Listening comprehension is the process of decoding spoken language (Brown &
Yule, 1983; Rost, 1990). According to Lynch and Mendelsohn (2002, p.193), it is considered as “a bundle of related process—recognition of the sounds uttered by the speaker, perception of intonation patterns showing information focus, interpretation of the said to the current topic”. In other words, besides perceiving and discriminating
the sound sequence, listeners also need to pay attention to the information beyond what is said with the help of background knowledge and context to make correct inference and interpretation. Listening comprehension is thus considered a “complex and multidimensional process” (Buck, 2001, p.51) in which phonological knowledge, syntactic knowledge, semantic knowledge, pragmatic knowledge, and kinetic knowledge are used to understand an aural message (Buck, 2001; Flowerdew &
Miller, 2005). In addition, prior knowledge of the topic and contextual information are also crucial for actively constructing the presentation of the aural text (Fischer &
Farris, 1995). As O’Malley & Chamot (1990, p.133) defines, listening comprehension refers to “an active and conscious process in which the listener constructs meaning by using cues from contextual information and from existing knowledge, while relying upon multiple strategy resources to fulfill the task requirements”.
Although listening is vital in language learning, it is considered to be the least understood of the four language skills and consequently the least well taught (Mueller, 1980). Listening has long been the neglected skill in research and practice until recent years (Osada, 2004). In addition, foreign language learners often regard listening as the most difficult language skill to learn (Hasan, 2000). When learners engage in foreign language listening comprehension, they have to process both content information and linguistic information simultaneously (Chang, Lei & Tseng, 2011).
Listeners have to perceive and segment the incoming stream of spoken message and make sense of it. The spoken message is usually instantaneous (Richards, 2008), and listening is an ongoing process. Unlike readers who have opportunities to refer back to the text, listeners usually do not have a chance to review the message. Because of the kind of the transient nature, learners may have difficulties with listening comprehension (Goh, 2000).
Understanding spoken language is essentially an inferential process (Rost, 2001). When learners process the spoken message, they may use top-down processing or bottom-up processing. According to Chaudron and Richards (1986), bottom-up processing refers to using the incoming input as the basis for understanding the message. On the other hand, top-down processing refers to the use of background knowledge in understanding the meaning of a message. In order to make sense of spoken input, learners apply different types of knowledge, including both of their linguistic knowledge and world knowledge, so that they can create a mental representation of what they heard (Hulstijn, 2003). Thus, top-down processing and bottom-up processing interact in parallel fashion when learners comprehend spoken input (Vandergrift, 2007). For L2 learners with limited linguistic knowledge, they may make use of all the available resources to interpret the spoken message by top-down processes. While listening, learners apply metacognitive knowledge such as
contextual, visual or paralinguistic information, world knowledge, cultural information and common sense as the compensatory strategies for comprehension. It may determine the degree of listening success (Vandergrift, 2007). Therefore, it is important to provide L2 learners with listening support that can enhance L2 learners’
use of metacognitive strategies in listening comprehension.
According to Chang and Read (2006), the two most effective ways to enhance listening comprehension were providing the participants with topical knowledge (TP) and repeated input (RI). TP was found to be effective for both high listening proficiency (HLP) and low listening proficiency (LLP) learners. However, although RI was especially beneficial for high HLP learners, LLP learners benefited less from this type of support because their language competence was limited. Learners could get the necessary information by previewing questions (PQ), so their information load was reduced and their comprehension was enhanced. But for LLP learners understanding of the questions would be the concern. Simply providing them with vocabulary instruction (VI) on the key words shortly before the test was the least effective form of listening support. It even seemed to have a negative effect on HLP learners’ performance. Although the lack of vocabulary would be the greatest concern of listeners (Chang & Read, 2006), VI might allow learners to try to translate what they heard into their first language (L1), which may cause too much focus on linguistic information and thus impede their top-down processing (Chang & Read, 2008). Thus, instructors should select listening support according to the learners’
proficiency levels.
Although providing too much vocabulary instruction may have negative influence on learners’ top-down processing of spoken message, vocabulary knowledge may be an important predictor for listening comprehension (Kurita, 2012).
Learners also use explicit or implicit linguistic knowledge as linguistic cues to understand spoken language (Anderson, 2009). Lexical knowledge such as vocabulary is explicit and contributes to listening comprehension. Vocabulary knowledge is an important factor for successful listening comprehension in EFL (Stahr, 2009). Nation (2006) found learners need at least 95% coverage of the running words to gain reasonable comprehension and to have reasonable success at guessing from context. According to Stahr (2009), a coverage of 98% of vocabulary is needed to cope effectively with the transitory nature of spoken language, and both size and depth of vocabulary knowledge are significantly correlated with listening comprehension. Therefore, when instructors select appropriate leveled texts for teaching listening comprehension, learners’ lexical knowledge should be taken into consideration.
