Teaching L2 Learners How to Listen Does Make a Difference:
An Empirical Study
Researcher: Larry Vandergrift (University of Ottawa)
Advisor: Raung-fu Chung
Presenter: King-lung Hsiao
Outline
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Methodology
4. Results and Discussions
5. Conclusions and Implications
6. My Comments
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
(1) listening comprehension
(L1---straightforward vs. L2---frustration)
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 (Graham, 2006).
(2) the integrated instruction for listening
(individual strategy vs. integrated instruction)
The focus has been the teaching of individual
comprehension strategies, instead of the development
of the overall strategic L2 reader (Grabe, 2009).
There should be more focus 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).
1.2 Questions
(1) Can L2 listeners, who acquired this complex skill
so seemingly effortlessly in L1, be taught how to
listen in L2?
(2) Would attention to the processes of listening lead
to better comprehension outcomes?
1.3 Motivation
(1) Questions such as these have received little
attention in the research literature on listening
comprehension.
(2) Little attention has been focused on systematic
practice in L2 listening (see DeKeyser, 2007)
1.4 The Goal
(a metacognitive process-based approach)
This study investigated the effects of
a metacognitive, process-based approach
to teaching second language (L2) listening.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Research on Facilitating L2 Listening
(positive effects on listening performance)
(1) pre-listening activities
---manipulating certain variables related to listening
(Goh, 2002)
---prior knowledge
(Long, 1990; Schmidt-Rinehart, 1994)
---visuals
(Ginther, 2002; Seo, 2002)
---video clips
(Wilberschied & Berman, 2004)
---advance organizers
(Chung, 2002; Herron, Cole, York, & Linden, 1998)
---question type
(Flowerdew & Miller, 2005)
---question preview
(Elkhafaifi, 2005)
(2) contextualization
---captions
(Markham, Peter, & McCarthy, 2001)
---pictorial support and written annotations
(Jones & Plass, 2002)
---digital stories
(Verdugo & Belmonte, 2007)
(3) fostering bottom-up processing
---adjusting the speech rate
(Zhao, 1997)
---repeating the oral text
(Elkafaifi, 2005; Jensen & Vinther, 2003; Zhao, 1997)
--- providing L2 subtitles
(Stewart & Pertusa, 2004)
---attending to prosodic features
(Harley, 2000)
This body of research has demonstrated that L2 learners
can be taught to use a number of cues to facilitate their
comprehension of oral texts.
2.2 Metacognition and Listening
(1) metacognition
(knowledge & capacity)
Metacognition involves both knowledge of
cognitive processes and the capacity to monitor,
regulate, and orchestrate these processes
(Flavell,1976).
(2) metacognitive knowledge
(factors & ability)
Metacognitive knowledge consists primarily of
knowledge and beliefs about the factors (task,
person, and strategic) that interact during any
cognitive activity (Flavell, 1979); however, the
ability to apply this knowledge is as important as
the knowledge itself (Nelson, 1996; Sternberg,
1998).
(3) application of metacognitive knowledge
(a mental characteristic)
Application of metacognitive knowledge is a
mental characteristic shared by successful learners;
in fact, metacognition accounts for a relatively
high percentage of variance in learning performance
(e.g., Veenman & Spaans, 2005; Veenman,
Van Hout-Walters, & Afflerbach, 2006).
stages of listening instruction & underlying metacognitive processes
Pedagogical stages
Pre-listening: Planning/predicting stage
1. After students have been informed of the topic and text type, they
predict the types of information and possible words they may hear.
First listen: First verification stage
2. Students verify their initial hypotheses, correct as required, and note
additional information understood.
3. Students compare what they have understood/written with peers,
modify as required, establish what still needs resolution, and decide
on the important details that still require special attention.
Second listen: Second verification stage
4. Students verify points of earlier disagreement, make corrections,
and write down additional details understood.
5. Class discussion in which all class members contribute to the
reconstruction of the text s main points and most pertinent details,
interspersed with reflections on how students arrived at the meaning
of certain words or parts of the text.
