Importance of Teaching Listening Skills

Keywords: listening skills approaches

Listening comprehension is an important language skill to develop. Language learners want to understand target language (L2) speakers and they want to be able to access the rich variety of aural and visual L2 texts available via network-based multimedia. Furthermore, listening comprehension is at the heart of L2 learning and the development of L2 listening skills has demonstrated a beneficial impact on the development of other skills (e.g. Dunkel 1991; Rost 2002). Therefore, it is important to develop L2 listening competence; yet, in spite of its importance, L2 learners are rarely taught how to listen effectively (e.g. Mendelsohn 2001, 2006; Berne 2004; LeLoup & Pontiero 2007).

In addition, listening is an essential skill which develops faster than speaking and often affects the development of reading and writing abilities in learning a new language (Scarcella and Oxford, 1992; Oxford, 1993). According to them, the main reason is that one receives input through listening to instructions or explanations prior to responding orally or in writing. Listening is not an easy skill to acquire because it requires listeners to make meaning from the oral input by drawing upon their background knowledge of the world and of the second language (Byrnes, 1984; Nagle & Sanders, 1986; Young, 1997) and produce information in their long term memory and make their own interpretations of the spoken passages (Murphy, 1985; Mendelsohn, 1994; Young, 1997). In other words, listeners need to be active processors of information (Young, 1997). Meanwhile, Vandergrift (1996, 1997, and 2003) asserts that listening is a complex, active process of interpretation in which listeners try to suit what they hear with their prior knowledge. According to Richards (1983), this process is more complex for second language learners who have limited memory capacity of the target language. Therefore, it is necessary for them to utilize various listening strategies.

As most English teachers Iran believe, although we have learned a lot about the nature of listening and the role of listening in communication, L2 listening has been considered to be the least researched of all four language skills. This may be due to its implicit nature, the ephemeral nature of the acoustic input and the difficulty in accessing the processes. In order to teach L2 listening more effectively, teachers need a richer understanding of the listening process. Research into L2 listening is important because a better understanding of the process will inform pedagogy. According to Vandergrift (2007), students who learn to control their listening processes can enhance their comprehension; This, in turn, affects the development of other skills and overall success in L2 learning.

1.2. Statement of Problem

Listening comprehension may seem relatively straightforward to native language (L1) speakers but it is often a source of frustration for second and foreign language (L2) learners (e.g., Graham, 2006). Further, little attention has been focused on systematic practice in L2 listening (see DeKeyser, 2007) i.e.; on the integrated instruction of a sequential repertoire of strategies to help L2 learners develop comprehension skills for real-life listening (Berne, 2004; Mendelsohn, 1994; Vandergrift, 2004).

A review on recent research on second or foreign listening instruction suggested a need for an analysis of the effectiveness of metacognitive instruction for developing L2 listening comprehension. Current approaches for effective L2 listening are toward real-life authentic ample-input listening with more of top-down approaches and process instruction. Most of the studies, support real-life listening with authentic materials (Buck, 2002; Goh, 2008; Richards, 2005; Vandergrift, 2007; Veenman et a1., 2006).

Top-down approaches have drawn more recent favors than bottom-up approaches (Goh, 2008; Rost, 2002; Vandergrift, 2004). Process listening was favored to product listening (Vandergrift, 2004; Field, 2003; Buck, 1995; Krashen, 2008). Interest was also indicated in raising student awareness of the listening process (Vandergrift, 1999; Mendelsohn, as cited in Vandergrift, 2004). Among the approaches to L2 listening, metacognitive instruction for L2 listening was noted to be a most recent trend (Annevirta et al., 2007; Beasley et al., 2008; Chen, 2007; Derwing, 2008; Field, 2008; Goh, 2008; Graham et al., 2008; Lee & Oxford, 2008; Vandergrift, 2007; Veenman et al., 2006; Zohar & Peled, 2008).

In general, comprehension historically has received only minimal treatment in the teaching of English as a Second Language (ESL), but it is, in fact, one of the most important skills a second language (L2) learner must master to succeed in academic studies (Jung, 2003, Thompson & Rubin, 1996). For learners to become proficient in listening comprehension, they must “receive comprehensible input” (Vandergrift, 1997, p. 495) as well as have ample opportunity to practice using, or producing, the language. In second language acquisition, listening comprehension used to be considered a passive activity; thus, it did not merit researchers’ attention (Jung, 2003; Thompson & Rubin, 1996; Vandergrift, 2004). It had been assumed that a learner’s ability to comprehend spoken language would develop entirely on its own in an inductive way through repetition and imitation. As recently as the 1970s there were no textbooks devoted to teaching the skill of listening in a second language. It was assumed that the ability to comprehend spoken language would automatically improve because learners with exposure to the oral discourse would learn through practice.

Listening texts are a relatively recent addition to the ESL or ESL curricula; the focus of earlier second or foreign language learning texts which included a focus on listening comprehension was primarily on testing students’ ability to listen to oral discourse and then answer comprehension questions based upon the information (Carrier, 2003; Field, 1998). Today, however, a growing body of research indicates that the focus has shifted to actively and intentionally teaching strategies for “learning how to process, comprehend, and respond to spoken language with greater facility, competence, and confidence” (Rost, 2007).

Despite, recognizing the importance of listening strategies for the development of foreign language proficiency, very limited studies have been performed in Iran concerning the strategies employed by Iranian EFL learners in relation to listening proficiency levels. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine how strategies training may benefit L2 learners in their development of listening comprehension.

1.3. Significance of the Study

The current study addresses the need for further research in the area of systematic teaching of listening strategies. Accoding to Carrier (2003), for L2 learners, the ability to use strategies effectively in their academic listening is crucial (Carrier, 2003). He believed that learners need to be able to actively and selectively choose the strategies most applicable for a given listening situation and evaluate strategy effectiveness in their everyday learning tasks. As Carrier (ibid) indicated in her study, students can benefit from instruction in strategies for academic listening in a variety of settings and incorporating many types of media.

This study adds to the growing body of research of how adult EFL students pursuing academic study may benefit from explicit, systematic teaching of listening strategies. Doing this research contributes a method to introduce and model L2 listening strategies. Results of the study provide insight into participants’ self-perceptions of their use of listening strategies both before and after systematic classroom instruction.

