Abstract
In research conducted by this author examining the development of adult second language listeners, one key aspect of that study was to evaluate the learners’ growth in their listening strategy use. A search of the literature, however, found no reliable conception of listener growth to guide the evaluation. Consequently, this study sought to develop such a framework. To accomplish this, cross-sectional verbal report studies comparing the strategy use of proficient and less proficient listener groups were examined, and the strategies used frequently by the proficient listeners, but infrequently by the less-proficient listeners, served to indicate developmental trends. A second component of the study was then to order these strategies into the stages of Anderson’s (1985, Cognitive psychology and its implications, 2nd edn. New York: Freeman, 2010, Cognitive psychology and its implications, 7th edn. New York: Freeman) three-stage comprehension model, those of perception, parsing and utilization. This second part of the study was conducted to address apparent flaws in past research categorizing listening strategies based on this model.
References
Afflerbach, Peter P., David Pearson & Scott G. Paris. 2008. Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher 61(5). 364–373.10.1598/RT.61.5.1Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, John R. 1985. Cognitive psychology and its implications, 2nd edn. New York: Freeman.Search in Google Scholar
Anderson, John R. 2010. Cognitive psychology and its implications, 7th edn. New York: Freeman.Search in Google Scholar
Bacon, Susan M. 1992. Phases of listening to authentic input in Spanish: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals 25(4). 317–333.10.1111/j.1944-9720.1992.tb00552.xSearch in Google Scholar
Berne, Jane E. 2004. Listening comprehension strategies: A review of the literature. Foreign Language Annals 37(4). 521–531.10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02419.xSearch in Google Scholar
Bowles, Melissa A. 2010. The think-aloud controversy in language acquisition research. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203856338Search in Google Scholar
Buck, Gary. 1990. The testing of second language listening comprehension. Lancaster: University of Lancaster dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Buck, Gary. 1991. The testing of listening comprehension: An introspective study. Language Testing 8(1). 67–91.10.1177/026553229100800105Search in Google Scholar
Buck, Gary. 1994. The appropriacy of psychometric measurement models for testing second language listening comprehension. Language Testing 11(2). 145–170.10.1177/026553229401100204Search in Google Scholar
Chamot, Anna U. 2004. Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 1(1). 14–26.Search in Google Scholar
Chamot, Anna U. 2005. Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25. 112–130.10.1017/S0267190505000061Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Ai-hua. 2009. Listening strategy instruction: Exploring Taiwanese college students’ strategy development. Asian EFL Journal 11(2). 54–85.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Yiching. 2007. Learning to learn: The impact of strategy training. ELT Journal 61(1). 20–29.10.1093/elt/ccl041Search in Google Scholar
Chien, Ching-ning & Li Wei. 1998. The strategy use in listening comprehension for EFL learners in Taiwan. RELC Journal 29. 66–91.10.1177/003368829802900105Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, Andrew D. 1998. Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Cross, Jeremy. 2010. Raising L2 listeners’ metacognitive awareness: A sociocultural theory perspective. Language Awareness 19(4). 281–297.10.1080/09658416.2010.519033Search in Google Scholar
DeKeyser, Robert M. 2000. The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(4). 493–553.10.1017/S0272263100004022Search in Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders & Herbert A. Simon. 1993. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data, Revised edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Field, John. 2004. An insight into listeners’ problems: Too much bottom-up or too much top-down? System 32. 363–377.10.1016/j.system.2004.05.002Search in Google Scholar
Field, John. 2008. Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Flavell, John H. 1976. Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In Lauren B. Resnick (ed.), The nature of intelligence, 231–235. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Goh, Christine. 1998. How ESL learners with different listening abilities use comprehension strategies and tactics. Language Teaching Research 2(2). 124–147.10.1177/136216889800200203Search in Google Scholar
Goh, Christine. 2000. A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System 28(1). 55–75.10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00060-3Search in Google Scholar
Goh, Christine. 2002. Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns. System 30(2). 185–206.10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00004-0Search in Google Scholar
Goh, Christine. 2005. Second Language Listening Expertise. In K. Johnson (ed.), Expertise in second language learning and teaching, 64–84. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230523470_4Search in Google Scholar
Graham, Suzanne. 1997. Effective language learning: Positive strategies for advanced level language learning. Clevedon Avon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Search in Google Scholar