Third listen: Final verification stage
6. Students listen specifically for the information revealed in the class
discussion which they were not able to decipher
Reflection stage
7. Based on the earlier discussion of strategies used to compensate for
what was not understood, students write goals for the next listening
activity. (from Vandergrift, 2004)
Metacognitive processes
1. Planning & directed
attention
2. Selective attention,
monitoring & evaluation
3. Monitoring, evaluation,
planning & selective
attention
4. Selective attention,
monitoring, evaluation &
problem solving
5. Monitoring, evaluation &
problem solving
6. Selective attention, earlier
monitoring & problem
solving
7. Evaluation, planning
2.3 Three Hypotheses---(1) final performance
the experimental group > the control group
The group receiving the experimental treatment
(following Field, 2001, and Vandergrift, 2003b)
will outperform the control group on the final test
of listening comprehension.
2.3 Three Hypotheses---(2) improvement
(a) less skilled learners in experimental group >
more skilled learners in experimental group
(b) less skilled learners in experimental group >
less skilled & more skilled learners in control group
The less skilled listeners in the experimental group
(following Goh and Taib, 2006, and Vandergrift, 1997)
will show the greatest improvement in listening
comprehension achievement. More specifically, the less
skilled listeners in the experimental group will
demonstrate a greater improvement in listening
comprehension achievement than the three other groups
(i.e., greater than their more skilled counterparts and
greater than both the more skilled and the less skilled
learners in the control group).
2.3 Three Hypotheses---(3)MALQ growth
(Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire)
the greatest growth:
the less skilled learners in experimental group
The less skilled listeners in the experimental
group will demonstrate the greatest growth in
metacognitive awareness of listening, as
measured by the MALQ (Vandergrift et al., 2006).
3. Methodology
3.1 Participants
(1) the participants
---106 students (FSL)
106 university-level students of French as a
second language (FSL) drawn from 6 classes
(2 high-beginner & 4 low-intermediate)
---two groups
the control group (47 participants)
the experimental group (59 participants)
---classified (performance on the listening pretest)
the more skilled learners (scoring > the mean 14)
the less skilled learners (scoring < the mean 14)
participants (106)
the experimental group (59)
the control group (47)
the more
the less
the more
the less
skilled
skilled
skilled
skilled
learners
learners
learners
learners
(scoring > 14) (scoring < 14) (scoring > 14) (scoring < 14)
(2) two instructors
---the same instructor (control & experimental group)
the same instructor taught both of the control group
and the experimental group
---different teaching methodology
the teaching methodology for listening differed
---the same texts
both groups listened to the same texts
---observation by an assistant
both groups were observed on a continuous basis
by a research assistant
3.2 Instruments-(1)
measuring listening achievement
(1) FSL Placement Test (Weinberg, 1995)
Listening achievement was measured using
Version A of the listening section of the university’s
FSL Placement Test.
---subtests
(a) questions followed by potential multiple choice
(MC) responses (7 points, beginner level)
(b) a telephone conversation followed by two
MC questions (novice-low)
(c) a dialogue between two students followed by three
MC questions (novice-low)
(d) an advertisement followed by four MC questions
(novice-high)
(e) a radio interview followed by five MC responses
(intermediate level)
---the types of listening tested (Buck, 2001)
(a) choosing contextually appropriate responses
(first part)
(b) processing texts of realistic spoken language to
understand linguistic information unequivocally
included in the text and to make inferences
implicated by the content of the text (parts 2–5)
3.2 Instruments-(2)
measuring change in metacognitive knowledge
(2) the MALQ (Vandergrift et al., 2006)
Change in metacognitive knowledge about
listening was measured using the MALQ
(Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire)
which consists of 21 randomly ordered items related
to L2 listening comprehension.
