of speaking simulation activities, their listening abilities assisted in the improvement of their speaking skills. This is in the sense that as they attentively listen to, comprehend and process the information they needed, such as the instruction from their teacher, the suggestions of their group mates, the appropriate expressions to use for the situation and the signals for turn taking, they were able to respond appropriately and successfully communicate in the said activity. Thus, listening and speaking are intertwined as a person cannot be able to explicitly respond to ideas thrown to him/her if he/she was not able to hear and understand the message. Speaking skills cannot be developed unless listening skills is developed as Doff (1998) said. He stated further that when one person speaks, the other responds through attending by means Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 553 of the listening process. In fact, every speaker plays the role of both a listener and a speaker. Likewise, Barker & Gaut (2002) posited that speaking and listening are treated as compulsory skills that work together in the form of meaning negotiation to elicit communication where learners share mutual influence in the conversation. Furthermore, the computed correlation coefficient value of -0.702, with a probability of 0.000 at 0.01 level of significance, reveals a negative significant relationship between students’ speaking performance and communication anxiety. This implies that an increase in communication anxiety results to a decreasing students’ speaking performance or a decrease in their level communication anxiety would mean an increase in their speaking performance. This is because learners’ fear to speak impedes them from speaking in the target language (Fung & Min, 2016). This feeling shakes their intention to get involve in communication situations (Rahman & Maarof, (2018). Correspondingly, the findings of Sutarsyah (2017) support this result. His analysis conveys that the lower anxiety students have, the higher their scores in speaking performance than those with higher level of anxiety. He also concluded that learners with lower level of anxiety have better performance in their speaking. It can be said therefore, that the respondents having low level of communication anxiety could be the reason of their active participation during the series of speaking simulation activity which led to improvement of their speaking performance, as evidenced by the post-test results. Likewise, the learners’ knowledge in English vocabulary shows a significant relationship to the students’ speaking performance as shown by the computed correlation value of 0.708 with a probability of 0.000 at 0.01 level of significance. This means that when the learners have wide knowledge of English vocabulary, it very likely for them to perform better in speaking. This is because one of the skills in speaking is vocabulary knowledge, and if one has enough vocabulary, it would be easy for him/her to communicate his/her thoughts as he/she knows the appropriate English words to use. This corresponds to the findings of Kilic (2019), in his latest study, in which vocabulary knowledge accounts for 17% variance in speaking performance which led him into a conclusion that the former is a significant predictor of performance in productive language skills. This also implies that the respondents’ level of speaking performance in the pre-test can be attributed to their response to have low vocabulary knowledge before the intervention period. However, the positive changes in their scores from pre-test to post-test indicate that speaking simulation activities enhanced their vocabulary. From the speaking contexts provided, the learners were able to learn new English vocabulary. This supports the claim of Ranalli, (2008) that simulation is significant in promoting vocabulary skills and students’ second language vocabulary recall (deHaan, Reed, & Kuwada, 2010). In parallel, the computed correlation coefficient value of 0.429, with probability of 0.014 at 0.05 level of significance, suggests a statistically strong relation between students’ speaking performance and mastery of grammar rules. This positive correlation implies that if the students mastered rules in English grammar then it plausible for them to have better speaking performance. Conversely, if they are not knowledgeable of these rules, then they are more likely to perform low in speaking tasks. This means that learners’ speaking performance is highly influenced by their knowledge of the objects of language. This is similar to the findings of Hidayatullah (2018) confirming a significant relation between grammar mastery and speaking accuracy that mastery of the grammar rules is helpful in the improvement of one’s speaking performance. Though speaking simulation activities focus on fluency rather than accuracy, it is undeniable that as the learners use the language in speaking, they are able to realize and correct their mistakes in grammar when the teacher provide feedback after the performances. This could be the reason behind the improvement in the respondents’ scores in grammar in the post –intervention assessment. Thus, it can be said that speaking simulation activity is also capable of enhancing learners’ grammar as claimed by Miller & Hegelheimer, (2006). Moreover, exposure to speaking activities in and outside the classroom when correlated with the students’ speaking performance, the computed correlation coefficient value of 0.598 with a probability of 0.000 reveals that these variables are significantly related at .01 level of