Language Teaching

http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA

Additional services for Language Teaching:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Recent developments in second and foreign language listening

comprehension research
Larry Vandergrift

Language Teaching / Volume 40 / Issue 03 / July 2007, pp 191 ­ 210

DOI: 10.1017/S0261444807004338, Published online: 20 June 2007

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0261444807004338

How to cite this article:

Larry Vandergrift (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research.
Language Teaching, 40, pp 191­210 doi:10.1017/S0261444807004338

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA, IP address: 138.73.1.36 on 05 May 2013

State-of-the-art article
Recent developments in second and foreign language listening
comprehension research

Larry Vandergrift Institute of Official Languages and Bilingualism,

University of Ottawa, Canada
lvdgrift@uottawa.ca

2002; Graham 2003) and, consequently, can become

Listening comprehension lies at the heart of language
a source of anxiety for L2 learners (Elkhafaifi 2005a).
learning, but it is the least understood and least researched
Research into L2 listening is important because
skill. This paper brings together recent research and
a better understanding of the process will inform
developments in the field of second and foreign language
pedagogy. Students who learn to control their
(L2) listening. It begins with a brief discussion of
listening processes can enhance their comprehension.
the different cognitive and social factors that impact
This, in turn, affects the development of other skills
listening, followed by a summary of recent research into
and overall success in L2 learning.
the development of perception skills and metacognitive
This paper brings together research and
knowledge. An integrated model for teaching learners how
developments in the field of L2 listening over the
to listen is then elaborated. In addition, recent research on
past six years. It begins with a critical overview of the
listening in multimedia environments, academic listening
methods employed to investigate listening. This is fol-
and listening assessment is presented. The paper concludes
lowed by an overview of recent research dealing with:
with a discussion of areas for further research, arguing that
the cognitive and affective dimensions of listening;
the process of listening needs more research attention with
approaches to teaching L2 listening; the use of tech-
in-depth studies that probe deeper into the interaction
nology in listening instruction; academic listening;
of the processes and factors that influence successful L2
and, finally, listening assessment. The paper concludes
listening.
with a discussion of areas for further research.

Listening comprehension is an important language 1. Investigating listening

skill to develop. Language learners want to 1.1 Investigating the product of listening
understand target language (L2) speakers and they
want to be able to access the rich variety of aural Traditionally, research has focussed on the product
and visual L2 texts available today via network- of listening. Listening comprehension test scores are
based multimedia, such as on-line audio and video, used to determine the success of an experiment with
YouTube, podcasts and blogs. Furthermore, listening two groups of learners. Both groups complete a pre-
comprehension is at the heart of L2 learning; and the test; the experimental group is exposed to a different
development of L2 listening skills has demonstrated condition (such as exposure to a different type of pre-
a beneficial impact on the development of other listening activity) and then both groups complete an
skills (e.g. Dunkel 1991; Rost 2002). Clearly, it is immediate post-test to determine the success of the
important to develop L2 listening competence; yet, experimental condition (e.g. greater comprehension
in spite of its importance, L2 learners are rarely taught than the control group). Sometimes a delayed post-
how to listen effectively (e.g. Mendelsohn 2001, test is used to assess the long-term effects of the
2006; Berne 2004; LeLoup & Pontiero 2007). experimental condition.
While we have learned more about the cognitive
nature of listening and the role of listening in
communication, L2 listening remains the least LARRY VANDERGRIFT is Professor at the Institute
researched of all four language skills. This may be of Official Languages and Bilingualism of the University
due to its implicit nature, the ephemeral nature of of Ottawa, Canada, where he teaches courses in FSL,
the acoustic input and the difficulty in accessing ESL and second language acquisition. He has published
the processes. In order to teach L2 listening more articles on various dimensions of L2 listening compre-
effectively, teachers need a richer understanding of hension and teaching in Language Learning, Applied
the listening process. A narrow focus on the right Linguistics, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
answer to comprehension questions (product) does The Canadian Modern Language Review, The
little to help students understand and control the Modern Language Journal, Foreign Language
processes leading to comprehension. Listening is Annals, and The French Review. He is currently a co-
often perceived by language learners as the most editor of The Canadian Modern Language Review.
difficult language skill to learn (e.g. Hasan 2000; Kim
Lang. Teach. 40, 191–210. doi:10.1017/S0261444807004338 Printed in the United Kingdom