MALQ (Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire)
---five factors related to listening performance
(a) planning & evaluation: how listeners prepare
themselves for listening and evaluate the results of
their listening efforts
(b) problem solving: inference on what is not understood
and monitoring those inferences
(c) directed attention: how listeners concentrate, stay on
task, and focus their listening efforts
(d) mental translation: the ability to use mental translation
parsimoniously
(e) person knowledge: learner perceptions concerning
how they learn best, the difficulty presented by L2
listening, and their self-efficacy in L2 listening
3.3 Procedure
procedures
(13 weeks)
control
group
experimental
group
metacognitive process-based approach
X
V
FSL Placement Test---listening section(beginning)
V
V
listening activity-first time (beginning)
V
V
MALQ-first time(beginning)
V
V
listening activity-second time(middle)
V
V
MALQ-second time(middle)
V
V
met with a research assistant---discuss major discrepancies
in MALQ-1 & MALQ-2 responses (middle)
V
V
listening activity-third time (end)
V
V
MALQ-third time(end)
V
V
met with a research assistant-discuss possible reasons for further
discrepancies in their MALQ-3 responses (end)
V
V
FSL Placement Test---listening section(end)
V
V
stimulated-recall sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim,
coded, and analyzed using the QSR-N.Vivo7 software program
V
V
main differences
Teaching strategy
control group
experimental group
metacognitive process-based approach
X
V
formal prediction activity
X
V
opportunity to discuss their
comprehension with a classmate
X
V
opportunity to predict their
comprehension with a classmate
X
V
opportunity to monitor their
comprehension with a classmate
X
V
4. Results and Discussions
4.1 Main Findings
Hypotheses 1 --- final performance
the experimental group > the control group
The group receiving the experimental treatment
(following Field, 2001, and Vandergrift, 2003b)
will outperform the control group on the final
test of listening comprehension.
means & standard deviations for listening achievement as a
function of treatment & listening level (two-factor ANCOVA)
the estimated marginal means on the final listening test scores,
the experimental group (19.11) & the control group (18.4),
the experimental group outperformed the control group
Hypotheses 1 --- final performance
the experimental group > the control group
(confirmed)
Hypotheses 2 --- improvement
(a) less skilled learners in experimental group >
more skilled learners in experimental group
(b) less skilled learners in experimental group >
less skilled & more skilled learners in control group
The less skilled listeners in the experimental group
(following Goh and Taib, 2006, and Vandergrift, 1997)
will show the greatest improvement in listening
comprehension achievement. More specifically, the less
skilled listeners in the experimental group will
demonstrate a greater improvement in listening
comprehension achievement than the three other groups.
L2 listening success as a function of group & listening level
with pre-listening as a covariate (two-factor ANCOVA)
1. these differences were statistically significant
(F =3.39, η2 =.30, p < .05), suggesting that
metacognitive instruction resulted in the variance
in L2 listening achievement between the two groups
indicating a very strong effect
2. the less skilled learners in the experimental group
(M =18.9) outperformed the less skilled listeners in
the control group (M =17.8 ), statistically significant
(p =.00???)
3. the less skilled listeners in the experimental group
(M =18.9) showed greater improvement than the
more skilled listeners in the experimental group
(M =19.4), statistically significant (p =.00???)
4. the more skilled listeners in the experimental group
(M =19.4) was slightly higher than that of the more
skilled listeners in the control group (M =18.9),
results of the pairwise comparisons did not show any
differences (p =.07???)
Hypotheses 2 --- improvement
(a) less skilled learners in experimental group >
more skilled learners in experimental group
(b) less skilled learners in experimental group >
less skilled & more skilled learners in control group
(confirmed)
Hypotheses 3 --- MALQ growth
the greatest growth:
the less skilled learners in experimental group
in five factors (problem solving, planning and
evaluation, directed attention, mental translation,
and person knowledge)
The less skilled listeners in the experimental
group will demonstrate the greatest growth in
metacognitive awareness of listening, as
measured by the MALQ (Vandergrift et al., 2006).