1.4. Research Questions

The following research questions formed the basis of the study:

1. Does explicit listening comprehension strategy training based on CALLA instructional model increase Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension

2. What metacognitive listening strategies, based on Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ), do Iranian EFL learners report before and after metacognitive training program?

1.5. Research Hypotheses

Based on the above questions, the following hypotheses will be estimated:

1. Explicit listening comprehension strategy training based on CALLA instructional model cannot play any role in increasing Iranian EFL learners’ listening comprehension.

2. There is no significant difference in using metacognitive listening strategies, based on Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ) by Iranian EFL learners before and after metacognitive training program.

1.6. Limitations of the Study

One limitation of this study relates to the selection of participants. It was anticipated that the body of participants was likely to be of predominantly one language and cultural background. While this could provide insights into the strategy use of that particular language group, it might preclude broader multicultural generalizations of the study. In addition, it was impossible to randomize the selection of participants because of the structure of the research. The study needed to be conducted as a component of regularly scheduled EFL coursework. Limited randomization was provided in the anonymity of participant responses on the research instrument questionnaires as well as with proficiency leveling.

Participants’ prior exposure to listening strategies instruction or to the manner in which such instruction may have taken place is another area that was impossible to determine. Indeed, students may consciously or unconsciously use strategies transferred from their learning and listening experiences in their first language. In addition, instructors may offer strategies instruction without intentionally planning to do so. If students have friends who are native speakers of English, spend much time watching American movies or listening to news broadcasts, or in other ways have a lot of exposure to English outside of class time, they may have adopted a variety of listening strategies that their classmates who do not engage in such activities have not.

1.7. Definition of Key Terms

The following terms are used throughout this study and are defined as related to use in this research.

Listening: “an active process in which listeners select and interpret information that comes from auditory and visual clues in order to define what is going on and what the speakers are trying to express” (Thompson & Rubin, 1996, p. 331). For this study, the focus is on listening for academic purposes. That might include listening during academic lectures, seminars, group work, or any other aural discourse that is likely to occur in an academic classroom setting.

Metacognition: “Metacognition refers to the learner’s knowledge of whatever strategies s/he might use for specific tasks and under what conditions those strategies will be most effective” (Pintrich, 2002).

Strategy training: “teaching explicitly how, when, and why to apply language learning and language use strategies to enhance students’ efforts to reach language program goals” (Carrell, 1996; Cohen, 1998; Ellis & Sinclair, 1989, as cited in Chen, 2005, p. 5).

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.1. Overview

This chapter presents a brief historical timeline of the teaching of listening comprehension in EFL and ESL context. Of note is that listening research and teaching has a relatively short history as compared to that of reading, writing, grammar, and speaking. Certainly, the process of learning how to listen in a second language shares features with learning to listen in one’s mother tongue; however, some features are different. The literature provides insight into these similarities and differences. Within this section, top-down and bottom-up processing as they function in the L2 listening process are explained, as is the interaction between the two processes. Finally, learning strategies, in particular, those used in the L2 listening process are presented. In most of the research accomplished to date, strategies have been classified in a descriptive manner. Researchers agree to the dearth of studies showing what types of intervention-or instruction-of listening strategies will help L2 students to improve their listening comprehension. It is to this end that the current study was undertaken.

2.2. History of Teaching Listening Comprehension

Though one of the most important but also most difficult skills a second language (L2) learner must master to succeed in academic studies, L2 listening comprehension has not received the research attention it deserves (Jung, 2003, Thompson & Rubin, 1996). Though the focus in teaching today is on presenting listening as an “active receptive skill which needs special attention in language study” (Morley, 2001, p. 72.), listening was traditionally considered to be a passive skill, unlike speaking or grammar (Vandergrift, 2004). Even as recently as the 1970s there were no textbooks devoted to teaching the skill of listening in a second language.

One hundred and fifty years ago, it was thought that speaking and writing in a second language were productive, or active skills, while listening and reading were receptive, and thus passive. In some of the earliest recorded language classes, listening was not taught at all. In one of the earliest of the language teaching approaches, Grammar Translation (Felder & Enriquez, 1995; Flowerdew, & Miller, 2005), teaching was conducted in the learner’s native tongue, and only the grammar, sentence structure and vocabulary of the foreign language, generally Greek or Latin, were taught so that learners could translate texts.

The first of the language teaching methods that touched upon the importance of listening comprehension is known as the Direct Approach (Felder & Enriquez, 1995), in which learners were immersed in the target language, with the L2 being the language of instruction (Flowerdew & Miller, 2005). Taught inductively, learners mastered the grammar by creating rules based on their ever-growing experience with the language. Correctness in all aspects of the language was emphasized. In the Direct Approach, by necessity, listening comprehension played a major role. However, the development of listening comprehension was not actively taught; it was assumed that learners would pick up this skill in an inductive way, through repetition and use. Certainly, with its focus on inductive learning, no listening strategies were actively taught in the Direct Approach.

Although listening comprehension was a component of the Grammar Approach also, students were constantly tested on their listening ability only as it related to their ability to simultaneously read and listen to a recorded piece of discourse and make sense of the grammatical and lexical rules of the language. One major drawback of this method was that the classroom activities did not relate in any meaningful way to everyday listening activities outside of the classroom (Flowerdew & Miller, 2005). Students using this method were called upon to fill in missing words, a task they could easily perform without having any idea of the actual meaning of the discourse.

The Audiolingual Approach (Larsen-Freeman, 2000), which became popular in the 1960s and 1970s, required the listener to recognize and practice utterances and then create similar utterances patterned after the ones they had heard in a dialogue. It was during this time and with this approach to teaching languages that the audio-cassette language labs became widely used (Ross, 2003). The language lab focus was based on drill and practice, requiring much repetition and error correction with the goal of instilling in students correct patterns of discourse. Developing listening comprehension strategies, again, was not the focus of this approach; rather listening skill was taught only as it pertained to the manipulation of newly learned grammatical and lexical structures. An unfortunate result was that in their learning process, students interacted much more with machines than with other humans. Then focus shifted toward student interaction in authentic language situations so that students could have exposure to comprehensible input as well as practice using the target language in real life situations. While cassette language laboratories are still in use today, many of these have been replaced or supplemented with computer laboratories and digital language laboratories. Emphasis on authentic tasks and projects, particularly those using the Internet, has become highly regarded (Ross, 2004).

