2.2.3　Listening Strategies

2.2.3ListeningStrategiesThefollowingsectionwillreviewstudiesrelatedtolisteningstrategies,firstly,bypresentingadefinitionandclassificationoflisteningstrategies,secondly,bypresentingstudiesconductedtoinvestigatetheuseoflisteningstrategiesbyFL/L2learners,andthirdly,byreviewinganumberofstudiesonlisteningstrategytraining.

2.2.3.1DefinitionandClassificationofListeningStrategies

Strategiesarespecialtechniquesoractivitiesthatlearnersapplytofacilitatetheacquisition,storage,retrieval,anduseofinformation(Oxford,1990).Appliedtolistening,cognitivestrategiesareusedtoinfer,predict,interpret,storeandrecallinformationacquiredfromlisteninginput;metacognitivestrategiesareusedtoplan,monitorandevaluatementalprocessesandtomanagedifficultiesduringlistening;socialstrategiesservetoenlistthehelporcooperationofinterlocutorstofacilitatelisteningcomprehension;andaffectivestrategiesenablethelistenertomanageemotions,motivationandattitudesthatinfluencecomprehension.

Withrespecttotheclassificationoflisteningstrategies,O'MalleyandChamot's(1990)taxonomyofcognitive,metacognitiveandsocial-affectivestrategiesandVandergrift's(1996;1997b)refinedversionofthathavereceivedthewidestacceptanceamonglisteningstrategyresearchers.Groundedininformation-processingtheory(Anderson,1980),thesetaxonomieshavefacilitatedtheclarificationandcategorizationofdifferentlisteningstrategies.

O'MalleyandChamot(1990)differentiatedlisteningstrategiesintermsofphasesinthelisteningcomprehensionprocess.Forexample,studentsreportedusingattentionalstrategiesthatmaintainedtheirconcentrationonthetaskduringperceptualprocessing,suchasbeingawareofwhentostopattendingandwhentomakeanefforttoredirectattentiontothetask.Studentsalsoreportedsegmentingportionsoftheoraltextbasedoncuestomeaningoronstructuralcharacteristicsduringtheparsingphase,suchasbylisteningtolargerchunksofthetext,inferringmeaningfromcontextforunfamiliarwordsandusingbothtop-downandbottom-upapproachestoprocessthetextforcomprehension.Intheutilizationphase,learnersreportedusingdifferenttypesofelaboration(i.e.,usingpriorknowledgefromoutsidethetextorconversationalcontextandrelatingittoknowledgegainedfromthetextorconversationinordertofillinmissinginformation)toassistcomprehensionandrecallandtheyalsousedelaborationtosupportinferencingthemeaningofunfamiliarwords.O'MalleyandChamotthusrelateddifferentlisteningstrategiestothedifferentlisteningprocesses.Theyassociatedperceptualprocessingwithselectiveattentionandself-monitoring,parsingwithgroupingandinferencingfromthecontext,andutilizationwithelaborationfromworldknowledge,personalexperiences,orself-questioning(1990,p.133).

Table2providesacomprehensivelistoflisteningcomprehensionstrategies,asdefinedinafigurebyVandergrift(1997b).

Table2ListeningComprehensionStrategiesandTheirDefinitions

(Continued)

(Continued)

(Source:Vandergrift,1997b,p.392-395)

2.2.3.2ResearchonLanguageLearners'UseofListeningStrategies

Ingeneral,researchersinvestigatinglisteningstrategies(e.g.,Bacon,1992;Flowerdew&Miller,1992;Murphy,1985;O'Malley,Chamot&Kupper,1989;O'Malley,Chamot,Stewner-Manzanares,Kupper&Russo,1985;Vandergrift,1997a,1997b)havefoundthatlistenerswhowereabletoflexiblyusevariouslisteningstrategiesweremoresuccessfulincomprehendingspokentexts,whereaslistenerswithouttheabilitytoapplyadequatelisteningstrategiesconcentratedonthetextbyword-for-worddecoding.Therefore,theuseoflisteningstrategiesseemstobeanimportantindicatorofwhetheralearnerisaskillfullistenerornot.

Studieshaveexaminedmore-proficientandless-proficientlisteners,andfindingsindicatethatmore-proficientlistenersuseawidervarietyofstrategieswithgreaterflexibility,frequency,sophistication,andappropriatenesstomeettaskdemands(e.g.Goh,2002;Smidt&Hegelheimer,2004),andemploymoreconfigurationsofstrategiescomparedtolessproficientlisteners(e.g.Vandergrift,1997b;2003a).