In addition to learners’ proficiency levels and lexical knowledge, affective
factors can also greatly influence learners’ listening comprehension. The listening materials should provide students with a lot of target language to listen to in a digestible, palatable, yet challenging form (Taylor, 1981). According to Krashen (1985), comprehensible input is necessary for second language learning, while affective filter also decides how much input can learners receive. If learners are anxious, the affective filter will be up and keep learners from receiving the input effectively (Krashen, 1985), and listening process may thus be disrupted by anxiety (Elkhafaifi, 2005). Therefore, if learners’ anxiety can be reduced, their listening comprehension may be improved (Elkhafaifi, 2005). Chang and Read (2006) found that providing listening supports was helpful to reduce learners’ anxiety on listening tests. In Chang and Read’s (2008) study, the results further showed that the higher level learners in the VI group were more anxious than those in the RI and TP groups.
As for lower level learners, the PQ and VI groups had significantly higher anxiety than the RI and TP groups. In terms of reducing the negative effects of listening anxiety, helping learners apply metacognitive strategies is effective, while different types of listening support affect learners’ listening performance differently (Kurita, 2012). Therefore, the various forms of listening support should be complemented by appropriate strategy instruction to help learners reduce their listening anxiety (Chang
& Read, 2008).
In the series of studies of mobile-assisted English listening conducted by Chang (Chang, Chen & Chen, 2010; Chang, Lei & Tseng, 2011; Chang, Tseng & Tseng, 2011;
Chen & Chang, 2011; Chen, Chang & Lee, 2011; Chen, Chang & Yen, 2012), the main focus was on the effects of presentation modes (single mode: sound; double/dual mode: sound and text) on listening comprehension in a ubiquitous learning or m-learning environment. In addition, the effects of different types of cognitive load (intrinsic, extraneous and germane) along with the learners’ proficiency levels on listening comprehension and skill transfer ability were also investigated. The mobile devices that were used as the learning tools for listening comprehension in all the studies were the PDAs. There seemed to be two groups of participants in the studies, a group of 162 university students and a group of 87 university students majoring in Applied Foreign Languages. They were assigned randomly to groups of different presentation modes (single or dual channels), and the GEPT listening tests were used to determine their listening comprehension levels as their expertise level (EL).
Chang examined the effectiveness of the presentation mode within the framework of cognitive load theory from the perspective of performance efficiency.
On the one hand, the results of Chang’s studies show that in the immediate recall tasks, the learners learning with dual channel significantly outperformed learners learning with single channel regardless of their English proficiency levels. The learners
comprehended better with the aid of concurrent written text, which confirmed the study done by Markham (1989) that regardless of English proficiency, captions were important to learners in listening comprehension. The results also revealed that the dual channel mode caused the modality effect, which is defined as an effect in which learners perform well when they receive information from various channels, such as visual and auditory (Sweller, 2005). Furthermore, even though in previous studies, Mayer (2001) and Mayer and Moreno (2003) asserted that dual channel can interrupt learners’ learning because of limited capacity, Chang, Tseng and Tseng (2011) found that the dual channel presentation mode was beneficial to low English proficiency learners in lowering their extraneous load. Chang et al. (2011) attributed the different findings to the background of the participants, the different target languages, and timing of captioning. They concluded that dual channel presentation mode would not lead to high cognitive load if the dual channel presentation mode was designed with an appropriate instructional design, while low English proficiency learners learning with single channel had higher intrinsic and extraneous load because the presentation mode did not provide learners sufficient time to process language. Chang’s studies have contributed a lot to our understanding about the effects of different presentation modes on listening comprehension for immediate factual recall task.
In addition, Chang also intended to explore the effects of the different presentation modes on skill transfer ability. In other words, the studies investigated the impacts of the two modes on the skill of L2 listening comprehension transferred into the learners’ schema construction in long term memory. A schema is a cognitive construct that organizes information for storage in long-term memory (Mayer, 2005).
Within the three types of cognitive load, germane cognitive load is the desired one and thought of as a facilitator of learning performance, not an interrupter. Instructors can facilitate learners’ learning motivation by learning activities, which make learners become more concentrated on learning and help them to construct schema (Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003; Pawley, Ayres, Cooper, & Sweller, 2005). In a word, it is the cognitive load caused by effortful learning and resulting in schema construction and automation. With a well-designed media presentation mode and appropriate learning activities, learners’ schema construction and automation can be facilitated, and thus their cognitive load can be lowered and learning performance can be enhanced (Chang, Lei & Tseng, 2011). To probe the effect of the different presentation modes on skill transfer ability, the listening test used was an article of a different topic but with the same keywords and expressions from the previous listening passages in the intervention. It was provided through spoken message only because the performance of the learners indicated the degree to which the schema had been constructed.