In the 1980s and 1990s, the Communicative Approach (Oxford et al., 1989)-one in which error was tolerated, provided the learners’ intended message could be conveyed and understood–became popular. The Communicative Approach, in which the focus is on use of authentic language, places the learner in a real exchange of meaning; the learner must process input and produce output such that each participant can understand the other. Once again, we see that listening strategies are assumed but not actively taught. Within this method, two schools developed–those who embrace the Cognitive Approach (Ellis, 1999) and those who embrace the Sociocognitive Approach (Warschauer & Meskill, 2000).

Another approach which came into existance was Cognitive Approach, the first of the two schools, which focuses on the view that all language learning is a “unique psycholinguistic process” (Warschauer & Meskill, 2000, p. 3). Learners are said to have a built-in cognitive ability to interact with and communicate in language that is both meaningful and comprehensible to them and construct their own meaning. Making errors is seen as a positive learning process through which learners construct the rules of the target language based upon input/output. Technologies that support this learning theory/style include “text-reconstruction software, concordancing software, telecommunications, and multimedia simulation software” (p. 4). Teachers can easily manipulate authentic text to create meaningful exercises (cloze-type), and students can use all sorts of software and Internet access to discover “computer microworlds that, at their best, simulate an immersion or a ‘linguistic bath’ environment” (p. 5). They can experience the target language by conducting searches, interacting with and manipulating their findings. In many cases, students need not actually interact with other humans at all.

The other school within the Communicative Approach embraces Sociocognitive Approaches. This school of thought contends that learners benefit greatly from interaction with people. Students need to interact with other humans in authentic language situations so that they can have comprehensible input as well as exposure and practice in the types of speech acts in real life outside the classroom. Authentic tasks and projects, particularly those utilizing the Internet, are highly regarded in this approach. Teaching methods that exploit computer-assisted discussion have become accepted. We see synchronous and asynchronous chat becoming a major component of language learning. While this medium is seen as somewhat artificial, it is still said to give students authentic practice in extended discourse and to provide an extra layer of language practice for students, one that is democratic. Students who are hesitant to use oral language in the classroom have greater opportunity to use language without fear of making mistakes and thus losing face. The result can be class discussions that are both highly democratic and collaborative.

Next in the progression of accepted language teaching approaches is one known as the Task-Based Approach (Brown, 1987; Bruton, 2005). This approach requires the learner to listen and, based on the input, complete some sort of task, perhaps note-taking or filling in a chart or form. The tasks tend to be oriented to real-world needs of the learner but are frequently based upon discourse (lectures or passages) that is at least partially contrived. While not exactly authentic, these types of activities provide practice in completing the types of tasks students might be called upon to use in real life, such as noting information or completing forms.

In current language learning approaches, we have the Learner-Strategy Approach (Floweredew & Miller, 2005; Mendelsohn, 1994). This approach accounts for learners’ needs to initiate and recognize their own listening strategies – what works for each individual learner. The Learner-Strategy approach examines listening comprehension from the perspective of individual learners and their independent learning with activities created to help learners discover what particular strategy works for them, including foci on schema activation, authentic tasks, presentation of many types of activities in many different contexts, and total interaction with the task. It is in this approach that metacognitive realization plays a significant role. Metacognition refers to the learner’s knowledge of whatever strategies s/he might use for specific tasks and under what conditions those strategies will be most effective (Pintrich, 2002). Pintrich pointed out that metacognition refers to knowledge of strategies; having the knowledge doesn’t necessarily mean that the learner actually uses the strategies. It is important, however, for learners to identify which of their own listening strategies produce success, and it is helpful for them to share their strategies. Not only does the sharing help them to activate schemata and to recognize how the strategy works for them, their sharing may also serve to activate other learners’ schemata and be instructive for fellow learners. Both learner and fellow students become more autonomous and develop more control over their own learning, the goal of this particular approach. The more aware learners are of the learning process, more specifically, their own learning process, “the greater the chance they can influence conscious learning” (Nakatani, 2005, p. 77) and enhance their own strategic competence.

According to Osada (2002), with the development of research, new theories, and development of second language curriculum, researchers’ interest in listening comprehension has grown. The 1990s showed a far greater interest in this skill than had previously been realized. Today, it is a widely accepted belief (Flowerdew & Miller, 2005; Jung, 2003; Savignon, 2001; Wilson, 2003) that all skills, certainly including listening comprehension, require active negotiation with the language. Savignon (2001) likened the collaborative process involved in oral/aural communication to the game of football. The different strategies players use and the different moves they make as they avoid, block, or tackle the opposing teams’ players are similar to the strategies language learners use to negotiate meaning with their interlocutors in the new language. Not only do learners need to know the sound system, grammar, and syntax of the new language, but they also need to understand the pragmatic, or discourse meanings of the language.

A final learning approach that is worth mentioning here is the Integrated Approach (Flowerdew & Miller, 2005). Teachers of today recognize readily the need to actively teach strategies for developing accuracy in listening comprehension. The goal is to make students able to listen for and identify main ideas as well as details, to develop their critical listening and thinking skills, and to enable them to manipulate the language and show that they comprehend and can use what they have heard. An expected outcome is for students to be able to use heard information and present it in an intelligent and intelligible way. In the Integrated Approach, we see complementary strategies at play as students use aspects of the various approaches to language teaching and learning to comprehend, manipulate, and produce language in authentic, meaningful language tasks.

2.3. Different perspectives toward listening

2.3.1. Listening as Negotiation of Meaning

That most people’s daily experiences are often not linked to reading and writing- but to situations where the spoken word is the dominant medium has already been noted in the context of first language (LI) listening (see, for example, Bohlken, 1999; Frest, 1999; Furnis, 2004). In academic contexts, for example, research on LI listening has shown that listening comprises more than 50% of college students’ total average communication day – followed by reading (17%), speaking (16%) and writing (11%) (Emanuel et al, 2008). With the significant role that listening plays in our lives, therefore, it would be worthwhile to examine what facilitates and/or hinders listening.

