國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5
Chapter Two Literature Review
Three major sections are presented to review literature on students’ listening strategies development after listening strategy instruction (LSI). The first section is about listening process including top-down processing, bottom-up processing, and interactive processing. The second part involves the introduction of learning and listening strategies. Finally, the models of the strategy instruction and the effectiveness of the instruction are discussed.
Listening Process
To understand how people comprehend what they hear, it is important to think about how people process the sound. Three dimensions are often mentioned to explain listening process; one is top-down processing; another is bottom-up processing, and the other is interactive processing.
Top-down Processing
Learners comprehending what they hear in top-down processing start with their background knowledge or schemata to get a general view of the listening passage and then infer to come up with a plausible explanation (Nunan, 2003).
However, the effectiveness of top-down processing in benefit of listening comprehension is controversial. Some studies suggested that top-down processing fosters listening comprehension (Ellermeyer, 1993; Kelly, 1991; Meyer & Rice, 1983).
Kelly (1991) found that skilled listeners applied top-down processing more whereas less- skilled listener attend mostly to local details as in the bottom-up processing.
Nevertheless, some studies indicated that schemata in top-down processing may hinder listening comprehension (Long, 1989; Tsui & Fullilove, 1998). Long (1989)
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
6
found that linguistic knowledge plays a critical role in comprehension when
appropriate schema are not activated to listeners , which leads listeners to draw on the wrong schema.
Implications of top-down process in English teaching are more concerned with the activation of schema (Brown, 2007). Techniques include ways to activate schema prior to a listening activity, to listen to identify a topic or find main idea and supporting details. Techniques before the listening activity involve providing
questions to discuss the topic and offering pictures or keywords about the text (Brown, 2007).
Bottom-up Processing
Learners comprehending what they heard in bottom-down processing start with analyzing the various morphosyntactic elements of linguistic input from sounds to lexical meaning, and to find final accurate message (Brown, 2007). When listeners have no background knowledge about the discourse, they rely much on bottom-up processing (Wilson, 2003). According to Kelly (1991), in the early stage of foreign language learning, learners tend to use bottom-up processing. As their proficiency increased, they count more on semantic and other knowledge belonging to top-down processing.
The effectiveness of bottom-up processing is also controversial. Some studies indicated that top-down processing facilitate listening comprehension more (Kelly, 1991; Vandergrift, 1997; Weissenrieder, 1987) whereas other studies suggested successful listening comprehension rely more on bottom-up processing because schema may cause dysfunctional effects on listening comprehension (Long, 1989;
Tsui & Fullilove, 1998). Tsui and Fullilove (1998) suggested that if listeners are not able to revise their initial activated schema which contradicts the following text, they cannot comprehend successfully. Therefore, the study proposed that less-skilled
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
7
listeners need to master rapid and accurate decoding of he linguistic inputs and count less on guessing from background knowledge to avoid the misleading of the wrong background knowledge.
Implications of bottom-up processing in English teaching focus on sounds, words, intonations, grammatical structures, and other components of spoken language.
Techniques in bottom-up processing involve listening for key words, listening for details and dictation exercises—that is, learners write exactly what they hear (Brown, 2007).
Interactive Processing
The use of the combination of top-down and bottom-up data is called interactive processing with which learners modify their interpretation according to both incoming information and their prior knowledge (Nunan, 2003).
Some studies indicated that effective listening comprehension occurs when the listeners can orchestrate the incoming linguistic information and their pre-existing knowledge to constantly modify their hypothesis (Kelly, 1991; Buck, 1991). Hildyard and Olson (1982) indicated that efficient learners utilize both top-down and
bottom-up processing to interpret text whereas low-level learners pay more attention to local details.
In the classroom, pre-listening activities can help learners to use the interactive mode to process the discourse (Nunan, 2003). For example, before listening, teachers can ask learners to brainstorm vocabulary about the following topic or create a short dialogue related to functions in the following discourse, which facilitate students to activate schema (top-down processing). During the listening, they base their
information generated from pre-listening activities to comprehend vocabulary and sentences in the discourse (bottom-up data).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
8
Language Learning Strategies and Listening Strategies
Language learning strategies can be defined as actions, thoughts, or processes which are consciously selected by learners to assist them in learning and using language or to complete a language task (Cohen,2011; White, 2008). From the mid- 1970s, influenced by interactionist and sociolinguistic, the language teaching emphasis moved from a product-oriented to a process-oriented. In other words, the teaching concern shifted from methods and products of language teaching to a focus on how language learners process, store, retrieve and use target language material (White, 2008). One dimension of this research included attempts to find out how language learners learn effectively and improve their language competence through the orchestration of various learning strategies.