significance. This positive relationship indicates that the more ESL learners are exposed to communicative activities, the greater the probability to enhance their speaking performance, while less exposure means low speaking performance. In addition, this suggests that exposure to communicative activities greatly influences the speaking performance of the respondents. This explains the observation that the learners are able to practice speaking when they are given series of speaking simulation tasks with embedded learning on vocabulary, pronunciation, comprehension, fluency and even grammar. Moreover, as they do communicative tasks, their confidence is also being boosted. Hence, their speaking skills are enhanced, and are eventually improved. In the same way, exposure to English language reveals a significant relationship to the students’ speaking performance as clearly shown by the computed correlation coefficient value of 0.449 at 0.01 level of significance, with a probability of 0.010. This is an indication that English language exposure is statistically associated to the speaking performance of the respondents. It suggests that the more these learners are exposed to English language, the better they perform in speaking. Hence, the respondents’ high exposure to English language is of help in improving their skills in speaking since they were able to get involved communication directly or indirectly inside or outside the school using the English language. Again, engaging learners in series of speaking simulation activities means their exposure to English language as they is use it in spoken discourse , and through this, they learn the target Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 554 language. Similarly, Lambine (2008) posited that the more exposure to the language the children can get outside the school, the more they learn the target language. This means that having acquired the language is tantamount to being able to use the language with fluency and accuracy which also means better performance in speaking. Similarly, the findings of Candilas (2016) supports this result as he concluded that both formal and informal language exposures had significant association on the student’s speaking proficiency. He asserted, further, that both home and school environment facilitate the students’ communication skills. Furthermore, amount of time needed to prepare and to perform in a speaking task shows a negative significant relationship to the students’ speaking performance as revealed by the computed correlation coefficient value of - 0.721 with a probability of 0.000 significant at 0.01. This means that increasing the amount of time needed to prepare and to perform in a speaking task will result to a decrease in the students’ speaking performance. This result is unusual because, when one is given an ample time to prepare, he/she is likely to achieve better results when completing a speaking task. In support to this, Li, Chen and Sun (2014) concluded in their study that “too short a time was inadequate for improvement, whereas too long a time engendered a diminishing effect”. The reason for this could be the preparation time given was way too long which might cause them to do unrelated activities instead of focusing in preparing for the speaking tasks. This could mean that giving of just enough time for the learners to prepare for the speaking simulation task will lead to a better speaking performance. On the other hand, the result is in contrast with the findings in the early study of Menzel and Carell (1994) which states a positive correlation between total preparation time and quality of speech performance which means that the more preparation time is given, the higher the quality of speech performance. Lastly, a computed correlation coefficient value of 0.604 with a probability of 0.000 significant at 0.01 likewise shows a significant relationship between the students’ speaking performance and topical knowledge. The positive correlation between these variables denotes that when the learner is highly knowledgeable on the topic of the speaking task, the higher the level of speaking performance. In the same manner, the lower the topical knowledge, the lower the possibility to have excellent speaking performance. This means that topical knowledge greatly influences speaking performance of the ESL learners. This corresponds to Bachman & Palmer (1996)’ assertion that topical knowledge has a great impact on the learner’s speaking performance. In relevance to this, the learner’s high knowledge on the topics given in simulation tasks helped them determine how to act appropriately when they performed. The localization of the said situations or topics could be the reason of the improvement of their speaking performance as they are able to relate their past experiences and activate their previous knowledge on these topics. Generally, as the data show, majority of the above-listed perceived factors that influence students’ speaking performance showed a significant relationship to the students’ speaking performance. This implies that the factors perceived are confirmed to be influencers of the ESL learners’ speaking performance. This also infers that these factors must be considered by educators when creating lessons which target the enhancement of the speaking skills of the learners. Table 4:Relationship between speaking performance and the perceived factors that influence students’ speaking performance Variables Correlation Coefficient Prob. Statistical Inference Speaking Performance and Level of exposure to mass media .600 .000 Significant at 0.01 Speech