Changes in listening behavior have been associated with different factors including purpose for listening (Wolvin & Coakley, 1996), types of interaction possible or required in a listening situation (Rost, 1990; 2002), personal dispositions (Sargent, Fitch-Hauser, & Weaver, 1997), gender (Sargent & Weaver, 2003), and cultural context (Keiwitz, Weaver, Brosius, & Weiman, 1997). Imhof (2004) posits that, while listening, individuals tend to “adjust swiftly to perceived characteristics of the [listening] situation” (p. 43) such as the status they hold as compared to their speaking partner. In a study of listeners and speakers with English as a first language (ELI), Harms (1961) found that listeners’ comprehension was highest when listeners held the same status as the speakers. These findings accord with the results of the Varonis and Gass’ (1985) study on EL1-ESL and ESL-ESL interlocutor dyads, which demonstrated that meaning negotiations occurred less frequently between EL1-ESL interlocutors than ESL-ESL. Varonis and Gass (1985) concluded that ESL speakers recognize “the inequality of the conversation situation” (p. 85) and thus are reluctant to attempt any further negotiation of meaning. In a critique of the cognitively-oriented L2 listening studies that have ignored the social context in which conversation occurs, Carrier (1999) argued that unequal status between ELI and ESL interlocutors hinders negotiations of meanings and thus has an adverse effect on comprehension. Carrier also suggested that “status unequals may perceive their relationship as sharing no common base socially, occupationally, and economically” (p. 74). In the context of L2 classroom settings, Pica (1992) reported that social relationships between teachers and students give them unequal status as interlocutors, which can hinder “L2 comprehension, production and ultimately acquisition” (p. 4). In an interesting case study of an intermediate level learner’s progress in listening comprehension during and after a pre-sessional English for Academic Purposes course, Lynch (1997) reported the discrepancies between performance within the sheltered setting of the language classroom and success in real interaction in the (non-sheltered) academic world. The study, which included evidence from performance (entry and exit listening tests), process (negotiation of meaning in the classroom) and perceptions (of listening difficulties after the course), pointed to the ways in which the listener’s fears about being labeled as an ESL student hindered his negotiations of meaning in the classroom and ultimately his performance. When asked to make a conscious effort in applying meaning negotiation strategies (which he had learned in the sheltered language course) in his academic courses, the ESL listener replied, “But I am the only foreign student and so I cannot interrupt very much” (Lynch, 1997, 394). These results are in line with other work on first language listening, which demonstrate that inter-individual differences affect patterns of communication between listeners and speakers (Beatty, Marschal, & Rudd, 2001; Imhof, 2004).

2.3.2 – Listening as Comprehension

Listening has been demonstrated to be one of the essentials of language learning (Rost 2002; Tafaghodtari & Vandergrift, 2008; Vandergrift, 2007). Yet, with the diffusion of new technologies, which have particularly changed the ways in which university students spend their time (Emanuel et al., 2008), listening has become one of the most challenging aspects of L2 development for adult learners (e.g. Hasan 2000; Graham, 2003; Kim, 2002; Vandergrift, 2007). In a review of the recent developments in L2 listening research, Vandergrift (2007) rightly points to the significance that listening has in today’s reality of L2 learners’ lives: “Language learners want to understand target language (L2) and they want to be able to access the rich variety of aural and visual L2 texts available today via network-based multimedia, such as online audio and video, YouTube, podcasts and blogs” (p. 191).

Given its central role in the new media age, listening has remained surprisingly underresearched in the field of L2 education, and those studies which seem to address this neglected aspect of language development have been generally concerned with listening as an end-point, rather than an active process of meaning making. Many, for example, reduce listening to finding the right answer to a set of comprehension questions at the end of a passage. This focus, which reflects the nature of commercial and high-stakes tests, ignores the processes involved in any meaning making situation, listening being no exception. This trend has also fallen short of providing a framework for adequately taking account of the variables which affect listening ability (Tafaghodtari & Vandergrift, 2008).

2.3.3 – L2 Listening: A Cognitive Perspective

Drawing on a wide range of disciplines (e.g., cognitive psychology, LI speech education, language pathology and artificial intelligence), current L2 listening theorists recognize that L2 listening draws on multiple sources of information such as linguistic, contextual, and schematic knowledge (e.g., Buck, 2001; Lynch, 1994; Vandergrift, 2006). A consequence of such recognition has been a focus on different textual, cognitive and affective variables such as memory, discourse markers, prior knowledge and anxiety which are believed to affect performance in L2 listening. Based on earlier work by Buck (2001), at least three types of variables are posited to be critical to L2 listening success: linguistic, strategic and learner variables. Linguistic variables entail knowledge of the sound system (phonological), grammar (syntactic), vocabulary (semantic) and contextual influences on interpretation (pragmatic) of the L2 (Flowerdew & Miller, 2005). Listeners use L2 phonological knowledge to segment the stream of sound into meaningful sound units. This includes knowledge about phonemes, stress, intonation, assimilation and elision. Grammatical or syntactic L2 knowledge helps listeners to process or parse the sound stream for meaningful units of language and contributes to comprehension by assigning semantic roles to words (Rost, 2002). L2 semantic knowledge helps listeners assign meaning to word-level units as well as the relationship between those words at the discourse level. L2 pragmatic knowledge helps the listener to infer the speaker’s intention, particularly if there is any ambiguity in the literal meaning of the utterance. This is closely related to sociolinguistic knowledge (e.g., formal/informal registers, idioms and slang) which listeners use to further interpret the utterance (Buck, 2001). These five elements of linguistic knowledge involved in speech perception are an essential part of any model of listening.

Yet, research has shown that listening comprehension is more than speech perception (e.g., Rost, 2004; Schmidt-Rinehart, 1994). Comprehension includes matching what is heard with what is known. According to Rost (2004), the central component in the comprehension process is the activation of schemata in the listener’s memory structures to anticipate and monitor, i.e., check what is heard for congruency with what the listener already knows. This makes the listener’s world knowledge and life experiences an important factor in the comprehension process, a finding already well established in the L2 listening literature (e.g., Chiang & Dunkel, 1992; Long, 1990; Schmidt-Rinehart, 1994).

