2.2.2 Factors Affecting Listening Comprehension
2.2.2FactorsAffectingListeningComprehension
Sincelisteningisacomplexactiveprocessinwhichlearnersdecodeandconstructthemeaningofatextbydrawingontheirpreviousknowledgeabouttheworldaswellastheirlinguisticknowledge,thereseemtobemanyfactorsthataffectlisteningcomprehension.Twofactorsrelatedtothepresentstudy,i.e.,repetitionandschema,arereviewedinthissection.
2.2.2.1Repetition
Onepurposeofthisstudyistoinvestigatetheeffectsofdifferentlisteningtimes(one-timevs.three-timelistening)onlearners'listeningcomprehensionandincidentalvocabularyacquisition.Repetitionisanimportantvariablethatcanaffectlearners'abilitytoprocesstheinformationinalisteningtask,foritprovidesmoreprocessingtimeandclarifiestherelationshipbetweenthesyntacticforms.Ingeneral,researchconductedtodateontheeffectofrepeatedexposurehasshownthatrepetitionisalsoanimportantfactorfacilitatingL2listeningcomprehension.
Lund(1991)examinedtheeffectsofrepetitionanddifferentcourselevels(proficiencylevels)onthelisteningandreadingcomprehensioninGermanasaforeignlanguageof60universitystudentsintheirfirst,second,andthirdsemesters.Hefoundlisteningcomprehensionperformance,asmeasuredbypropositionsandlexicalitemsrecalled,improvedafterasecondopportunitytolistentothepassage.Resultsalsoindicatedthatthisimprovementwasgreaterforthird-semesterlearnersthanitwasforlearnersinthefirstandsecondsemesters.Tobemorespecific,theimprovementofthestudents'listeningrecalltaskinthefirstandsecondsemesterswasabouthalfthatofthethird-semesterstudents,whereastherewasnodifferenceintheimprovementamongthestudentsatdifferentproficiencylevelsinthereadingrecalltask.Therefore,hearguedthatthethird-semesterstudentsbenefitedfromtherepeatedexposureinthelisteningtask.TheimprovementinthelisteningperformancewasaccountedforbywhatLundcalled“recursiveuseofthetexts”,whichprovidesthelearnerswith“ateststructureofmeaningtobefittothetextonthenextrepetition”.
Toexaminetheeffectofinputmodification(includingrepetition)onlisteningcomprehensionofJapaneseuniversitystudents,CervantesandGainer(1992)conductedtwoexperimentsinvolvingabout80EnglishmajorsatauniversityinJapanthatcomparedtheeffectsoflisteningtosimplifiedinputonceversuslisteningtoadifficulttextwithorwithoutrepetition.Resultsofthestudyshowedthatbothsimplificationandrepetitionfacilitatedmorecomprehensionthanunmodifiedtexts.Thefirstexperimentshowed,unsurprisingly,thatthesimplifiedversionwaseasiertounderstandthanthecomplexone.Inthesecondexperiment,nosignificantdifferencewasfoundbetweenthegrouphearingthesyntacticallysimplifiedversionandthegrouphearingthecomplexversionwithrepetition.Thus,CervantesandGainerarguedthatalthoughsyntacticallysimplifiedlisteningtextsmayaidcomprehension,itmaynotbenecessaryifothermodification,suchasrepetition,isavailable.
Berne(1995)investigatedtheeffectofmultipleexposurestoavideocliponcomprehensionperformanceof62nativeEnglishspeakerslearningSpanishinanAmericanuniversity.Beforeviewingthevideotwice,theparticipantswererandomlyputintothreegroupswithdifferentpre-listeningactivities:aquestionpreviewactivity,avocabularypreviewactivity,andafilleractivity.Resultsrevealedthatscoresforallthreegroupsimprovedsignificantlyasaresultofviewingthepassageasecondtime.Theresearcherthusconcludedthat“themosteffectivemeansofimprovinglisteningcomprehensionperformanceisthroughadditionalexposuretothepassage”(p.326).