Usingathink-aloudmethod,Murphy(1985)examinedthestrategiesusedbyadultESLlistenersinacademiclectures.Murphydeterminedthatmoreskilledlistenerswereopenandflexible,usingmorestrategiesandagreatervarietyofdifferentstrategies.Lessskilledlisteners,ontheotherhand,eitherconcentratedtoomuchonthetextorontheirownworldknowledge.Murphyconcludedthatthemoreskilledlistenersengagedinmoreactiveinteractionwiththetextandusedawidervarietyofstrategiesthatinterconnectlike「linksinafence.」Listeningstrategies,accordingtoMurphy,shouldbeseenas「interweavingcomponentstoasingleanimatedlanguageprocess」(p.40).

Vandergrift(1997b)lookedatdifferencesinstrategyusebylearnersofdifferentproficiencylevels.UsingstudentsofFrenchintheirfirst,second,andfifthyearsoflanguagestudy(labeledasnovice)andstudentsintheireighthyearofstudy(labeledasintermediate),Vandergriftfoundthatthenovicelistenersreliedheavilyonelaboration,inferencing,andtransfertobuildupmeaningandthattheyovercametheirlimitedknowledgeofwordsbyusingwhattheyknew(cognates).Thisfindingledhimtosuggestthatthecognitiveconstraintsofprocessingatthenovicelevelaresogreatthatthereislittleroomformetacognitiveprocessingstrategiessuchasmonitoring.

Goh(2002)reportedonthebroadstrategiesandspecifictechniques(referredtoas「tactics」byGoh)employedbyagroupofChineseadultlearnersofEnglishasasecondlanguageinSingapore.Bothcognitiveandmetacognitivestrategieswereidentified.Thecognitivestrategiesincludedinferencing,elaboration,prediction,translation,contextualizationandvisualization,andthemetacognitivestrategiesconsistedofself-monitoring(referredtobyGohas「directedattention」),comprehensionmonitoring,selectiveattentionandself-evaluation(referredtoas「comprehensionevaluation」).Asforstrategyusedifferencesbetweenlearnersofdifferentlisteningability,boththehigh-abilityandthelow-abilitystudentsreportedacombinationoftheuseofpriorknowledge,textandcontext.Oneimportantdifferencewasthatthehigh-abilitystudentsmanifestedagreaternumberandhigherqualityofinferencing,comprehensionmonitoringandcomprehensionevaluationstrategies.

Vandergrift(2003a)examinedthetypesoflisteningstrategiesusedbymoreskilledandlessskilled7thgraderswhiletheylistenedtoauthentictextsinFrench.Inthetwo-yearlongitudinalstudy,theprogressofanexperimentalandacontrolgroupof36learnerswascomparedtoaddressthefollowingtworesearchquestions:(1)WhatarethestrategiesthatjuniorhighschoollearnersofFrenchusewhilelisteningtoauthentictextinFrench?(2)Whatarethedifferencesintheuseoflisteningstrategiesreportedbymoreskilledandlessskilledlisteners?Inthelisteningcomprehensiontest,authenticdialoguesinFrenchwerefirstpresentedfollowedbymultiple-choicequestionsthatrequiredthelearnerstoverifytheircomprehension.Byusingthethree-categorylisteningstrategytaxonomy(i.e.,metacognitive,cognitive,andsocial/affective)aswellasthesub-strategieswithineachcategory,aspreviouslyshowninTable2,Vandergriftusedthink-aloudtogatherdata.Themeanandthepercentageuseofeachstrategybythemoreskilledandlessskilledlistenerswerealsocalculated,andthequantitativeanalysisresultedinthefollowingfindings:

(a)withtheexceptionofthe「evaluation」strategy,allthemetacognitiveandcognitivestrategieswereusedbythelisteners;

(b)bymainlyusingsuchmetacognitivestrategiesas「comprehensionmonitoring,」themoreskilledlistenershadbettercontroloverthelisteningprocess;

(c)themoreskilledlistenersdemonstratedopennessandflexibilityintheirapproachtolisteningbyusingmorecognitivestrategies,suchas「questionelaboration」;

(d)andthelessskilledlisteners,ontheotherhand,appearedtoengageinmoredirecttranslationstrategies,involvingbottom-upprocessing,whichimpededthedevelopmentofaconceptualframeworkandtheefficientconstructionofmeaning.

Byanalyzingthethink-aloudprotocolsofthelisteners,Vandergrift'sstudyshowedhowagivenstrategyoraparticularcombinationofstrategieswasusedtobuildmeaningintheprocessoflistening.Inhisstudy,alessskilledlistenerappearedtorelyontranslationandbottom-upprocessing,whichresultedinsuperficialengagementwiththetextandlimitedconstructionofitsmeaning.Incontrast,amoreskilledlistenerseemedtoemployamoredynamicapproachbycombiningbottom-upandtop-downprocessestoallocatemoreresourcestoorganizemoremetacognitivestrategies.