Such learning strategies have been classified in different ways. In Cohen’s study (2011), three dimensions of learning strategies are mentioned, strategies for learning and use, strategies according to skill area, and strategies according to function. What is of particular interest to this study is the application of listening strategies consisting metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective strategies in unidirectional tasks.
Therefore, the second and third dimensions are more related to this study and will be further elaborated.
The second dimension involves strategies according to skill area. In this approach, strategies are classified in related to their roles in four skills—listening, reading, speaking, and writing. The present study focuses on listening; some strategies like vocabulary, grammar, and translation strategies can also be applied to the listening skill.
The third way to classify strategies is to concern strategy functions, namely metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective (Chamot, 1987; Oxford, 1990).
Metacognitive strategies in listening include pre-listening planning, while-listening
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
9
monitoring, and post-listening evaluation and problem-solving, which facilitate learners to think about and direct the listening process. Metacognitive strategies are considered valuable in which they allow learners to reflect on the process of listening by planning, monitoring, and evaluating on a given task; thus, learners’ awareness and strategic knowledge can also be encouraged (Vandergrift, 2008).
Studies of the differences between more-skilled and less-skilled listeners highlight the importance of metacognitive strategies to L2 listening success (Goh, 2000; Goh, 2002b; Vandergrift, 1998; Vandergrift, 2003). Goh (2002b) indicated that skilled L2 listening involves a skillful orchestration of selected metacognitive and cognitive strategies to monitor listening process and comprehend the input. Vandergrift (2003) also found skilled listeners used about twice as many metacongnitive strategies as their less-skilled counterparts and used an effective combination of metacognitive and cognitive strategies.
Though metacognitive strategies are important in terms of facilitating listening comprehension, their power cannot be exerted without the application of appropriate cognitive strategies. Therefore, learners should learn to couple both metacongnitive and cognitive strategies well to achieve successful comprehension (Vandergrift, 2008).
Cognitive strategies deal with strategies with which learners use during the process of language learning and language using to help them comprehend. These strategies involve solving learning problems by considering how to store and retrieve
information. Besides, they are more limited to specific learning tasks and involve more direct manipulation of the learning material itself (Brown, 2007).
Many studies indicated that more proficient listeners put greater emphasis on elaboration and inference than less proficient learners. Besides, more proficient listeners use strategies more flexibly whereas the less proficient listener depends more
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
10
on the text and a consistent use of paraphrase (Murphy, 1985; O’Malley et al.,1989;
Vandergrift, 1998).
Social and affective strategies encompass social strategies and affective strategies.
Social strategies consist of the ways applied by learners to interact with other learners and affective strategies are used to reduce learners’ anxiety and provide
self-encouragement. Besides, they can also help regulate learners’ emotions, motivation, and attitudes (White, 2008).
Social and affective strategies are the least frequently used by students (Wharton, 2000); however, DÖrnyei (2005) suggested that sharing with peers strategies use is often the most inspiring part of strategy instruction because students can gain insights from their peers by listening to the experience of each other.
The role of affection in listening is seen as multidimensional overlapped and related with cognition (Arnold, 1999). For example, strong motivation tends to help students pursue better skills whereas low motivation or intense anxiety hinder their ability to use their skills and abilities. The integral relationship between cognition and affection offers a sound basis for arguing that affective strategies are as strongly implicated in successful language learning as cognitive and metacognitive strategies (Hurd, 2008).
Strategy-based Instruction
The Model of Explicit Strategy Instruction
A number of models for teaching learning strategies in both first and second language contexts have been developed (Cohen, 1998; Graham & Harris, 2003;
Grenfell & Harris, 1999; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990).
These instructions share many features (Chamot, 2005). First, they all agree that students’ metacognitive understanding of the values of learning strategies is important.
Next, they all suggest that teachers should demonstrate and model the strategies to
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
11
give students concrete ideas of strategy using. Third, they all emphasize the multiple practice opportunities with the strategies are needed so that students can use them flexibly. Moreover, they all suggest that students should evaluate what strategy will best work for them to a task and actively transfer strategies to new tasks. Table 2-1 compares three current models for language learning strategy instruction: the first one is the CALLA model; the second one is the Grenfell and Harris (1999) model, and the last one is The SSBI model.