c 2007 Cambridge University Press 191
Larry Vandergrift ■
Listening test scores can also be correlated with 1.2 Investigating the process of listening
the scores of other instruments that measure variables
hypothesized to influence L2 listening success. For A process-oriented approach to investigating L2
example, students may complete a questionnaire on listening can provide useful insights into the cognitive
a variable such as anxiety about listening, the use processes reported by the listeners. Retrospection
of listening strategies, or their level of background techniques such as questionnaires, stimulated recall
knowledge of the topic of the oral text to which they and interviews provide opportunities for listeners to
will listen. Although positive or negative correlations recall the listening experience at a later moment in
may point to interesting relationships between a time. Questionnaires administered after a listening
variable and listening success, it is not possible activity can provide insights into student awareness of
to prove causality. Uncovering the nature of that the process of listening and, when used as a repeated
relationship requires careful interpretation and may measure, track any changes in awareness of the listen-
be elucidated by more qualitative methods such ing process. Greater insights into changes in awareness
as interviews or stimulated recalls (of questionnaire can be achieved with a stimulated recall where the
data). listener is asked to reflect on any changes in response
Listening test scores may also be used to assign patterns over time on the same questionnaire (e.g.
a level of L2 listening proficiency to participants Vandergrift 2007). Interviews and listening diaries
in studies where L2 proficiency is a variable under can provide insights into the ways in which listeners
investigation. While such tests may provide a more deal with strategy training (e.g. Chen 2005) or their
objective criterion for assigning proficiency level perceptions of a new experience, such as the useful-
(rather than grade/course level or teacher assign- ness of a new advance organizer, a new strategy or a
ment), the generalizability of the results is limited new approach to listening (e.g. Goh & Taib 2006).
because they are often based on less reliable ‘in- Introspection techniques attempt to tap the
house’ placement tests instead of a more broad-based, thought processes of listeners as they are listening.
standardized, objective measure (Berne 2004). These This research method requires listeners to ‘think
tests may also be assessing only particular aspects aloud’ during pauses in the text, while listening to a
of listening ability (Buck 1991). The advantage recorded oral text. This is the closest researchers can
of test scores is that they are not labour-intensive come to tapping thought processes while information
and tests can be easily administered to large is still available to the listener in short-term memory.
groups. Think-aloud data are useful for shedding light on
Free recall protocols constitute another, more how listeners arrive at different interpretations of a
labour-intensive, product-oriented means for invest- text (e.g. Goh 2000), how they orchestrate cognitive
igating L2 listening success. When different groups and metacognitive strategies to construct meaning
listen to the same text that has been manipulated in (e.g. Vandergrift 2003b), or how they use visual and
some way for the experimental group (e.g. inserting aural information to understand videos (e.g. Gruba
pauses), differences in comprehension can be assessed 2004).
by having students write down everything that they Since listening is a covert process, observation is
recall from the text (e.g. Leeser 2004). These recall of limited value for investigating listening processes
protocols are then analyzed for the number of correct in one-way listening. However, when investigating
idea units, which will determine the level of listening bi-directional listening, observation of videotaped
success. The advantage of recall protocols is their interviews can provide some insights into the
capacity to assess what listeners are able to retain interactions between the speakers/listeners (Farrell &
without any question prompts. Mallard 2006). The video recording can be reviewed
While listening test scores and recall protocols by the researcher for evidence of the variable under
provide an objective measure for determining investigation (e.g. number and type of clarification
comprehension gains for research purposes, the strategies). Review of the recording with the research
reliability of these results is limited by the reliability participant, using stimulated recall immediately after
of the measure or, in the case of the recall protocols, the interview, provides an opportunity to discuss how
inter-rater reliability. Another limitation is the fact the participant either clarified meaning or helped the
that the measurement of listening comprehension is interlocutor to advance the conversation.
often confounded by other skills such as reading the All of the methodologies outlined above can
questions or writing the answers. Similarly, in the provide greater insights into the process of listening.
case of tests using aural prompts, memory becomes However, the reliability and validity of the resulting
a confounding variable. Most importantly, although data are often called into question. In order to
listening test scores tell us something about the overcome this limitation, researchers investigating
product, i.e. the level of listening success, they tell us a construct as implicit as L2 listening should use
nothing about the process; i.e. how listeners arrive multi-method assessment to collect convergent data.