Due to the general belief that rapid speech is the cause of most of the difficulties that L2 listeners face, much of the earlier research on factors pertaining to successful listening performance focused on speech rate (Carrier, 1999). The results of these studies, in general, have indicated that above average speech rates impede comprehension while reduced speech rate aids it (e.g., Kelch, 1985; Flowerdew & Miller, 1992; Zhao, 1997). In addition, speech rate seems to interact with “other factors such as pausing, stress, and rhythm pattern of the speaker” (Carrier, 1999, p. 68). Related to speech rate is comprehensible input. The results of investigations focusing on this aspect of L2 listening have shown that while repetition seems to improve comprehension, simplification does not necessarily aid comprehension (Cargill, 1987; Cervantes & Gainer, 1992).

Memory, as an important cognitive factor, has been the focus of many research studies in the field of L2 listening (e.g., Call, 1985; Conrad, 1989; Dunkel & Davis, 1994). Researchers have reported a shorter memory span for L2 input as compared to LI input (e.g., Call, 1985). Dunkel and Davis (1994) found that ELI speakers retained almost twice as much information as did ESL learners in the context of academic lectures. Research also suggests that L2 learners tend to remember the beginning and ending words of sentences while LI speakers tend to remember many of the content words, regardless of their positions (Conrad, 1989). It has also been shown that too slow speech rate can impair comprehension since it prolongs the time the input must be held in short-term memory (Flaherty, 1979), pointing to the ways in which memory interacts with speech rate.

Current theories of L2 listening also emphasize the key role of cognitive and metacognitive strategies in processing of the acoustic input (Buck, 2001; Goh, 2002; Vandergrift, 1998; 2003; 2004; 2005). While cognitive strategies (e.g., inferencing, and story mapping) “involve the manipulation or the transformation of learning materials” (Dornyei, 2005, p. 109), metacognitive strategies include planning, directed attention, selective attention, selfregulation/ management, self-monitoring, evaluating and problem-solving. In general, researchers agree that skilled listeners use more metacognitive strategies than their less-skilled counterparts (e.g., Bacon, 1992; O’Malley & Chamot 1990; Vandergrift, 2003). Listeners use metacognitive and cognitive strategies to facilitate comprehension and to make their learning more effective.

Metacognitive strategies, or self-management strategies, oversee, regulate or direct the listening process. They include processes such as planning, monitoring, evaluating and problem-solving. Cognitive strategies, such as inferencing, are the actual mental steps listeners use to understand what they hear. Research shows that skilled listeners appear to engage in an effective orchestration of metacognitive and cognitive strategies as they use linguistic and world knowledge to construct meaning (e.g., Goh, 2002; O’Malley & Chamot 1990; Vandergrift, 2003). Metacognition appears to be critical to the development of self-regulated listening and is associated with the process and the outcome of learning (Boekaerts, Pintrich & Zeidner, 2000; Paris & Winograd, 1990; Schoonen, Hulstijn & Bossers, 1998; Wenden, 1998; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001). In fact, metacognition accounts for a relatively high percentage of variance in learning performance (e.g., Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters & Afflerbach, 2006).

2.3.4 – L2 Listening: An Affective Perspective

Although research on L2 listening comprehension seems to mostly focus on the effects of cognitive factors on comprehension, affective variables such as motivation and anxiety have also received attention in the field of L2 listening. Currently, there is a general consensus that increased levels of anxiety adversely affect listening comprehension (e.g., Elkhafaifi, 2005; Lund, 1991; Vogely, 1998). In a study focusing on L2 learners’ apprehension, for example, Aneiro (in Carrier, 1999) found that high receiver apprehension is related to low listening performance. Aneiro also suggested that the type of communication impacts the level of anxiety that listeners experience, i.e., dyadic communication seems to cause the highest level of anxiety while television viewing causes the lowest.

Motivation has been another affective variable that has received attention in investigations of L2 listening (e.g., Gardner, 1985; Tafaghodtari & Vandergrift, 2008; Vandergrift, 2005). Lightbown and Spada (2006) rightly note that while there has been a great deal of research on the relationship between motivation and the rate and success of L2 learning, little is known about the ways in which motivation interacts with L2 listening comprehension. Moreover, it is not clear whether it is motivation which produces successful listening or if it is successful listening that enhances motivation or whether both are affected by other factors, such as identity issues (Lightbown & Spada, 2003). The results of a recent study on the relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive awareness, and L2 listening ability by Vandergrift (2005) suggest that these factors may contribute to variance in L2 listening ability. Working within the framework of Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2004) applied to L2 contexts (Noels, Pelletier, Clement & Vallerand, 2000), Vandergrift’s study demonstrates a significant positive correlation between L2 listening proficiency scores and higher measures of motivation. Vandergrift argues that increased use of metacognitive strategies could be linked to more selfdetermined forms of motivation, providing evidence for the theoretical prediction that motivation and metacognition may be part of the cluster of variables that can explain variance in L2 listening ability. These results are in line with the findings of a later study by Tafaghodtari and Vandergrift (2008), which explored the degree to which first language (LI) listening ability, L2 proficiency, motivation and metacognition contribute to L2 listening comprehension. Similarly, the results suggest that motivation, together with a number of other factors, contributes significantly to L2 listening ability: L2 proficiency (54%), LI listening ability (21%), metacognition (3%), and motivation (4%).