According to the results and findings, although the dual channel mode was efficient in
the immediate recall task, especially for the medium and low EL groups, the effect did not extend to the skill transfer task (Chen, Chang & Lee, 2011). A reverse effect even showed in the skill transfer task because the redundant information of the presentation modes would impose an extra cognitive load rather than facilitating the learning for the high EL learners (Chen, Lei & Tseng, 2011; Chen, Chang & Lee, 2011; Chen, Chang & Yen, 2012). This indicated the occurrence of the redundancy effect, which leads to high extraneous cognitive load because too much useless information is added to learners’ working memory. As Diao, Chandler and Sweller’s (2007) study on the effects of written text on comprehension of L2 spoken messages and cognitive load suggested, additional written text facilitated the immediate facts recall of L2 listening comprehension, but provided only limited benefit for schema construction in the long-term memory. The results of Chang’s (Chen, Lei & Tseng, 2011; Chen, Chang & Lee, 2011; Chen, Chang & Yen, 2012) studies were consistent with Diao et
al.’s findings, in that the presence of the text contributed to a lower cognitive load as
well as enhancing performance in the immediate recall task, but not the subsequent transfer task of L2 listening comprehension. To sum up, Chang found that even though the concurrent text can cause the modality effect and lowered students’extraneous cognitive load temporarily, it did not efficiently assist the learners to store knowledge in long term memory (Chang, Lei & Chen, 2011). Learners without immediate review would still have difficulties in building up schema in long-term memory.
In addition to the investigation of the effects of the different presentation modes, Chang and the other researchers put great emphasis on the influences of cognitive load on listening comprehension. These studies contribute much to educators’
attention to the importance of facilitating learners to reduce their cognitive load for better listening comprehension on mobile devices. Therefore, Chen, Chang and Lee (2011) urged that a well-designed instruction is required to increase this capacity and decrease the cognitive load of the working memory as much as possible.
The findings of Chang’s studies supported the use of text messages for university students in that the presence of text messages helped learners bridge the missing parts of the information and made the listening passages less difficult and more comprehensible. As a result, Chang concluded that the learners experienced lower anxiety and higher confidence in their ability to understand (Chen & Chang, 2011). However, when it comes to the instructional design of listening materials and tasks for reducing anxiety of listening comprehension, the application of different types of listening support somehow seemed to be neglected in Chang’s studies. First, the lack of vocabulary knowledge is always a concern for EFL learners undertaking listening tasks (Chang & Read, 2006). In some of Chang’s studies (Chang, Chen &
Chen, 2010; Chang, Lei & Tseng, 2011; Chang, Tseng & Tseng, 2011; Chen & Chang, 2011), the researchers mentioned that providing vocabularies was important for listening comprehension, and they indeed presented the key words which were used in listening materials and immediate and extended tasks in advance. Nevertheless, how the key words were instructed to the learners was not described clearly in the studies.
Furthermore, the rest of the series of Chang’s studies (Chen, Chang & Lee, 2011;
Chen, Chang & Yen, 2012) focused a lot on the skill of L2 listening comprehension transferred into schema. The transfer tasks included the similar key words and expressions used in the immediate tasks. However, the way how these key words and expressions were instructed was totally missing in the studies. Since the key words and expressions seemed be the indicators of the skill transfer ability, the instructors might have incorporated more instruction in the vocabulary to facilitate the learners’
listening comprehension.
Second, reducing learners’ anxiety can improve their listening comprehension (Elkhafaifi, 2005). Some researchers (Chang & Read 2006, 2007 & 2008; Vandergrift, 2007) have found that found that providing listening supports was helpful to reduce learners’ anxiety on listening tests. Among the various forms of listening supports, one of the most effective supports to reduce learners’ anxiety and enhance their listening comprehension was RI (Repeated Input). With the benefit of mobility, learners should be able to engage in learning with mobile technology anywhere, anytime (Geddes, 2004). In other words, learners may take the advantage of the mobility of mobile devices to have repeated input when they are willing to engage themselves in learning. The importance of repeat input for supporting listening comprehension remains undiscussed in the series of Chang’s studies.
In addition, along with RI, TP (topic preparation) was found to be the most effective form to support listening comprehension and reduce anxiety (Chang & Read, 2006, 2007 & 2008). It was not discussed in the series of Chang’s studies, either.
Therefore, it seems that the effectiveness of the different listening supports (VI, RI &
TP) in a mobile learning environment may be an issue worth to be investigated.