at the right answer or why comprehension breaks Reliability can be enhanced when data from more
down. than one source are triangulated to provide a more
192
■ Listening comprehension research
complete picture of the construct under investigation; paralinguistic information, world knowledge, cultural
e.g. complementing videotaped data with a stimu- information and common sense – are used strategic-
lated recall on the video recording and a questionnaire ally by L2 listeners to compensate for their inadequate
(e.g. Cutrone 2005) or test scores with questionnaire knowledge of the target language. How language
data and interviews (e.g. Vandergrift 2007). While learners use these information sources while listening
these methods can provide greater insight into the will determine the degree of listening success.
process of listening, they are more labour-intensive.
2.2 Skilled L2 listening
2. Cognitive dimensions of listening Recent investigations of the differences between
more-skilled and less-skilled L2 listeners provide
2.1 Overview of listening processes greater insights into the ways in which listeners
Understanding spoken language is essentially an regulate these processes. These insights have been
inferential process (Rost 2002); linguistic knowledge gained through the use of introspective, think-aloud
and world knowledge interact in parallel fashion as protocols.
listeners create a mental representation of what they The importance of metacognitive strategies to
have heard (Hulstijn 2003). Listeners apply these L2 listening success emerges from these studies
knowledge sources using top-down and bottom-up (O’Malley & Chamot 1990; Goh 2002b; Vandergrift
processes (Lynch & Mendelsohn 2002; Rost 2002; 2003a; Chamot 2005). In a study of adolescent
Flowerdew & Miller 2005). Listeners favour top- learners of French, Vandergrift (2003a) found stat-
down processes when they use context and prior istically significant differences in strategy use: skilled
knowledge (topic, genre, culture and other schema listeners reported using about twice as many meta-
knowledge stored in long-term memory) to build cognitive strategies as their less-skilled counterparts.
a conceptual framework for comprehension. Top- Other statistically significant differences in the use of
down processes are developed through practice in specific strategies also emerged: skilled listeners re-
the use of compensatory strategies. Listeners favour ported greater use of strategies such as comprehension
bottom-up processes when they construct meaning monitoring and questioning elaboration (flexibility
by accretion, gradually combining increasingly larger in using a combination of questions and world
units of meaning from the phoneme-level up to knowledge in evaluating logical possibilities), while
discourse-level features. Bottom-up processes are less-skilled listeners reported greater use of on-line
developed through practice in word segmentation translation. A qualitative analysis of the participants’
skills. think-aloud protocols confirmed these differences
While it is generally agreed that these processes and further revealed that the more-skilled listeners
interact in some form of parallel distributed used effective combinations of metacognitive and
processing (Bechtel & Abrahamsen 1991), the degree cognitive strategies, described by Murphy (1985: 38)
to which listeners use one process more than the as ‘coupling strategies together like links in a fence’.
other will depend on purpose for listening, learner Goh (2002b) reported similar findings. Skilled L2
characteristics such as level of language proficiency, listening, therefore, is more than a question of num-
and the context of the listening event. A listener who bers of strategies used; it involves a skilful orchestra-
needs to verify a specific detail, for example, will tion of metacognitive and cognitive strategies to reg-
engage in more bottom-up processing than a listener ulate learning processes and achieve comprehension.
who is interested in comprehending the gist of a text. Interested in a better understanding of the less-
The speed and effectiveness of these processes skilled listener, Goh (2000) investigated the real-time
depends on the degree to which L2 listeners can listening difficulties experienced by L2 listeners and
efficiently process what is heard (Segalowitz 2003). analyzed these difficulties in light of Anderson’s
Native language (L1) listeners are able to process aural (1995) three-phase model of perceptual processing,
input automatically and efficiently, with little con- parsing and utilization. These three interconnected,
scious attention to individual words. Beginning-level recursive cognitive processes interact as listeners
L2 listeners, on the other hand, have limited linguistic construct a plausible interpretation of what they hear.
knowledge; therefore, little of what they hear can be During the perceptual processing phase (segmenting
automatically processed. They need to consciously phonemes from the speech stream) listeners reported
focus on what they are listening to, and a large the following difficulties: 1) not recognizing words, 2)
proportion of what they hear may be lost, given the neglecting what follows, 3) not chunking the stream
speed of speech and the inability of working memory of speech, 4) missing the beginning of the text, and
to process all the information within the time 5) concentration problems. During the parsing phase
limitations. How well L2 listeners cope with these (segmenting words and constructing a meaningful
limitations will depend on their ability to make use of representation of the meaning), listening difficulties