All three models begin by raising students’ strategic awareness by activities such as completing questionnaires, engaging in discussions about familiar tasks, and
reflecting on strategies used immediately after performing a task or by teachers’
demonstration with a task and the think-aloud procedures. The steps in these models may be recursive or linear. The CALLA model is recursive rather than liner so that teachers and students always have the option of revisiting prior instructional phrases as needed (Chamot, 2005) whereas the Grenfell and Harris (1999) model has students work through a cycle of six steps, and then begin a new cycle. The SSBI model (Cohen, 1998) involves teachers’ role during the strategy instruction rather than a series of steps. It suggested that teachers should take on a variety of roles to help students to choose appropriate strategies best working for them. In assessment stage, the Brenfell and Harris model provides students with an opportunity to verify their initial action plan; the CALLA model, on the other hand, has teachers to assess students’ use of strategies and has students to reflect on their strategy utilization before going on a new task.
In summary, current models of language learning strategy instruction focus on developing students’ awareness of their strategy utilization, facilitating learners to monitor their own thinking during the process, and encouraging learners to adopt appropriate strategies
‧
Table 2.1 Models for Language Learning Strategy Instruction (Adapted from Chamot, 2004b)
CALLA** Model (Camot, 2005)
Grenfell & Harris, (1999)
for familiar tasks.
Awareness raising:
Students complete a task and then
identify the strategies they used.
Teacher as diagnostician:
Teachers help students identify current strategies and learning styles.
Presentation:
Teacher models, names, explains new
strategy; asks students if and how
they have used it. strategies for later
use.
Teacher as language learner trainer: Teachers share own learning
experiences and
fades reminders to
encourage independent
strategy use.
General practice:
Students practice new strategies with
different tasks.
Teacher as learner trainer: Teachers train students how to
use learning strategies.
‧
their own strategy use immediately after practice.Action planning:
Students set goals and choose strategies to attain those goals.
Teacher as coordinator:
Supervise students’
study plans and monitors difficulties
Students carry out action plan using selected strategies;
teacher fades prompts so that students use strategies automatically.
Teacher as coach:
Provides ongoing guidance on students’ progress.
Assessment:
Teacher assesses students’ use of strategies and impact on performance.
Evaluation:
Teacher and students evaluate success of action plan; set new goals; cycle begins again.
*Styles and Strategies- Based Instruction
** Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
14
The Effectiveness of Explicit Strategy Instruction
The effectiveness of explicit strategy instruction (ESI) is controversial. Some studies indicate the benefit of ESI (McDonough, 1999; Oxford & Cohen, 1992; You, 2007); some are skeptical of the effectiveness (Gillette, 1994; Schrafnagl & Fage, 1998; Rees-Miller, 1993); still others support the effectiveness of ESI with the combination of awareness of self- regulation ( Goh, 2008; Goh & Taib, 2006;
Vandergrift, 2003, 2008).
The focus of ESI has been shifted to learners' reflection on their strategy use recently. McDonough (1999) indicated that studies of successful learners should not advocate that less-skilled students should be taught to use skilled-students’ strategies rather being encouraged to look more closely at their own ones. More recently, many language teaching researchers support McDonough’s view by advocating the
encouragement of reflection and strategic metacognitive awareness-raising within the subject context (Benson, 2001; Gog, 2008; Goh & Taib, 2006; Macaro, 2001;
Vandergrift, 2003, 2004 ). Reflection on the process of listening can raise awareness and help L2 learners develop strategic knowledge for successful L2 learning
(Vandergrift, 2008). Vandergrift (2002) investigated the effect of ESI on the
development of metacognitive knowledge about listening. While students completed listening tasks, they actively engaged in the major processes underlying listening:
prediction, monitoring, problem-solving and evaluation. Students in Vandergrift's study found it motivating to learn to understand rapid, authentic texts, and responded overwhelmingly in favor of this approach to L2 listening. Similar finding is seen in Goh and Taib (2006). This study not only indicated the benefit of the combination of metacognitive but also suggested that weaker listeners appeared to benefit more from this listening instruction. Macaro (2001) indicated that through self-regulation, learners are able to consciously choose appropriate strategies to comprehend a
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
15
specific task.
Though many studies have suggested the benefit of listening strategies instruction, their research method are mostly related to teaching one or more strategies to students and then using pre-test and pos-test to claim the causal effect between strategies teaching and students' listening improvement. (Huang, 2008; Hung, 2010; Li, 2009; You, 2007). Therefore, the result of the study cannot show students' strategies utilization and their strategies development after strategies teaching.
Besides, little research studies students’ reflection on how to learn and what difficulties they may encounter during the process of the instruction, which can provide the researcher an insight into students’ learning process. Therefore, a closer investigation of students' strategies use and how students learn and adjust their
listening strategies under the strategy instruction is worthy of attention. In other words, the present study is both quantitative and qualitative in nature.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
16
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
17