Chang(1999)lookedatlearners'levelsofcomprehensionasthenumberofrepetitionsincreased,andherresultsshowedthatthenumberofrepetitionsrequiredforadequatecomprehensiondependedonthelisteners'proficiencylevelandthedifficultyofthelisteningtext.Forhigh-proficiencylevellisteners,asinglerepetitionwassufficientifthelisteningtextwaseasy,butforlow-proficiencylevellisteners,theimprovementintheirlisteningcomprehensionwaslessnoticeableevenafterseveralrepetitions,particularlyifthetextwasdifficultorthelistenerswereunfamiliarwiththecontent.
ChangandRead(2006)examinedtheeffectsoffourdifferenttypesoflisteningsupport(previewofthequestions,repetitionoftheinput,provisionoftopicknowledge,andvocabularyinstruction)onthelisteningperformanceof160ChineselearnersofEnglishatacollegeinTaiwan.TheyalsoinvestigatedtheirinteractionaleffectsbetweentypesoflisteningsupportandlisteningperformancewithproficiencylevelsbasedontheresultsofthelisteningsectionoftheTestofEnglishforInternationalCommunication(TOEIC).Resultsshowedthattheeffectsofthefourlisteningsupporttypesdifferedaccordingtoproficiencylevel.Thehighlisteningproficiencygroupoutperformedthelowlisteningproficiencygroupintheconditionofrepetitionoftheinput,andforthehighlisteningproficiencygroup,repetitionoftheinputwasmoreeffectivethananyotherinstructionaltreatment.Basedontheseresults,ChangandReadsuggestedthatthehighlisteningproficiencygroupwouldbenefitmorethanthelowlisteningproficiencygroupfromrepetitionoftheinput.
Elkhafaifi(2005)studiedtheimpactofpre-listeningactivities(vocabularyprevieworquestionspreview)andrepeatedlisteningexposureonlisteningcomprehensionscoresof111intermediateAFL(Arabicasaforeignlanguage)learners.Thestudentswatchedavideotapedlecturetwiceandweretestedontheircomprehensioneachtimewhentheyfinishedwatchingthevideo.Resultsshowedthatalthoughvocabularyknowledgeplayedasignificantroleinlisteningperformanceandprovidingcomprehensionquestionspriortothelisteningalsohelpedthestudentsachievesignificantlybetterlisteningscores,“multipleexposurestothelisteningpassageservedasthebestpredictoroflisteningproficiency”(p.510).Thisledtheauthortoconcludethat“thesinglemostimportantfactorinimprovinglisteningcomprehensionisrepeatedexposuretothelisteningpassage”(p.510).
O'BryanandHegelheimer(2009)usedamixed-methodapproachtoinvestigatetheuseandawarenessoffourintermediateESLstudents'listeningstrategiesoverthecourseofonesemesteratalargemidwesternresearchuniversityintheUnitedStates.Theyalsoinvestigatedtheimpactofrepetitiononlisteningstrategiesandonthedevelopmentofstudents'metacognitiveawareness.Fourstudents,twoundergraduatesandtwograduates,receivedaninformalwarm-upwithcasualconversationbeforelisteningtotwopassages,andabriefreminderofwhattheyweresupposedtodowhilelistening.Thiswasfollowedbyaverbalreportstagewhentheylistenedtothepassagesforthesecondtimeandvoicedtheirthoughts.Theresearchersfoundadifferenceinthestrategiesusedandlevelofcomprehensionattainedbytheparticipantsinthesecondlistening,andthusclaimedthatthesecondlisteningallowedlearners“tobuilduptomorecomplexbottom-upprocessingstrategies,namelyusinglexicalandgrammaticalrelationshipstocomprehendtheinputandutilizetheinformationgainedfromthetexttomakemeaning.”Theyarguedthat“havingtheopportunitytorepeatthetextiswhatfacilitatedthecreationofaframeworkthatresultedinamorecoherentsummarythesecondtime”(p.26).