Thestudiesreviewedabovehaveshedlightonlisteningstrategyresearchinanumberofways.

(a)themoreskilledlistenerswerefoundtousemoremetacognitivestrategies(Goh2002;Vandergrift1997b&2003a).

(b)thelessskilledlistenersmadefrequentuseofmoresuperficialstrategies,suchastranslation(Murphy1985;Vandergrift1997b&2003a).

(c)andtheproficiencylevelofthelearnerswasfoundtohaveaclearimpactonthestrategiestheyused.Thatis,themoreskilledlistenersweremorepurposefulandflexibleinapproachingthelisteningtask,whereastheirlessskilledpeersweremorepassive(Murphy1985;Vandergrift2003a).

AreviewofresearchintolisteningstrategiesbyMacaro,Graham,&Vanderplank(2007)identifiedthestrategiesthathaveconsistentlybeenadvocatedasplayinganimportantpartinthelisteningprocess:

1.makingpredictionsaboutthelikelycontentofapassage;

2.selectivelyattendingtocertainaspectsofthepassage,decidingto「listenoutfor」particularwordsorphrasesorideaunits;

3.monitoringandevaluatingcomprehension—thatis,checkingthatoneisinfactunderstandingorhasmadethecorrectinterpretation;and

4.usingavarietyofclues(linguistic,contextual,andbackgroundknowledge)toinferthemeaningofunknownwords.(p.78-79)

2.2.3.3ResearchonListeningStrategyInstruction

Asreviewedontheprevioussection,severalstudieshaveexaminedtherangeandtypeoflisteningstrategiesusedbygoodlanguagelearnersandthedifferencesinstrategyusebetweenmoreandlesseffectivelisteners.However,itisnotuntilthelasttwodecadesthatstudiesfocusingonteachinglisteningstrategiesinclassroomsettingshavebeendocumented.

Strategy-basedinstructionfocusesonarangeofstrategiesdeemedappropriatetolisteningin「realworld」situationsortasks(Mendelsohn,1994).Itfocusesonhelpinglistenerstodeveloptop-downprocessesinordertoextractmeaningfromcontextualandcotextualcluesorbyeducatedguessingbasedonotheravailableinformationtocompensateforcomprehensionbreakdowns(Vandergrift,2007a).Nevertheless,sincelisteningprocessescanneverbeusedinisolationduetotheinterdependenceofbottom-upandtop-downlisteningprocesses(Tsui&Fullilove,1998),listeningstrategyinstructionshouldalsocaterforstrategiesinvolvedinbottom-upprocesseswhichcanfacilitatemeaning-basedcomprehension.

SomestudiesofFL/L2listeningstrategyinstructionhavereportedimprovedperformanceinlisteningcomprehensionofthoselearnerswhoreceivedlisteningstrategyinstruction.ThompsonandRubin's(1996)classroom-based,longitudinalstudyofforeign-languagelearnersprovidedstrongevidencethatstrategytrainingiseffectiveinhelpinglanguagelearnerscomprehendoralinput.ThompsonandRubintaughtuniversitystudentswhowerelearningRussianasaforeignlanguagetoapplymetacognitiveandcognitivelisteningstrategies.Thecognitivestrategiestaughtinthestudyincludeda)「Drama」,withafocusonthestoryline,b)「Interview」,withafocusonquestion-and-answersequences,andc)「News」,withafocusonwho,what,where,when,andhow.Metacognitivestrategiesincludedplanning,defininggoals,monitoring,andevaluating.Theresultsconfirmedthatsystematicinstructionintheuseofcognitiveandmetacognitivestrategiesdidimprovelisteningcomprehension.Thestudentsintheexperimentalgroupshowedasignificantimprovementintheabilitytocomprehendvideotextcomparedtothegroupthatwasnotgiveninstructiononlisteningstrategies.Anecdotalevidenceinthisstudyindicatedthattheuseofmetacognitivestrategieshelpedstudentsmanagehowtheylistened.Althoughthenumberoftheparticipantsintheresearchwasnotlarge,theevidenceofthisstudyindicatesthatinstructioninstrategiescanhelpstudentstocapitalizeonthelanguageinputtheyreceive,andtoimprovetheirperformanceonlisteningtasks.