Graham, Suzanne. 2003. Learner strategies and advanced level listening comprehension. Language Learning Journal 28(1). 64–69.10.1080/09571730385200221Search in Google Scholar
Graham, Suzanne & Ernesto Macaro. 2008. Strategy instruction in listening for lower-intermediate learners of French. Language Learning 58(4). 747–783.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00478.xSearch in Google Scholar
Graham, Suzanne, Denise Santos & Robert Vanderplank. 2008. Listening comprehension and strategy use: A longitudinal exploration. System 36(1). 52–68.10.1016/j.system.2007.11.001Search in Google Scholar
Graham, Suzanne, Denise Santos & Robert Vanderplank. 2010. Strategy clusters and sources of knowledge in French L2 listening comprehension. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 4(1). 1–20.10.1080/17501220802385866Search in Google Scholar
Graham, Suzanne, Denise Santos & Robert Vanderplank. 2011. Exploring the relationship between listening development and strategy use. Language Teaching Research 15(4). 435–456.10.1177/1362168811412026Search in Google Scholar
Kintsch, Walter. 1998. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lynch, Tony. 2006. Academic listening: Marrying top and bottom. In Esther Usó-Juan & Alice Martínez-Flor (eds.), Current trends in the development and teaching of the four language skills, 91–110. Berlin: M. de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197778.2.91Search in Google Scholar
Macaro, Ernesto. 2003. Teaching and learning a second language: A review of recent research. London, NY: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Macaro, Ernesto. 2006. Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal 90(3). 320–337.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00425.xSearch in Google Scholar
Macaro, Ernesto, Suzanne Graham & Robert Vanderplank. 2007. A review of listening strategies: Focus on sources of knowledge and on success. In Andrew D. Cohen & Ernesto Macaro (eds.), Language learner strategies: 30 years of research and practice, 165–185. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mareschal, Catherine. 2007. Student perceptions of a self-regulatory approach to second language listening comprehension development. Ottawa: University of Ottawa dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Miles, Matthew B. & A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Murphy, John M. 1985. An investigation into the listening strategies of ESL college students. ERIC Document Reproduction Service (No. ED 278 275).Search in Google Scholar
O’Malley, J. Michael & Anna U. Chamot. 1990. Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524490Search in Google Scholar
O’Malley, J. Michael, Anna U. Chamot & Lisa Küpper. 1989. Listening comprehension strategies in second language listening. Applied Linguistics 10(4). 418–437.10.1093/applin/10.4.418Search in Google Scholar
Peters, Martine. 1999. The listening comprehension strategies of students in a French immersion program. Ottawa: University of Ottawa dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Piaget, Jean. 1957. Construction of reality in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Search in Google Scholar
Richards, Jack C. 2003. Current trends in teaching listening and speaking. The Language Teacher Online. 27(7). http://jalt-publications.org/old_tlt/articles/2003/07/richards (accessed 14 January 2008).Search in Google Scholar
Rost, Michael. 2002. Teaching and researching listening. Harlow: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Seliger, Herbert W. 1983. The language learner as linguist: Of metaphors and realities. Applied Linguistics 4(3). 179–191.10.1093/applin/4.3.179Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Irene & Joan Rubin. 1996. Can strategy instruction improve listening comprehension? Foreign Language Annals 29(3). 331–342.10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01246.xSearch in Google Scholar
Vandergrift, Larry. 1997. The strategies of second language (French) listeners. Foreign Language Annals 30(3). 387–409.10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb02362.xSearch in Google Scholar
Vandergrift, Larry. 1998a. Successful and less successful listeners in French: What are the strategy differences? The French Review 71(3). 370–395.Search in Google Scholar
Vandergrift, Larry. 1998b. Constructing meaning in L2 listening: Evidence from protocols. In Sharon Lapkin (ed.), French second language education in Canada: Empirical studies, 89–119. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Search in Google Scholar
Vandergrift, Larry. 2003. Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning 53(3). 463–496.10.1111/1467-9922.00232Search in Google Scholar
Vandergrift, Larry & Marzieh H. Tafaghodtari. 2010. Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning 60(2). 470–497.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00559.xSearch in Google Scholar
Vandergrift, Larry & Christine Goh. 2012. Teaching and learning second language listening. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203843376Search in Google Scholar
Vogely, Anita. 1995. Performance of three authentic listening comprehension tasks. The Modern Language Journal 79(1). 41–56.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05414.xSearch in Google Scholar
Wu, Yi’an. 1998. What do tests of listening comprehension test? – A retrospection study of EFL test-takers performing a multiple-choice task. Language Testing 15(1). 21–44.10.1177/026553229801500102Search in Google Scholar