Sakai(2009)examinedtheeffectsofrepeatedexposureinL2listeningtestsof36universitylearnersofEnglishinJapan.Theparticipantsweredividedintotwolisteningproficiencygroupsandwererequiredtowritewhattheyunderstoodafterlisteningtoasetofpassagestwice.Alltherecallprotocolswerescoredbytheresearcher,whoreportedhighreliability.Resultsshowedthatforbothgroupsoflearners,thesecondeffortwasbetterthanthefirsteffort,andthestudydidnotfindanyinteractionaleffectbetweenrepetitionandproficiencylevels.Theresearcherthusconcludedthattheeffectsofrepetition,regardlessofproficiencylevel,facilitatedlisteningcomprehensionofthepassagetoasimilardegree.Inanattempttoansweramoreinterestingresearchquestionabouttheeffectofrepetitiononidiosyncraticrecallprotocols(i.e.,additiveinformationthatdoesnotappearintheoriginaltext)andmisinterpretations(i.e.,incorrectrecallprotocols),resultsindicatedthatrepetitionhelpedbothgroupsoflearnersunderstandthetextfurtherandledtomoreprecisecomprehensionofthepassage.
Regardingtheinteractionaleffectbetweenrepetitionandproficiencylevel,itcanbeclearlyseenfromtheresearchreviewedabovethattheresultsofthesestudiesaremixed.Whereassome(e.g.,Chang&Read,2006;Lund,1991)reportedaninteractionaleffectbetweenrepetitionandproficiency,otherstudies(e.g.,Cervantes&Gainer,1992;Sakai,2009)didnot.Inanattempttointerpretthemixedresultsthatthesestudieshaveproduced,Sakai(2009)examinedtheresultsofChangandRead'sstudyandnotedthatrepetitionmayinfacthaveimprovedtheperformanceofbothproficiencygroups(highandlowproficiencygroups),butthechangesforthelowproficiencygroupswerenotsufficienttoachievestatisticalsignificance.AsforLund'sstudy,Sakai'notedthatLundfoundastatisticallysignificantinteractionaleffectonlyinoneofthetwoanalysesoftherecallprotocol.Inaddition,Sakaibelieved“themixedresultsofthepreviousstudiesmaybeduetodifferentanalysismethods”(p.369).Also,themixedresultsofthesestudiescanbeaccountedforbythefactthattheyuseddifferenttaskstoassesslisteningcomprehension(e.g.,afreewrittentask[Lund],amultiple-choicetest[Chang&Read],apartialdictationtask[Cervantes&Gainer],andafreewrittenrecalltask[Sakai]),whichonlyrequiredtesttakerstolistentopartofthepassages.
Oneresearchpurposeofthepresentstudyistoinvestigatetheeffectsofdifferentlisteningconditions,i.e.,ofsingleexposuretoalisteningpassage(listeningonetime)versusrepeatedexposuretoalisteningpassage(listeningthreetimes),onlearners'listeningcomprehensionandincidentalvocabularyacquisition.Aquestionofconsiderableinterestistheextenttowhichrepetitionassistsbothvocabularyacquisitionandlisteningcomprehension.Whilethereisclearevidencetosuggestthatrepetitionaidslisteningcomprehension,littleiscurrentlyknownaboutwhetherandhowrepetitionaidsvocabularyacquisition.
2.2.2.2Schema
Listeningisacomplex,activeprocessofinterpretationinwhichlistenersmatchwhattheyhearwithwhattheyalreadyknow(Vandergrift,2002).Backgroundknowledgeplaysacrucialroleinunderstandingalanguage.Itisoftentheabsenceorincompletenessofbackgroundinformationthatresultsinnon-comprehensionorincorrectcomprehensionthatL2listenersexperience.Inotherwords,“wherethelanguageelementinfactpresentsnoobstacle…itisthelackofsharedcontextualinformationorschemathatmakescomprehensiondifficultorimpossible”(Anderson&Lynch,1988,p.154).