all the available resources to interpret what they hear. included: 1) quickly forgetting what is heard, 2)
Compensatory mechanisms – contextual, visual or an inability to form a mental representation from
193
Larry Vandergrift ■
words heard, and 3) not understanding subsequent boundaries are often hard to determine. Even if they
parts because of what was missed earlier. During know a word, L2 listeners may not always recognize
the utilization phase (using information sources it in concatenated speech. Research shows that L2
in long-term memory to interpret the intended listeners tend to segment on the basis of their L1
meaning), listening difficulties reported were: 1) segmentation procedures (Cutler 2001); this problem
understanding the words but not the message, and is particularly acute for lower-proficiency listeners
2) confusion because of seeming incongruencies (Goh 2000; Graham 2006).
in the message. Although these difficulties were How do listeners develop word segmentation
reported by all listeners, Goh (2000) noted that skills? These language-specific procedures are
the lower-proficiency listeners experienced greater acquired early in life and become so solidly
difficulty with word segmentation skills. These skills engrained in the listener’s processing system that
will be further explored in the next section. they are involuntarily applied when listening to a
While L2 listeners may need to develop better new language. This makes L2 listening particularly
word recognition skills, they must resist the difficult when the new language is not rhythmically
compulsion to mentally translate if they are to similar to L1. It is possible, however, for L2 listeners
become skilled listeners. An exclusively bottom-up to learn to inhibit the natural compulsion to apply L1
approach to L2 listening, often fostered by an language segmentation procedures to a rhythmically
overemphasis on bottom-up skills in listening different language (Cutler 2001).
instruction (Osada 2001), does not leave L2 listeners Which cues are used in word segmentation? Pros-
with adequate attentional resources to construct odic features such as stress and intonation are import-
meaning. Beginning-level listeners, in particular, ant cues for determining word boundaries, and there
must overcome the compulsion to translate. When is some evidence that calling attention to these fea-
they process the linguistic input without activating tures is helpful to listeners. Harley (2000) found that
top-down knowledge, listeners deprive themselves of paying attention to pause-bounded units rather than
access to contextual information that could facilitate syntactic cues proved fruitful in comprehending Eng-
the comprehension process (Liu 2003) through the lish, regardless of the age and language background of
use of a cognitive strategy such as inferencing to the listeners. A strategy of inserting word boundaries
compensate for unknown words. Comprehension before stressed syllables can also enable listeners to
breaks down unless listeners also activate top-down identify separate words in a stream of speech (Field
processes through the use of compensatory strategies 2005). Trusting in onset of words also appears to
and other relevant available information to inference be a reliable word recognition strategy (Field 2004),
what was not understood. likely due to the prosodic information accompanying
Hasan (2000) also investigated the problems the word (Lindfield, Wingfield & Goodglass 1999).
encountered by L2 listeners. Both Goh (2000) and Altenberg (2005) found that perceptual salience plays
Hasan cite difficulties associated with bottom-up pro- an important role, and that transfer and markedness
cessing such as missing parts of the text, not recogniz- may also be relevant to success in L2 segmentation.
ing words, problems resulting from unclear pronunci- Finally, research by Sanders, Neville & Woldorf
ation and rapid speech rate. These researchers arrive at (2002) demonstrated that L2 listeners used lexical
different conclusions, however, about the pedagogical information and stress cues to segment concatenated
implications of their findings (Graham 2006). speech, use of the latter depending on the listener’s
Whereas Goh recommends a combination of instruc- L1. Mapping of prosody to semantics appears to
tion in (bottom-up) word segmentation skills and be less efficient for L2 listeners (Akker & Cutler
(top-down) compensatory strategies such as inferen- 2003). However, knowing that listeners can learn
cing, Hasan recommends instruction in (top-down) to use segmentation cues differently in L2 than L1
compensatory strategies only. How (top-down) listening suggests that these processes are amenable to
compensatory strategies and (bottom-up) word seg- instruction. While word segmentation skills appear to
mentation skills are orchestrated through the effective be amenable to instruction, it is not clear how best to
deployment of metacognitive strategies to build do this and, at the same time, respect the contextual
meaning continues to be an important research nature of L2 listening. This will be discussed further
question for understanding the approach of the skilled in the section on teaching L2 listening.
L2 listener.
2.4 Explaining variance in L2 listening
2.3 Developing word segmentation skills An important question raised in the past (see e.g.
A major problem faced by the L2 listener is word Carton 1971; Anderson & Lynch 1988) but not
segmentation (Liu 2003). Listeners, unlike readers, examined until recently is the degree to which L1
do not have the luxury of regular spaces that signal listening ability might contribute to L2 listening
where words begin or end. The sound stream needs to ability. Until we know the answer to this question,