2.4. Models of Listening Comprehension

2.4.1. Top-down processing

The term top-down processing came originally from computer science and carried the meaning of “knowledge driven” (Field, 1999). This term is used in description of the cognitive processes of foreign language listening and foreign language reading. In top-down rocessing, the learner draws upon background knowledge and expectations on what will follow next in the discourse and then infers what the intentions of the speaker may have been. Inferencing is an important part of the process, and it is important to note that the reader or listener, through the process of inferring meaning, may or may not correctly interpret the meaning of the written or spoken text (Rost, 2005). If, for example the learner has a schema–a representation within the mind of a generic concept or some prior understanding of the subject at hand–the learner depends upon this prior knowledge to make reasonable guesses about the meaning of the new term or structure. “Throug top-down processing, readers and listeners utilize real-world knowledge and refer t0 various types of schemata that help them predict what will follow in the discourse” (Jung, 2003, p. 563). Schemata are constantly being created and updated, providing the reader or listener with new outlooks and new bases for interpreting texts (Rost, 2005). The listener can use this knowledge to make sense of the incoming message and to draw reasonable inferences on the meaning. Provided there are some concepts and reactions to concept shared by interlocutors, some measure of understanding is likely to be also shared, though this is not always the case. When a cultural or intellectual disconnect occurs, it it possible to accommodate or incorporate a new schema to better understand and experience new ideas (Rost, 2005).

Implications for teachers of English as a second or foreign language include finding ways to activate prior knowledge, or schemata, prior to a listening activity. This might be accomplished by providing questions to discuss the topic at hand: what do the students already know about the topic? What information can they bring to bear on the topic to assist their classmates in understanding? What predictions can they make concerning the topic they are likely to hear about? What organization do they expect them talk to utilize? Giving students schemata with which to associate the new information provides a way for them to access the new ideas and to incorporate the new ideas with knowledge they have already stored. Activating existing background knowledge allows for smoother, more ready comprehension of new material. For those students whose language proficiency is very low, even providing pictures will help them to activate appropriate schemata.

2.4.2. Bottom-up Processing

In bottom-up processing, the learner analyzes the various morphosyntactic elements of the discourse, from the phonemes of the language to the syllables, words, phrases and sentences that make up the discourse. These activities require processing of all of the linguistic structures of the target language. In bottom-up processing, the learner uses sound input to guess what a word might be, based on matching initial sounds to his known lexicon. As more sounds occur, the listener can eliminate more and more possibilities until he arrives at the single, most accurate match to the input sounds. This matching may occur before all of the sounds have been heard because of the elimination process. For example, the newly encountered word might be founder. The learner first hears the beginning sound of the word, /f/, and this activates memory of several possible words that are already familiar: find, fact, fan, found, among many others. As the next sounds of the word are received, the learner begins the elimination process, passing over find, fact, and fan. Found becomes a possibility, until the ending sounds, /-er/, of the unfamiliar word comes into play. The learner knows that found is the past tense of find, but founder, at this point, makes no sense. Field (1999) stated that this entire process may take no more than .25 second, or about as long as a typical English syllable, and that the processes of analyzing and processing first phonemes, then syllables, words, phrases and finally, sentences may all occur simultaneously, or in parallel, rather than in a step-by step process.

If learners encounter input for which they have no prior knowledge, they may have to rely on top-down processing to supplement or to compensate for the lack of experience or knowledge of the language (Wilson, 2003, p. 336). When learners have to rely more on top-down rather than bottom-up processing, more guesswork is involved. It is much more efficient, ultimately, if learners can rely more on processing the input by “hearing what was actually said” (p. 336). Relying on the context surrounding the word founder will help the learner to realize how that word fits within the current discourse, even if the learner does not have a precise meaning for the term.

One way of teaching bottom-up processing for listening comprehension is through dictation exercises. Such exercises are designed to force the learner to focus on the exact phonemes, and then word(s), that are heard. However, this particular method does not give much attention to meaning; it focuses primarily on form.

2.4.3. The Integration of Top-down and Bottom-up Processing

Vandergrift (2003) discussed the need for well-designed listening activities that actually provide the learning in listening strategies that texts claim but do not always deliver. He proposed that “students … be taught how to listen without the pressure of ‘getting it right’ so that they learn to use effective listening strategies that are also applicable outside the classroom” (2003, p. 426). It is widely understood that listeners use top-down processing when they activate their own background knowledge, and they rely on bottom-up to help them decode the sounds and grammatical patterns of English. Citing Rost (2002), Vandergrift wrote that ‘listening comprehension is not either top-down or bottom-up processing, but an interactive, interpretive process where listeners use both prior knowledge and linguistic knowledge in understanding messages. …The degree to which listeners use the one process or the other will depend on their knowledge of the language, familiarity with the topic, or the purpose for listening” (p. 427).

The Interactive Process model (Park, 2004) shows how it takes both top-down processing coupled with bottom-up processing for comprehension to take place. Bottom-up requires linguistic knowledge and top-down occurs when background knowledge comes into play. If one or the other is missing, there can be compensation, though comprehension best takes place through the interaction of both. Top-down processing is particularly useful for lower-level learners to fill in the gaps in their bottom-up understanding of an oral text, for example when they lack proficiency in vocabulary or syntax of the L2 (Field, 1999).

The approach of second language learners to assessment in listening comprehension adds some insight as to the complementarity of top-down and bottom-up processing. In assessment, question types include both local and global questions. Local questions “require the test taker to focus on factual information including locating details and paraphrasing mainly based on linguistic knowledge” and global ones “require the test taker to focus on inferential information such as synthesizing information and drawing conclusions largely based on background knowledge” (Park, 2004, p. 450). For listening comprehension, “listeners scored higher for local questions than for global questions across topics text types, and proficiency levels. This finding seems to imply that linguistic knowledge is more important than background knowledge in the comprehension of an oral text” (Shohamy & Inbar, as cited in Park, 2004, p. 450). However, Park’s (2000) findings showed pretty much the opposite: that background knowledge seemed more useful and that learners may use schema knowledge as a compensation strategy when they do not understand the linguistic structures.

Results showed that, compared with linguistic knowledge, background knowledge contributed to L2 listening comprehension significantly (Park, 2004, p. 455). Also, interaction between linguistic and background knowledge was significant in L2 listening comprehension…. The significant interaction between linguistic and background knowledge provides evidence that the effect of linguistic knowledge on listening comprehension depends on the level of background knowledge” (p. 455-5).