Yeldham, Michael. 2009. Approaches to second language listening instruction: Investigating the ‘top-down/bottom-up debate’. Melbourne: University of Melbourne dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Yeldham, Michael & Rainbow T.-H. Chen. 2016. Investigating mediation styles of second language listener verbal reports. Applied Linguistics Review 7(2). 203–233.10.1515/applirev-2016-0006Search in Google Scholar
Yeldham, Michael & Paul Gruba. 2016. The development of individual learners in an L2 listening strategies course. Language Teaching Research 20(1). 9–34.10.1177/1362168814541723Search in Google Scholar
Appendix 1. Proficiency levels of learner groups
| Study | Basis for proficiency division | Less-proficient listeners | More-proficient listeners |
|---|---|---|---|
| Murphy (1985) | Michigan Test of Aural Comprehension; Listening rating scale; Reading test | Less-proficient intermediate level listeners | More-proficient intermediate level listeners |
| O’Malley et al. (1989) | Teacher judgement based on various criteria, including classroom listening ability | “Ineffective listeners” at intermediate level | “Effective listeners” at intermediate level |
| Bacon (1992) | Listening recall protocol scores | Approx. lower-intermediate | Approx. intermediate |
| Graham (1997) | Teacher judgement; Researcher judgement from performance in verbal report | Five years or more of learning the language (approx. intermediate) | Five years or more of learning the language (approx. higher intermediate) |
| Goh (1998) | SLEP listening test | Mean score of 49/75 (approx. lower-intermediate to intermediate)a | Mean score of 65/75 (approx. higher-intermediate) |
| Vandergrift (1997, 1998a, 1998b) | ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview | ACTFL Novice levels 1,2,3 (Beginner to lower-intermediate) | ACTFL Intermediate levels 1,2,3 |
| Vandergrift (2003) | Listening test (with its reliability established for the study) | Less-proficient listeners (based on listening test) from ACTFL Novice-level (Listeners approx. High-beginner) | More-proficient listeners (based on listening test) from ACTFL Novice-level (Listeners approx. Lower-intermediate) |
| Mareschal (2007) | Oral interview; Language aptitude test | “Beginner- intermediate” (from lowest 15 % of learners at school) | “Intermediate- advanced” (from top 5 % of learners at school) |
Note: aSLEP proficiency conversions here are based on comparisons with scores from other standardized tests, and also on the author’s experience using the test in research (Yeldham 2009), equating scores and associated proficiency levels to those of his participants who took the SLEP.
Appendix 2. Verbal report process characteristics of the studies
| Study | Pre-session training | Number and nature of texts | Segmentation of text(s) | Report in L1 or L2? | Mediation method used |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Murphy (1985) | Training sessions (2) (listening think-aloud tasks) | Six texts: Academic lecture format | Segmented by listener | L2 | Respondents guided by pre-sessional instructions sheet. |
| O’Malley et al. (1989) | Training session (listening think-aloud tasks) | Large number of texts, of varying types | Researcher segmented, every two or three sentences | L1 or L2 | Respondents asked how they made sense of the text; what was unclear; and what images, if any, occurred to them. |
| Bacon (1992) | Pre-session warm-up (listening think-aloud task) | One text used from choice of two | Whole text playeda | L1 | Open and close-ended questions asking respondents how they had tried to understand. |
| Graham (1997) | Not specified | One text each for French and German learners | Researcher segmented, every two or three sentences | L1 | Respondents guided by pre-sessional instructions sheet |
| Goh (1998) | Pre-session warm-up (listening think-aloud task) | One text used from choice of two | Short segments read by the researcher | L1 and L2 | Respondents guided by pre-sessional instructions to verbalise how they had tried to understand |
| Vandergrift (1997, 1998a, 1998b); Vandergrift (2003) | Training session (various think-aloud tasks) | Texts of varying types, tailored to listeners’ levels | Researcher segmented, every two or three sentences | L1 | Use of prompts such as: What are you thinking? How do you know that? What else are you thinking? |
| Mareschal (2007) | None | Texts of varying types, tailored to listeners’ levels | Researcher segmented, every one or two sentences | L1 | Use of prompts such as: “What are you thinking now?”, “How did you come to this understanding?” |
Note: aIn Bacon (1992), the text was played without breaks. Listeners raised a finger to indicate when they were using strategies, explaining these to the researcher after the text was completed. The researcher says this method was used as a compromise between inserting unnatural breaks in the text and the more natural process of listening to the whole text.
Appendix 3. Reliability of verbal report strategy coding
| Study | Inter-rater reliability index | Intra-rater reliability index |
|---|---|---|
| Murphy (1985) | 0.81 | 0.80 |
| O’Malley et al. (1989) | 0.96 (and ‘uncertainties’, constituting 7 % of dataset, also coded by both raters in tandem) | Not provided |
| Bacon (1992) | 0.88 | 0.93 |
| Graham (1997) | Not provided | Not provided |
| Goh (1998) | Yes, but figure not provided | 0.88 |
| Vandergrift (1997; 1998a, 1998b) | 0.78 | Not provided |
| Vandergrift (2003) | Yes, but figure not provided | Not provided |
| Mareschal (2007) | Not provided | Not provided |
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