be parsed by listeners into meaningful units, and word we might, inadvertently, be measuring L1 listening
194
■ Listening comprehension research
ability and erroneously calling it L2 listening ability. Recent research by Cook & Liddicoat (2002) found
This question has already received significant research differences between higher- and lower-proficiency
attention in L2 reading (see e.g. Schoonen, Bossers listeners in the ability to process both contextual
& Hulstijn 1998). Results of a recent study on this and linguistic information in the comprehension of
question for L2 listening (Vandergrift 2006) indicated speech acts (request strategies). Listeners in the lower-
that L1 listening ability and L2 proficiency together proficiency group had more difficulty in interpreta-
could explain about 39% of the common variance in tion because they were forced to rely primarily on
L2 listening ability, L2 proficiency explaining about bottom-up processes; their comprehension processes
25% and L1 listening ability about 14%. These results were not sufficiently automatic for them to attend
are surprisingly similar to those reported for L2 to both contextual and linguistic information. In
reading comprehension (Bernhardt 2005). a more recent study, Garcia (2004) corroborated
Which factors, other than L1 listening ability, these findings and observed better comprehension
could potentially contribute to L2 listening ability? of conversational implicatures (understanding the
Preliminary evidence from research by French (2003) attitude and intentions of a speaker) by the higher-
suggests that phonological memory skill can predict proficiency listeners. Taguchi’s (2005) exploration
growth in listening ability and vocabulary learning, of conversational implicatures confirmed that less
particularly with children at a beginning level of conventional implicatures are more difficult and take
language proficiency. Mecartty (2000) also found longer to interpret than more conventional ones and
that vocabulary knowledge emerged as a significant that there is a strong proficiency effect for accuracy in
predictor, explaining about 14% of L2 listening interpretation of both types of implicature, but not for
ability. Grammatical knowledge, however, failed to speed of comprehension of these implicatures. Tagu-
emerge as a predictor. In their validation of the chi concluded that accuracy and speed may be two
Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire different dimensions of pragmatic comprehension.
(MALQ), Vandergrift et al. (2006) found that Recent work by Dipper, Black & Bryan (2005)
metacognitive knowledge could explain about 13% on ‘thinking for listening’ may help to explain
of the variance in L2 listening performance. how listeners use pragmatic knowledge to enrich
Clearly, this is an area for future research. The the linguistic input. They found that during the
validity and reliability of future research will likely utilization phase (Anderson 1995), listeners generate
be enhanced by building on current findings and familiar ‘conceptual events’ or scenarios from long-
additional factors that have been identified for term memory and match the emerging meaning
further investigation of this question (Vandergrift of the text or utterance against them. In adapting
2006). Research-based evidence of the factors that this scenario, according to Dipper et al., the listener
contribute to L2 listening ability can potentially goes beyond semantic meaning to consider the
inform the theory and teaching of listening. contextualized meaning intended by the speaker.
This is the process underlying the cognitive strategy
of elaboration (Vandergrift 2003a).
3. Social/psychological dimensions
of L2 listening
3.2 Bi-directional listening
L2 listening involves more than paying attention
to linguistic input and understanding the different In bi-directional listening, the listener plays the dual
cognitive demands made on the listener. Affective roles of listener and speaker. In this context, a listener
factors also influence listening success, and may use reception strategies such as clarification
comprehension can break down even if listeners requests (to signal a comprehension problem) and
arrive at a correct literal understanding of an aural receipt tokens (comprehension signals to move a con-
text or utterance. This section will discuss the social versation forward) in interaction with an interlocutor.
and psychological dimensions of L2 listening. Bi-directional listening may be easier than one-way
listening since it is generally more contextualized, and
listeners have the freedom to clarify meaning or to
3.1 Pragmatic comprehension ask the interlocutor to repeat or slow down. On the
Pragmatic comprehension involves the application of other hand, the cognitive demands are much heavier
knowledge about a speaker’s intention in a given since listeners must not only process the input in real
context, beyond the literal meaning of the utterance time, they also need to clarify their understanding
(Rose & Kasper 2001). Listeners use pragmatic when comprehension is uncertain, and then respond
knowledge, which is often culturally bound, to appropriately. Furthermore, the listener must also
make inferences and determine the speaker’s implied attend to paralinguistics, and other non-verbal or
meaning. Little research has been done on the applic- culturally-bound cues which can add to, or change,
ation of pragmatic knowledge to L2 comprehension, the literal meaning of an utterance (Harris 2003).
compared to the use of pragmatic knowledge by Status relationships between interlocutors can also
L2 speakers for creating appropriate utterances. affect comprehension and the freedom to negotiate