Recent research studies have examined strategies second language learners tend to use. Predictably, learners with a lower level of proficiency tend to rely more on bottom-up processing as compared to greater reliance on top-down processing strategies by learners with higher proficiency levels (Berne, 2004). Less proficient learners display the following tendencies. They

• rely heavily on translation/key words as strategies
• are negatively affected by linguistic and attentional constraints
• are concerned with definitions/pronunciation of words
• make fewer inferences/elaborations
• do not verify their assumptions
• do not relate what they hear to previous experiences
• Learners with higher proficiency levels, on the other hand, display these tendencies; they
• use strategies more often
• use a wide range of strategies
• use strategies interactively
• are concerned with the overall rhetorical organization of text
• are better able to: attend to larger chunks of input monitor/redirect attention, grasp overall meaning of input, relate what they hear to previous experiences, guess meanings of words

Many other research studies point to more strategy use by listeners with higher proficiency level and less use with lower proficiency level. For beginning listeners, working memory can be overloaded, overwhelming them. They may not have the schema or be quick enough to activate it to make use of that metacognitive strategy. However, once listeners have become more proficient in their listening skills, they are more able to plan ahead and call upon strategies that they have found to be useful (Ehrman, Leaver, & Oxford, 2003; Vandergrift, 2003; Vandergrift, 2004). “Less able learners often use strategies in a random, unconnected, and uncontrolled manner” (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Chamot & O’Malley, 1996, as cited in Ehrman, Leaver, & Oxford, 2003, p. 316). “More effective learners show carefully orchestrated, targeted strategies” (p. 316).

Not all research provides clear answers in this area, however. For example, Tsui and Fullilove (1998) found that students’ ability to connect to background information played a great role in whether they were more or less apt to rely on bottom-up processing, regardless of proficiency level. If the students were unable to activate an appropriate schema, it was found that students with higher proficiency performed better, but if students were able to tap into their own background knowledge and match it to the aural text, there was no difference in the way students of any proficiency level approached the listening task. Conclusions from the study suggested “that bottom-up processing is more important than top-down processing in discriminating between the listening performance of L2 learners on tests” (1998, p. 433). It is believed that once learners become proficient enough in the second language to be able to process input quickly and automatically, they will begin to rely more heavily upon top-down processing (Vandergrift, 2004).

2.5. Metacognitive Strategy

Metacognitive knowledge, first coined by Flavell (1976; 1979, cited in Goh, 2008), refers to the individual’s awareness of knowledge about and regulation of one’s cognitive activities in learning processes (Flavell, 1979, cited m Veenman, 2006; Brown, 1978, cited m Veenman, 2006). The knowledge is about what, how, and why they think about the learning task or situation (Goh, 2008: 192). Seven metacognitive processes were summarized by Vandergrift (2004) according to the stages of listening instruction: 1) planning and directed attention, 2) monitoring, 3) monitoring, planning and selective attention, 4) monitoring and problem-solving, 5) monitoring and evaluation, 6) selective attention and monitoring, and 7) evaluation. It was discussed that the described metacognitive processes could be focus of listening instruction to raise learners’ awareness of their learning processes and to develop how to appropriately use the relevant strategies during listening. Vandergrift (2004) mentioned that teaching these metacognitive strategies might help learners comprehend the spoken input by being more aware of what and how they can use for better comprehension.

2.6. The impact of learning strategy instruction on listening comprehension

The positive impact of instruction was suggested both on language learning and on listening comprehension. First, lots of studies indicated that development in strategic knowledge led to improvement in language performance (Annevirta et al., 2007; Vauras et al., 1999; Wenden, 1998). Annevirta et al (2007) and Vauras et al. (1999) drew their conclusion from the high correlation between improvement in meta-knowledge and better language performance. Enhanced metacognitive knowledge was suggested to be a good predictor of learning (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1990), indicator of better text comprehension (Borkowski & Kurtz, 1987; Pressley, 2002; Annevirta et al., 2007), a compensation for one’s cognitive and intellectual limitations (Veenman et al, 2006:6), and an effective tool for successful listening (Zhang & Goh, 2006).

Second, across the literature, it was widely suggested that knowledge and use of metacognitive strategies facilitates L2 listening comprehension (Annevirta et al., 2007; Beasley et al., 2008; Chen, 2007; Derwing, 200S; Field, 200S; Goh, 2000; 2002; 2008; Graham et al., 2008; Hasan, 2000; Liu & Goh, 2006; Macaro et al., 2007; Mareschal, 2002, cited in Vandergrift, 2003; Lee & OXford, 2008; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, cited in Vandergrift, 2003; Rubin, 1994; Vandergrift, 1999; 2002; 2003a; 2003b; 2004; 2007; Veenman et al., 2006; Zohar & Peled, 2008). Goh (2008) indicated the three benefits as 1) affectively more motivating and less anxious, 2) advantage in listening performance, and 3) more benefit to weak listeners. Goh (2008) noted that the knowledge influences the manner in which learners approach the task of listening and learning to listen. Learners who have appropriate task knowledge about listening may plan, monitor and evaluate what they do.” Flavell (1979:908, cited in Goh, 2008) stated the effect as:

I believe that metacognitive knowledge can have a number of concrete and important effects on the cognitive enterprises of children and adults. It can lead you to select, evaluate, revise, and abandon cognitive tasks, goals, and strategies in light of their relationships with one another and with your own abilities and interests with respect to that enterprise. Similarly, it can lead to a wide variety of metacognitive experiences concerning self, tasks, goals, and strategies, and can also help you interpret the meaning and behavioral implications of these metacognitive experiences (Flavell, 1979: 908).

2.7. Methods for Assessing Listening Strategies

Two methods for assessing strategy use provide useful feedback: asking learners what strategies they are using or have just used and observing learners to determine what they are doing at any given time that would provide insight as to strategy use (Macaro, 2001). Even with observation, researchers typically resort to some sort of retrospective self-reporting to accompany or supplement the observation. There are advantages and disadvantages to each method. Asking learners about strategy use provides them the opportunity to express their own thoughts without the researcher or instructor imposing an expected response. It is also a lot less time-consuming to simply ask learners than to do extensive observation and interpretation. However, learners may have difficulty expressing their mental processes accurately, or they may fall into the trap of responding in the way they believe the researcher expects them to respond. The very fact that they have been asked to comment on or explain their use of strategies may encourage learners to provide an answer just to please the instructor, whether they have answers or not.