Focusingonacademiclisteningtasksoverasix-weekperiod,Carrier(2003)gaveaclassofsevenvolunteerU.S.highschoolESLstudentswith15classsessionsofexplicitlisteningstrategyinstruction.Thesessions,eachabout20-30minuteslong,focusedonstrategiesfordevelopingdiscretelisteningskills(bottom-up)andvideolisteningskills(top-down)aswellaseffectivenotetaking.Datawerecollectedfrompretestsandposttests,whichwereofthesameformatandfocus.TheresultsshowedthattheexplicitlisteningstrategyinstructionsignificantlyhelpedthegroupofhighschoolESLstudentsimprovetheirdiscretelisteningability,theirvideolisteningandnotetakingabilities.Despitethispositiveresult,methodologicalconcernslimitthegeneralizabilityofthefindings(e.g.,thesmallsamplesize,only7participants).

Toraisetheawarenessofthelisteningprocessthroughtasksdesignedtodevelopeffectivelisteningstrategies,Vandergrift(2003b)undertookastudywithFrench-as-asecond-languageuniversitystudents.Afterbeingtoldthetopicofthelisteningtask,thestudentscompletedpartofaworksheetinwhichtheylistedtheirpredictionsabouttheinformationtheymighthear,andthentheylistenedtothetext,checkedthepredictionsandvocabularytheyhadanticipated,andaddednewinformation.Next,thestudentsworkedinpairstocompareanddiscusstheirunderstandingbeforelisteningasecondtime,whichwasfollowedbyaclassdiscussion.Afterthethirdtimeoflistening,studentswroteapersonalreflectionontheirownlisteningprocessesandthestrategiestheymightuseinfuturetoimprovetheirlisteningcomprehension.Thewrittenreflectionsgivenbythestudentsrevealedpositivereactionstothestrategies,increasedmotivationandunderstandingoftheirownthinkingprocessesduringthelisteningtasks.

Nevertheless,someconcernsarise,regardingtheeffectivenessoflisteningstrategyinstruction.AsGrahamandMacaro(2008)noted,「evidencefromthepreviousresearchthatstrategyinstructioncanleadtoshort-termimprovementinlisteningasmeasuredbypretestsandposttests,isinconclusive」(p.752).

Besides,contrarytothestudiesreviewedabove,otherstudiesrevealedverylimitedandslightimprovementinlisteningormixedresults.Forexample,O'Malleyetal.(1985)founddifferencesinthegainscoresofthreegroupsofESLlearnerswhoreceiveddifferentamountsandtypesofstrategyinstruction,butthedifferenceswerenotstatisticallysignificant.

Seo(2000)reportedinconsistentresultsforlisteningstrategyinstructiondirectedatnewsvideotexts.Inthestudy,Seoinitiallyusedamultiple-choiceJapaneseLanguageProficiencyTesttodeterminethebaselinelisteningabilityof10AustraliantertiarylevelJapanese-as-a-foreign-languagelearners,andthenchosethreecognitivestrategies(identifyingkeyterms,elaborating,andinferencing)andtaughtthemtoarandomlyassignedgroupof5learners.Afterafive-weekperiodofinstructionandaone-weekreviewsession,theinterventiongroupandnon-interventiongroupweregivensomevideotextsfollowedbyacomprehensiontestconsistingofmultiplechoice,true/falseandkey-wordquestions.Thoughnoticeableimprovementsinperformancewerewitnessedintheinterventiongroup,thenon-interventiongroupalsorecordedgainsandevenoutperformedtheinterventiongroupinfiveoutofthesevenposttests.

However,Seo'sfindingsshouldbeviewedwithcautionduetothefollowingfacts:①Thestudyinvolvedaverysmallsamplesize(i.e.,onlytenparticipants);②Theresultsfromthe7videotexttestswerecomparedwithresultsofanaudio-onlypre-test,andthusinvolvedanunconvincingcomparison.

Anotherlimitationisthatnoneofthestudiesreviewedaboveincludedadelayedposttest,andthuscouldnotaddresswhetheranyadvantageofthestrategytrainingwasmaintainedovertime.Furthermore,thoughinsomestudiesshort-termimprovementinlisteningwasdemonstratedinaposttest,thismighthavebeenbecauseofthesimilaritybetweenthetypeoftasksusedintheposttestandthestrategyinstructionthattheparticipantshadreceivedinthestudy.

Inlightofthevariousproblemsofearlierlisteningstudies,thisstudywillattempttoensureamorevaliddesignby:

(a)employingalargesampletoallowforgeneralizability;

(b)investigatingthedurabilityofthestrategytrainingbyusingabatteryofpretest,posttestanddelayedposttest,allofwhichareidenticalinbothformatandcontent;

(c)conductingboththepretestandposttestinthesamesessionofinstructioninordertoavoidthepossibilityofinfluencingtheposttestresultbyanyout-of-classactivity.