195
Larry Vandergrift ■
meaning, particularly in contexts where listeners feel Deci & Ryan 1995) and listening strategy use, an
they have little control, such as an interview (Carrier interesting pattern of increasingly higher correlations
1999). All of these factors add an affective dimension between the three levels of motivation (from
to bi-directional listening not found in one-way amotivation to extrinsic to intrinsic motivation) and
listening. use of metacognitive strategies emerged. Students
While L2 listeners may use clarification strategies who scored low on motivation, perhaps because
to signal a comprehension problem, they can also use of a lack of self-confidence and self-efficacy,
receipt tokens (uptakes or backchannels) to signal un- demonstrated a passive attitude towards L2 learning,
derstanding and move the conversation forward. Us- and also reported using ineffective listening strategies
ing an information-gap task, Farrell & Mallard (2006) such as mental translation. On the other hand,
found that listeners at three proficiency levels were students who indicated high levels of motivation
able to clarify meaning and advance the interaction appeared to engage in listening behaviours that
without specific strategy training; however, all listen- were more metacognitive in nature. Motivation and
ers tended to use primarily three strategies: backchan- metacognition appear to be elements that are part
nels to signal understanding, hypothesis testing of a cluster of variables contributing to variance in
to check understanding, and reprises to confirm L2 listening (Vandergrift 2006). Related research
understanding. The task likely had an effect on the by Graham (2006) on student perceptions of L2
nature of the reception strategies used. How listeners listening demonstrates the important role of learner
use backchannels can also affect the quality of the beliefs and attributions in listening success.
interaction. For example, Cutrone (2005) found that Language learners often comment on feelings of
Japanese learners of English, to be polite and to avoid anxiety associated with L2 listening and its effect
confrontation, used backchannels (nod, ‘mmm’) that on their performance (e.g. Horwitz 2001). Elkhafaifi
frustrated their English L1 interlocutors who were (2005a) found significant negative correlations bet-
not certain to what degree their partners understood ween listening anxiety, L2 learning anxiety, listening
them. Cutrone concludes that reception strategies not comprehension scores, and final grades among
shared by the cultures of speakers/listeners may lead learners of Arabic. This can likely be attributed to the
to negative perceptions and stereotyping of the other. evaluation component associated with the teaching of
The clarification strategies involved in negotiation L2 listening in these classrooms.
of meaning are crucial for comprehension and
language learning in interactional settings. Cabrera
& Martı́nez (2001) confirm the importance of
4. Approaches to teaching L2 listening
different types of interactional modification, such The image of L2 listening has changed considerably
as repetitions, comprehension checks and gestures, over the past fifty years. It is no longer viewed as a
in helping young children listen and comprehend. passive skill requiring minimal classroom attention.
Spanish-speaking children listening to English stories The teaching of L2 listening, mirroring overall
attained significantly higher levels of comprehension developments in language teaching methodology, has
when both interactional and linguistic adjustments moved from repetition exercises to discrete-point
were made, as opposed to linguistic adjustments only. comprehension to real-time listening with a focus on
Negotiation of meaning involves more than clarific- completing tasks that reflect real-life communication
ation of meaning, however. Foster & Ohta (2005) (Morley 1999). Furthermore, a range of teaching
discovered that, although very little negotiation of strategies are now recognized as essential for teaching
meaning occurred from a quantitative perspective, L2 listening: helping students to listen for gist,
a qualitative analysis of the utterances revealed how activating schema in pre-listening, and making
interlocutors in each dyad, in order to save face, predictions and inferences (Hinkel 2006).
actively supported each other in accomplishing the Whereas L2 listening instruction may have
task even when meaning may not have been entirely improved, it still focusses largely on the product of
clear. This study demonstrates how a qualitative listening: the correct answer. Answers may verify
analysis, from a sociocultural perspective in this case, comprehension but they reveal nothing about how
can provide interesting insights not observable using students arrived at comprehension or, more import-
quantitative analysis from a cognitive perspective. antly, how comprehension failed. Moreover, for the
L2 listener, a focus on the right answer often creates
a high level of anxiety. On the other hand, a focus
3.3 Affective dimensions of listening on the process of listening through regular classroom
There is some initial evidence for a positive rela- practice, unencumbered by the threat of evaluation,
tionship between motivation, use of metacognitive can help listeners to develop their listening skills.
strategies and listening success (Vandergrift 2005). This section will review recent research in
When listening test scores were correlated with teaching L2 listening within the broad framework of
motivation (grounded in self-determination theory, bottom-up and top-down approaches, followed by a