Impediments -.004 .984 Not significant Listening Ability .546 .001 Significant at 0.01 Communication Anxiety -.702 .000 Significant at 0.01 Knowledge of English vocabulary .708 .000 Significant at 0.01 Mastery of Grammar Rules .429 .014 Significant at 0.05 Exposure to Speaking Activities in and outside the classroom .598 .000 Significant at 0.01 Exposure to English language .449 .010 Significant at 0.01 Amount of time needed to prepare and to perform in a speaking task -.721 .000 Significant at 0.01 Topical knowledge .604 .000 Significant at 0.01 CONCLUSION From the results of this present study, the following conclusions and recommendations were obtained: When students undergo speaking activities, particularly along planning stage, students always listen or read instruction carefully before they begin the task; organize their thoughts first before performing any speaking tasks; prepare comprehension before presenting speaking tasks; think about how they should pronounce words before they perform speaking activities; and think of several ways to how they are going to accomplish the task Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 14 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 555 given and choose the best one. These results indicate the need for ESL instructors to prepare enhancement activities along thought-organization, pronunciation and other strategies to prepare learners for speaking activities. In terms of monitoring, there are only two strategies that are often observed by ESL learners: they continue to listen for clarification before and during the speaking activity, in spite of difficulty; and they monitor the correctness of their pronunciation when they speak; thus, it is imperative for ESL instructors to organize the speaking activities that they conduct in clearer and more systematic presentations. During the evaluating process of metacognition, most of the learners would reflect as to whether there was an easier way to do things after finishing the speaking task; how well they accomplished their goals once they are done; and, how they performed once they finish the task given; but would rarely evaluate their comprehension during the preparation stage and the actual speaking activity using contexts, their prior knowledge and available resources; hence, ESL teachers should help learners facilitate their thinking skills, aligned to the principles of constructivism. Future researchers may consider looking into the gaps of this study and may venture on a research study that would expand the scope in order to to offer other implications for ESL speaking instruction particularly along metacognition. REFERENCES 1. Achmad, D. & Yusuf, Q. (2016). Exploring the motivational factors for learning English in Aceh.” Dirasat, Human and Social Sciences, p.43. 2. Anderson, J. L. (2002). Rasekh Zhoreh Eslami. Metacognitive strategy training for vocabulary learning. Volume 7, number 2; September 2003 3. Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 4. Barkaoui, K., et al. (2013). Test-takers’ strategic behaviours in independent and integrated speaking tasks. Applied Linguistic. Retrieved from: https://academic.oup.com/applij/articleabstract/34/3/304/202237?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false. 5. Bahtilla, M. (2018). The Impact of Metacognition on Students’ Learning. University of Buea. Retrieved from www.researchgate.net on April 24, 2020. 6. Candilas, K. S. (2016). “Language Exposures: Determinants of English Speaking Proficiency”. Veda’s Journal of English Language and Literature – JOELL, 3(3), 52-60. 7. deHaan J., Reed W. M., Kuwada K. (2010). The effect of interactivity with a music video game on second language vocabulary recall. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 74-94. 8. De Jong, Nivja, et al. (2015). Second language fluency: speaking style or proficiency? Correcting measures of second language fluency for first language behavior. Applied Psycholinguistics.Retrieved from: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-06139-004. 9. Gan, Z., Liu, F., and Yang, R. (2020). Student teachers’ self-efficacy for instructing self-regulated learning in the classroom. J. Educ. Teach. 16, 120–123. 10. Heinich, R. et al. (1996). Instructional Media andTechnologies for Learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. 11. Kashinathan, S. & Abdul A., (2021). ESL learners’ challenges in speaking english in malaysian classroom. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development. Retrieved from: https://hrmars.com/index.php/IJARPED/article/view/10355/ESL-Learners-Challenges-inSpeaking-English-in-Malaysian-Classroom 12. Li, L., Chen, J., & Sun, L.(2014). The Effects of Different Lengths of Pretask Planning Time on L2 Learners’ Oral Test Performance. TESOL Quarterly Vol. 49 (1).DOI: 10.1002/tesq.159 13. Lui, G. (2019). The role of metacognition in circumventing unfamiliar situations in spoken interaction. TESOL Encyclopaedia of English Language Teaching. 14. Oxford, R. (2017). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies. New York, NY: Routledge. 15. Oxford, R. L., and Amerstorfer, C. M. (2018). “The state of the art in language learning strategies and individual learner characteristics,” in Language Learning Strategies and Individual Learner Characteristics: Situating Strategy Use in Diverse Contexts, eds R. L. Oxford and C. M. Amerstorfer (London: Bloomsbury), 23–33. 16. Ozer, O. & Duygu I, (2020). Examining the roles of self-efficacy beliefs, self-regulated learning and foreign language anxiety in the academic achievement of tertiary EFL learners.” Participatory