Firstusedincognitivepsychology,theword“schema”hasbeenadoptedinanumberoffields.Inthecontextoflistening,“schema”refersto“amentalstructureconsistingofrelevantindividualknowledge,memory,andexperience,whichallowsustoincorporatewhatwehearintowhatweknow”(Anderson&Lynch,1988,p.139).Peoplehavethousandsofschemasintheirmemoryandtheseschemasareinterrelatedwithoneanother.Everytimeweareengagedinreading,listeningto,orobservingsomethingnew,byrelatingonefacttoanotherthroughlogicallinks,wecreatenewschemasandourexistingschemasareupdated.
ResearchintotheeffectsofschematicknowledgeonL2comprehensionhaspredominantlyfocusedonreading,ratherthanlistening.CarrellandEisterhold(1983)explainthatbackgroundknowledgeinthereaders'mindcanfacilitateL2readingcomprehension.Similarly,listeningisaninteractiveprocessandsuccessfullisteningcomprehensionrequiresaninteractionbetweenthelisteningcontextandthelistener'sexistingbackgroundknowledgewhichprovidesthemwithaframeofreferencewheretheycancombinethenewincominginputwiththeknowledgetheyalreadyhave.
ComparedwithL2readers,L2listenersfaceadditionaldifficultiesinmakingsenseofwhattheyhear,especiallyatlowerlevelsofproficiency,becauseinmostcasesspeechistemporary,lessclearlyproducedandmoreimplicitthanwrittenlanguage.Forthisreason,theroleofschematicknowledgehasbeenrecognizedasanimportantfactorthataffectslisteningcomprehension.BrownandYule(1983,p.248)describeschemaas“organizedbackgroundknowledgewhichleadsustoexpectorpredictaspectsinourinterpretationofdiscourse”.Theyexplainthatlisteners'backgroundknowledgeandpriorexperiencespredisposethemtoconstructexpectationsaboutsevenareas:speaker,listener,place,time,genre,topic,andco-textinordertointerpretthediscourse.Long(1989)furtherexplainsthatlearnersconstructmeaningduringthecomprehensionprocessthroughsegmentingandchunkingtheauralinputintomeaningfulunitsandthenactivelymatchingtheresultswiththeirexistinglinguisticandworldknowledge,aprocessthatenableslistenerstomakeinferences,whichisacognitivestrategyusedbylistenerstofacilitatecomprehension.Rost(1990,p.70)definesthebaseorschematicmeaningofatextas“theculturalandexperientialframeofreferencethatmakesatextinterpretablebyalistener”.
ToaddresstheroleofschematicknowledgeinfacilitatingL2listening,Long(1990)exploredtheeffectofbackgroundknowledgeonL2listeningcomprehension.StudentsofSpanishlistenedtotwopassages,onefamiliarandtheotherunfamiliar.ComprehensionwasassessedbyarecallprotocolinEnglishandarecognitionmeasure.Althoughnosignificantdifferenceswerefoundbetweenthefamiliarandunfamiliarpassages,Longattributesthisresulttothecontentofthechecklist,whichwaslessdifficultcomparedtotherecallmeasureandthuscouldhaveenhancedtheprobabilityofcorrectanswers.Similarly,inanattempttoexaminetheeffectoftopicfamiliarityonL2listeningcomprehension,Schmidt-Rinehart(1994)carriedoutastudyofuniversitystudentsofSpanishwholistenedtotwopassages,oneaboutafamiliartopicandtheotheraboutanoveltopic.Theresults,obtainedthroughanativelanguageimmediaterecallprocedure,showedthatthelearnersscoredconsiderablyhigheronthefamiliartopicthanonthenewone.Thestudyrevealsthatschematicknowledgeintheformoftopicfamiliarityisapowerfulfactorinfacilitatinglisteningcomprehension.
Tyler(2001)comparedtheresponsesofL1andL2listenerstospokentextswithorwithoutadvancedknowledgeoftopic.Hefoundthatpriorknowledgeofthetopicdidnotresultinanysignificantdifferencebetweenthetwogroupsinthedemandsplacedonworkingmemory.Nevertheless,whengivennopriorinformationaboutthetopic,thedemandsplacedonworkingmemoryweresignificantlyhigherfortheL2groupthanfortheL1group.Tylerthusconcludedthatbackgroundknowledgeassistscomprehensionbyfreeingupthelisteners'mentalresources,allowingmoreattentiontobedirectedatprocessingthelanguageinput.