196
■ Listening comprehension research
discussion of a pedagogical model that attempts to can help listeners notice differences between their
integrate the two approaches. reconstructed text and a written transcription of
the original (Wilson 2003). Wilson argues that this
4.1 Bottom-up approaches to teaching technique can improve perceptual processing because
listeners can focus on their listening problems,
listening consider the reasons for their errors and evaluate the
An important component of L2 listening instruction importance of these errors.
is helping learners parse the linguistic input in order
to recognize words quickly. Listeners can acquire 4.2 Top-down approaches to teaching
word segmentation skills through opportunities to listening
‘accumulate and categorize acoustic, phonemic,
syllabic, morphological and lexical information’ 4.2.1 Developing metacognitive
(Hulstijn 2003: 422). Hulstijn describes a six-step knowledge
procedure for students to use: 1) listen to the Raising learners’ metacognitive awareness about
recording, 2) ask themselves whether they have listening has been advocated for some time now
understood what they heard, 3) replay the recording (Berne 2004; Mendelsohn 2006); however, empirical
as often as necessary, 4) consult the written text to research on raising L2 listeners’ awareness of the
read what they have just heard, 5) recognize what they listening process itself is a more recent development.
should have understood, and 6) replay the recording Questionnaires, listening diaries and discussions
as often as necessary to understand all of the oral can be useful reflection activities for the listener and
text without written support. Such an approach can the teacher to elicit and develop awareness of the
also call attention to other phenomena in connected listening process. A questionnaire, for example, was
speech such as reduced forms, assimilation, elision, used by Goh (2000) to determine that more-skilled
resyllabification and cliticization. Listeners need to listeners demonstrate a higher degree of awareness
be made aware of these phenomena, pay attention to of their listening problems. Questionnaires can also
them, and replay them so they can puzzle them out encourage listeners to apply strategies they consider
for themselves (Field 2003). to be useful (Zhang & Goh 2006). For example, the
A number of experiments have investigated MALQ can be useful for raising learner awareness
the effects of a bottom-up approach to teaching of the processes underlying L2 listening (Vandergrift
L2 listening. Kiany & Shiramiry (2002) provide et al. 2006). This 21-item questionnaire, grounded
empirical evidence for the use of dictation to improve in L2 listening theory, taps five distinct factors related
L2 listening performance. The effects of exact to metacognitive awareness and self-regulation of L2
repetition and reduced speech rate were examined listening: Problem-solving, Planning and Evaluation,
by Jensen & Vinther (2003). When listening to Mental Translation, Person Knowledge and Directed
videotaped dialogues in different modes, Fast (F) or Attention. Finally, listening diaries, with or without
Slow (S), all three experimental groups, F–S–S, F– prompts, can also stimulate awareness of listening
S–F and F–F–F, outperformed the control group and growth in metacognitive awareness and listening
in more detailed comprehension of the text and success (Goh 2002a; Valiente 2005).
in acquisition of phonological decoding strategies. Listening tasks which guide students through the
Reduced speed, however, did not account for better process of listening by engaging them in the use
performance since the F–F–F group outperformed of prediction, monitoring, evaluating and problem-
the other two experimental groups. The researchers solving can also help learners develop metacognitive
recommend that listening instruction should not knowledge that is critical for the development of self-
be a stand-alone activity; it should be integrated regulated listening. Both beginner-level elementary
with regular listening activities that allow students school students (Vandergrift 2002) and beginner-level
to ‘indulge in hypothesis work regarding all the university students of French (Vandergrift 2003a)
linguistic features’ (p. 419), a practice also advocated have commented on the power of predictions for
by Goh (2002b) and Hulstijn (2001). successful listening, the importance of collaboration
Training in perception can take many forms. More with a partner for monitoring, and the confidence-
recently, Goh (2002b: 40–42) and Field (2005) have building impact of this approach. Goh & Taib (2006)
outlined a number of different possibilities, including also found that this method, accompanied by teacher
analysis of parts of the text transcript, dictation, discussion, proved to be effective with young learners.
analogy exercises, as well as other remedial exercises. Growth in metacognitive knowledge can be
To develop automaticity in word recognition, L2 fostered through a process approach to listening
listeners can listen to ‘i-1 level’ texts, i.e. texts in development. Although studies in listening strategy
which they can recognize most words, and note slight instruction (Jin 2002; Carrier 2003) may report
discrepancies between the aural form and written positive results for the use of one or two strategies,
form of the text (Hulstijn 2001). The use of dictogloss this kind of instruction does not help learners to