univariate tests on components of metacognition
(repeated-measure ANOVA)
it revealed significant effects for Time, in the case of
Planning and Evaluation (F =6.022, p =.016) and Person
Knowledge (F =7.29, p =.008)
univariate tests on components of metacognition
(repeated-measure ANOVA)
Time was qualified by a significant interaction with Group
for only two of the dependent variables: Problem Solving
(F =2.937, p =.042) and Mental Translation (F =3.212, p =.026)
estimated marginal means comparing Problem Solving
and Mental Translation for the four groups
+.68
+.26
-.16
-.05
the less skilled listeners in the experimental group
significantly outperformed their more skilled counterparts
in the experimental group (p =.00???), as well as the less
and more skilled listeners in the control group (p =.042;
p =.00???) in Problem Solving
estimated marginal means comparing Problem Solving
and Mental Translation for the four groups
+.26
+.23
-.35
-.30
it suggested an increase for all listeners in the experimental
group, but a decrease for all listeners in the control group
estimated marginal means comparing Problem Solving
and Mental Translation for the four groups
+.23
-.35
tukey post hoc tests revealed that the difference in
performance was only significant when performance on
Mental Translation for the less skilled listeners in the
control group was compared to that of the more skilled
listeners in the experimental group (p =.03???)
1. metacognitive process-based approach vs. listening (benefit)
the results provide further empirical evidence for the
benefits of raising learners’ metacognitive awareness by
guiding students through the process of listening
2. less skilled learners (benefit particularly)
the results reveal that this type of listening instruction can
be particularly useful for less skilled listeners
3. growth (experimental group > control group in PS & MT)
in metacognitive knowledge of listening, listeners in the
experimental group demonstrated growth in Problem
Solving and Mental Translation compared to their
counterparts in the control group
Hypotheses 3 --- MALQ growth
the greatest growth:
the less skilled learners in experimental group
(partly confirmed)
4.2 Results
hypothesis 1 (yes)---the group receiving the experimental
treatment would outperform the control group on the final
test of listening comprehension
hypothesis 2 (yes)---the less skilled listeners in the
experimental group would show greater improvement in
listening comprehension achievement than their more
skilled counterparts
hypothesis 3(mixed)---the less skilled listeners in the
experimental group would report greater growth in
metacognitive awareness of listening as measured by the
MALQ
5. Conclusions and Implications
5.1 Conclusions
1. a pedagogy of L2 listening comprehension helps learners
become overall strategic listeners by leading them through
the metacognitive processes underlying listening
2. the less skilled listeners particularly can benefit the most
from such an approach
3. the success of the pedagogical intervention might be the
implicit knowledge about L2 listening acquired by
learners through task performance, using reactive
sequential decision making (see Sun et al., 2001)
5.2 Implications
1. the pedagogical cycle under investigation in the
current study could be further enriched by adding a
“bottom-up” component to the third phase of the cycle
2. listeners could be presented with a transcription of the
text for consultation during the third or last listen to
allow listeners to compare concatenated speech with its
written form in order to match incomprehensible chunks
of language with the visual representation of these
sound segments (see Field, 2003, 2008; Hulstijn, 2003;
Robin, 2007; Wilson, 2003, for examples)
3. adding a “noticing activity” which is advocated by
Richards (2005) for purposes of language awareness
leading to acquisition activities
4. proving listeners with a transcript of the text during the
third listen would likely lead to even more robust results
for this pedagogical cycle (Mareschal, 2007) for the oralwritten verification stage proved to be particularly
valuable to the low-proficiency group for developing
auditory discrimination skills and to the high-proficiency
group for perfecting word recognition skills
5.3 Suggestions
1. different languages, ages, contexts
replication of this study with learners of other
languages and different ages in different learning
contexts is desirable.
2. greater diversity, wider learners
a need for greater diversity in metacognitive
activities to address a wider range of learner needs
6. My Comments
6.1 Strength
1. organization---concise
2. literature review---clear and focused
it covers a broad range with specific focuses classified
clearly showing the necessity of an integrated approach
3. methodology---concrete and logical
4. findings---meaningful
an integrated process-based approach deserves more
attention, for too many researchers are looking for a
silver bullet in which the result is much emphasized
than the process (one cures all, but actually one kills all)
6.2 Weakness
uncharted figures
a couple of figures explaining the findings are coming out
from nowhere
suggestion
particular tables explaining the results should be added into
the analysis or appendix
Thank you for your attention!!!