AstudycarriedoutbySadighiandZare(2006)examinedtheeffectofbackgroundknowledgeonsomeupper-intermediate-to-advanced-levelIranianEFLlearners'listeningcomprehensioninpreparingfortheirTOEFLexam.Theexperimentalgroupworkedonthetopicsbyusingdifferentresourcessuchastheinternetbeforecomingtotheclass.Thecomprehensiontestresultsrevealedasignificantdifferenceinfavoroftheexperimentalgroup,whichlendsfurthersupporttotheimportanceofschematicknowledgeinlisteningcomprehension.
Besidesthestudiesinvestigatingtheroleofgeneralbackgroundknowledgebyexploringtheinfluenceoflearners'contentschemata,somestudies(e.g.,Hohzawa,1998;Chang&Read,2006)alsoincludedpre-listeningactivitiesoradvanceorganizerstopreparestudentsbyactivatingtheirbackgroundknowledgeaboutunfamiliartopics.Invirtuallyeverylisteningsituation,itisclearlyadvantageoustocomprehensionforlistenerstocallonknowledgefromtheirstoredprototypes.Oncetheknowledgeisactivated,additionalinformation,storedasrelatedschemata,becomesavailabletothelistener.Meanwhile,wheneveraknowledgestructureisactivated,thelisteneralsoexperiencesanaffectiveresponsewhichfurtherinfluencesconnectionswiththespeaker'sownideas,andelicitsanempathicresponse.
ActivationofpriorknowledgehasbeenshowntohavesalutaryeffectsonL2listeningsuccess(e.g.,Long,1990;Schmidt-Rinehart,1994).Researchintopre-listeningactivitieshasdocumentedpositiveeffectsonlisteningperformanceforadvanceorganizers(Chung,2002;Herron,Cole,York,&Linden,1998),questiontype(Flowerdew&Miller,2005),andquestionpreview(Elkhafaifi,2005).Thesestudieshavedemonstratedthatitishelpfultoprovidelearnerswithacontextbeforetheybegintolisten.
Mendelsohn(1995,p.140)identifiestheimportanceofpre-listeningactivitiesinfacilitatingL2listeningcomprehensionasthey“activatethestudents'existingknowledgeofthetopicinorderforthemtolinkwhattheycomprehendandtousethisasabasisoftheirhypothesis-information,prediction,andinferencing”.Providinglistenerswiththeknowledgeorcontextualsupportrequiredforthetaskcanorientthemtowhattheyareabouttolistento,thusdirectingtheirattentiontothetaskratherthanhavingthemlistenaimlessly.
Hohzawa(1998)foundthatprovidinglistenerswithachancetoactivatetheirpriorknowledgeaffectedcomprehensionandthekindofprocessingL2listenersdid.Hetestedthecomprehensionof58lowintermediateJapanesestudentsinanintensiveEnglishprogram,wherethestudentswereassignedto“backgroundinformation”and“nobackgroundinformation”groups.Studentstookaproficiencytestandweretestedontheirfamiliaritywiththetopicsofthreenewsstories.Thentheylistenedtothestories,wroterecalls,tookacomprehensiontest,andre-tookthefamiliaritymeasure.Inaddition,thestudentsinthe“backgroundinformation”groupheardtheintroductiontothenewsstoriesanddiscussedthecontentofthestoriesbriefly.Hohzawafoundthatstudentswhoestablishedbackgroundinformationtendedtousemoretop-downprocessesandthattheircomprehensionwasgreaterthanthestudentsinthe“nobackgroundinformation”group.
ChangandRead(2006)investigatedtheeffectivenessofprovidingfourtypesoflisteningsupporttoEFLlearners:topicpreparation,vocabularyinstruction,questionpreview,andrepeatedinput.Theresultsofthestudyshowedthatthemosteffectivetypeofsupportwasprovidingpriorinformationaboutthetopic.Inaddition,thefactthatmeanscoresofthehighandlowlevellanguagelearnersinthetopic-preparationgroupwerequitesimilarshowedthatprovidingbackgroundknowledgeaboutthetopicenabledthelowlevellearnerstocompensatefortheirlimitedlanguageknowledge.
