Teaching L2 Learners How to Listen Does Make a Difference:An Empirical Study

Researcher: Larry Vandergrift (University of Ottawa)

Advisor: Raung-fu ChungPresenter: 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 stage6. 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 skilled learners

(scoring > 14)

the less skilled learners

(scoring < 14)

the more skilled learners

(scoring > 14)

the less skilled learners

(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)

controlgroup

experimentalgroup

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

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

+.68

+.26

-.16

-.05

estimated marginal means comparing Problem Solving and Mental Translation for the four groups

it suggested an increase for all listeners in the experimental group, but a decrease for all listeners in the control group

+.23

+.26

-.35

-.30

estimated marginal means comparing Problem Solving and Mental Translation for the four groups

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???)

+.23-.35

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 oral- written 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 figuresa couple of figures explaining the findings are coming out from nowhere

suggestionparticular tables explaining the results should be added into the analysis or appendix

Thank you for your attention!!!