Despite the drawbacks, the following methods are the predominant ones used in recent and current research studies and the best way devised to date (Chamot, 2005).

2.7.1. Retrospective Reporting

Assessing L2 listening strategies presents even greater challenges than does assessing strategies in reading or writing, where learners have more opportunity to contemplate and articulate their mental processes. To get at their strategy use during a listening activity, learners must either interrupt the flow of aural discourse to articulate what processes they are using at that moment or rely on memory to describe the processes in a retrospective reporting activity. Both methods are problematic in that the former may short-circuit the learner’s comprehension of the text, thus confusing the issue of what strategies may have been used or are in the process of being used, and the latter may give the learner time to forget the processes or to even distort what processes have taken place. It is imperative, then, for the researcher to choose carefully the assessment method to be used in a study of listening strategies. “Since language learning strategies are generally internal or mentalistic processes, certain research approaches may fail to reveal adequately which strategies learners apply” (Cohen & Scott, 1996, p. 90).

Several research approaches, each with its advantages and disadvantages, should be considered in the research design (Chamot, 2004; Cohen & Scott, 1996). Using questionnaires and retrospective interviews offers the researcher many levels of control over both structure of the questions and how much information the question may elicit. Questions must be carefully constructed to ensure that all learners will readily comprehend them. In addition, it is very important to carefully decide whether to use open-ended or Likert-scale-type questions (Macaro, 2001).

One type of interview that has shown promise can be orchestrated by videotaping the learner during a listening task, then, while he is watching the videotape, allowing the learner to verbalize what he believes was taking place (Chamot, 2004, 2005; Macaro, 2001). A highly structured questionnaire or interview might require a simple yes/no response or a choice of 1-5 numbers on a Likert-type scale of agreement/disagreement to a statement. This type of response can provide researchers data for quantitative statistical analysis. Oxford’s Strategies Inventory for Language Learners (SILL) is such a questionnaire (Oxford, 1990). Questionnaires and interviews can be much more open-ended, allowing learners to express deeper understanding of their use of strategies or to have freedom to describe ideas that might not have been a part of a more controlled questionnaire. Though a more open-ended model offers perhaps richer, more personalized data, that data can be much more difficult to interpret. Cohen and Scott cautioned that in using questionnaires or interviews, “much of the data constitutes selfreport or the learners’ generalized statements about their learning strategy use” (Cohen & Scott, 1996, p. 93). In response to questionnaires, learners may not be able to reproduce the strategies they have used or they might report using strategies that, in fact, they haven’t used. If the questionnaire is written in the L2, they may not understand the questions or Likert-scaled statements and thus give inaccurate responses (Chamot, 2004).

A serious drawback to using questionnaires is that these instruments, though the basis of many dissertations and research studies, have not undergone standardization. In many studies, the SILL has been translated into different languages or modified to fit the specifics of the particular study; the result is that researchers cannot easily compare their findings across studies (Chamot, 2004). Researchers frequently use a combination of questionnaires and interviews, first administering the questionnaire and then selecting a few students with whom to follow up with interviews (Macaro, 2001).

2.7.2. Observation

Though in general, observation provides another valuable method for assessing learners’ use of learning strategies, it has limited value in assessing listening strategies. Behaviors such as facial expression and other body language might offer insights as to what a listener is experiencing; however, it would not, in itself, provide much information about the mental processes taking place during a listening task. Verbal reports, wherein a learner self-reports what mental processes s/he has just used, may be of greater value in analyzing strategies for listening. As many listening activities take place in a language laboratory setting, students could, in fact, participate in an activity and then use the language laboratory recording facilities to self-report their strategy use. The closer in time the reporting occurs, the more accurate it is likely to be. As with other types of oral or written reporting, however, the possibility of distortion or exaggeration exists, particularly when the reporting occurs after time has elapsed. Learners may report what they think they do rather than what they actually do, or they may feel it imperative to give the researcher an answer the students think is expected. For learners, listening to L2 and having to report in L2, or listening in L2 and having to report in a language different from that of the listening activity, can both create problems in reporting. All of these drawbacks must be recognized and precautions built into the research.

2.7.3. Think-Aloud Protocol

A think-aloud protocol is a technique used to analyze the actual thinking processes a learner uses during a learning task. The learner is encouraged to pause either during the task or immediately upon task completion to express to the investigator the thoughts or strategies used during completion of the task (Chamot, 2005). The student’s attention, thus, is focused on what occurred during processing rather than on the outcome of the task. Using a think-aloud protocol is considered to be a metacognitive strategy which can help them to be cognizant of what occurs during processing and what strategies they can call into play to boost their attention and their approach to listening (Anderson & Vandergrift, 1996).

In one study of listening strategies, participants were asked to execute a hand signal at any point during their listening when they knew they were thinking of the content of the passage and how they were processing it. Immediately after the learners had completed the listening task, they were given the opportunity to verbalize the strategies they believed they had been using (Bacon, 1992). Benefits of this type of self-reporting include providing insight into how the brain functions during listening activities. For the learner, self-reporting can raise awareness of the benefits of using strategies appropriate for certain types of listening task.

Several drawbacks to this particular type of reporting, particularly when the student tries to report during a listening activity, must be noted. First, a conflict arises in how the student can simultaneously listen and speak. Postponing the reflection does not present a good option; the student may have forgotten what was going on by the time the student has the opportunity to report. A preferred method may be to allow the learner to stop the flow of the aural text long enough for self-report to take place. In addition, some of the processes involved in listening may be automatized and will go unreported. Third, trying to explain the process taking place using the second language may create a problem, particularly in a learner of lower proficiency level. A way to address this drawback is to allow the learner to use the L1 for reporting. Another problem can arise if students happen to feel ill at ease with the procedure or unsure of what they are expected to produce (Macaro, 2001). Finally, the cognitive processing required during a thinkaloud protocol is taxing and may inhibit learners’ articulation of strategy use.

Certainly, providing training in think-aloud protocols will be helpful for language learners (Macaro, 2001). The instructor could model the procedure or ask another student to do so. Videotaping a learner during a listening task and then asking for clarification or additional comments might also be of benefit. Think-aloud protocol is frequently used in conju