AlAlili(2009)designedastudytodeterminewhetherlearners'listeningcomprehensionofanunfamiliartextwouldvaryasafunctionofdifferentadvancedorganizerstoactivatethebackgroundknowledge.ThreegroupsofArabic-speakingEFLlearnerswereinvolvedinthestudy.Inoneexperimentalgroupthecontentschema(knowledgeaboutthetopic)wasactivated,andtheformalschema(knowledgeabouttextstructureanddiscourseorganization)ofanotherexperimentalgroupwasactivated,andthecontrolgroupreceivedneithertypeofadvancedorganizer.Theresultsofalisteningcomprehensiontestindicatedthatlearnerswhosecontentbackgroundknowledgewasactivatedscoredslightlyhigherthanthosewhoseformalbackgroundknowledgewasactivated.Statisticalanalysis,however,showednosignificantdifferences.Nevertheless,basedonresponsestoapost-studyquestionnaire,thestudentsintheexperimentalgroupsperceivedthepre-listeningactivitiestobeveryhelpfulinenhancingtheirunderstandingandpredictionofthelisteningtext.Theresultsofthisstudysupporttheimportanceofhelpinglearnersmakeconnectionsbetweentheirexistingknowledgeandtheincomingauralinput.
Becauseofthedemandsoflistening,L2listenersarelikelytobeforcedtorelyontheirbackgroundknowledgetointerpretthetextmorethanL2readersare(Lund,1991).Itmaybethatpriorknowledgeactuallyprimeslinguisticformsandtheirmeaningsandallowslistenerstotakeabroaderviewofatextandmakepredictions(Conrad,1989).Inotherwords,itmaybethatpriorknowledgeallowslistenerstodevotelessworkingmemorytoprocessingtheinputlinguistically,andsotocomprehendmorewithlesseffort(Tyler,2001).
Tosumup,theresultsoftheresearchreviewedabovewerenotunanimousconcerningtheroleofschematicknowledgeinfacilitatingL2listening.Ontheonehand,Schmidt-Rinehart(1994)andSadighi&Zare(2006)foundsignificantL2listeningdifferencesinfavoroftheexperimentalgroupwithschematicknowledge,andtheythuslentfurthersupporttotheimportanceofschematicknowledgeinlisteningcomprehension.Ontheotherhand,Long(1990)andTyler(2001)couldnotfindsignificantdifferencesbetweenthegroupswithandwithoutpriorinformationontopic,thoughTylercommentedthatbackgroundknowledgeassistedcomprehensionbyfreeingupthelisteners'mentalresources,allowingmoreattentiontoprocessingthelanguageinput.Regardingtheroleofpre-listeningactivityinfacilitatingL2listeningcomprehension,schema-raisingactivitywasprovedtobeaneffectivetypeoflisteningsupportinenhancinglearners'understandingandprediction,foritbothhelpedthehigherlevellearnerstousemoretop-downprocessesandenabledthelowlevellearnerstocompensatefortheirlimitedlanguageknowledge.However,thesestudiesmadenoattempttoinvestigatetheeffectsofschemaraisingasatypeofpre-listeningtrainingonlearners'incidentalvocabularyacquisitionfromlisteningactivitiesandnoneofthestudieswasadministeredinaChinesecontext.
Oneoftheresearchpurposesconcerningthisstudyistoinvestigatetheeffectsthataschemaraisingactivitypriortolisteninghasonlearners'listeningcomprehensionandincidentalvocabularyacquisition.Aquestionofconsiderableinterestistheextenttowhichaschemaraisingactivityassistsbothvocabularyacquisitionandlisteningcomprehension.Whilethereisclearevidencetosuggestthatitaidslisteningcomprehension,littleisknowntodateaboutwhetherandhowaschemaraisingactivitypriortolisteningaidsvocabularylearningthroughlistening.