197
Larry Vandergrift ■
improve overall as listeners (Field 2001) and it may listening to realistic texts so that L2 listeners develop
even be resisted by learners (Chen 2005). Given that real-life listening skills (Buck 1995; Goh 2002b;
skilled listeners appear to ‘orchestrate’ strategy use, Vandergrift 2003b; Field 2007a,b). Such listening
instruction should focus on a more holistic, process- practice, without the threat of evaluation, can help
oriented approach to L2 listening (see section 4.3 listeners gain a greater awareness of the metacognitive
below). processes underlying successful listening and learn to
control these processes themselves. The pedagogical
4.2.2 Using prior knowledge steps involved in this teaching sequence and the
The role of prior knowledge in facilitating successful metacognitive processes underlying each step are
L2 listening comprehension has long been established presented in figure 1.1
(Long 1990; Chiang & Dunkel 1992). Listeners can This pedagogical cycle develops both top-down
use advance organizers to activate prior knowledge and bottom-up dimensions of listening as well as
and develop a conceptual framework for inferencing metacognitive awareness of the cognitive processes
(top-down processing). These organizers can take a underlying successful L2 listening. Through an
variety of forms: pictures, video clips, key vocabulary orchestrated use of hypothesis formation and
presentation, class discussion, cultural information, verification, with the judicious application of prior
or question preview. More recently, Elkhafaifi knowledge to compensate for gaps in understanding,
(2005b) confirmed the importance of pre-listening listeners acquire knowledge about listening processes.
activities (question preview and vocabulary preview) Furthermore, matching all or parts of the aural text
for learners of Arabic listening to videotext; both with a transcription of text can help listeners develop
treatment groups outperformed the control group. awareness of form-meaning relationships and word
Furthermore, the question preview (multiple choice) recognition skills. It is important, however, that
group outperformed the vocabulary preview group. this step in the cycle take place only after listeners
In another study on different types of question have engaged in the cognitive processes that reflect
preview, Chung (2002) found that multiple choice real-life listening. If listeners are allowed access to
questions had a greater influence on listening success the written form too early in the cycle, they may
than open-ended questions. develop an inefficient on-line translation approach
An interesting study by Tyler (2001) illustrates the to listening (Osada 2001). L2 listeners must learn to
importance of background knowledge for freeing up rely only on those knowledge sources available to
attentional resources for processing linguistic input. them in real-life listening and learn to exploit these
When listeners had access to the topic through an cues judiciously to interpret what they hear.
advance organizer, differences between L1 and L2 Guiding listeners through this process as part of
listeners in working memory consumption were not regular listening activities can help them to improve
statistically significant. However, when the topic was overall as listeners (Field 2001, 2007a,b; Goh 2002b;
not available, working memory consumption for L2 Holden 2002; Vandergrift 2002, 2003a; Wilson
listeners was much higher. This is likely due to ineffi- 2003) and, in the case of videotext, it can help them
cient bottom-up processing, since word recognition to develop ‘playful media literacy’ (Gruba 2006).
skills of L2 listeners are not yet fully automatized. Students need repeated and systematic exposure to
Although prior knowledge is important for this same sequence of metacognitive processes used
facilitating comprehension, it can also be misleading by skilled listeners, and all tasks should be grounded in
when used dogmatically by the L2 listener. In their the same metacognitive cycle (see Vandergrift 2003b
recent systematic review of research on unidirectional and Goh 2002b for examples of other tasks). While
listening comprehension, Macaro, Vanderplank & the teacher will initially play a greater role, scaffolding
Graham (2005) note that listener use of prior should be gradually removed so that students do the
knowledge can lead to inaccurate comprehension work themselves and the process becomes automatic.
when it is not supported by corroborating evidence This approach, which reflects real-life listening, will
later in the text. This is the procedure underlying enable L2 learners to participate in communicative
the strategy of ‘questioning elaboration’ (Vandergrift activities outside of class at an early stage of language
2003a) used by more-skilled listeners. This strategy learning (Field 2007a).
underscores the importance of flexibility, continually This pedagogical cycle has strong theoretical
using a combination of questions and world support in that it closely parallels the research demon-
knowledge to evaluate possibilities and monitor for strating implicit learning through task performance
congruency as the interpretation of the text develops. (Johnston 2006). It also has empirical support. In

4.3 An integrated model for teaching L2 1

Listening is a purposeful activity and listeners generally approach
listening aural texts with a specific purpose. However, the goal of this
instructional model is to provide practice in developing overall
Given that listening is a strategic, meaning-building listening ability that involves understanding the main point of the
process, instruction should include ample practice in text and as much supporting detail as possible.

198
■ Listening comprehension research
PLANNING/PREDICTING STAGE
1. Once students know the topic and text type, they predict 1. planning and
types of information and possible words they may hear. directed attention

FIRST VERIFICATION STAGE

2. Students listen to verify initial hypotheses, correct as 2. monitoring
required and note additional information understood.

3. Students compare what they have written with peers, modify 3. monitoring,
as required, establish what needs resolution and decide on the planning and
important details that still need special attention. selective attention

SECOND VERIFICATION STAGE

4. Students selectively attend to points of disagreement, make 4. monitoring and
corrections and write down additional details understood. problem-solving

5. Class discussion in which all class members contribute to the 5. monitoring and
reconstruction of the text,s main points and most pertinent evaluation
details, interspersed with reflections on how students arrived at
the meaning of certain words or parts of the text.

FINAL VERIFICATION STAGE

6. Students listen for the information revealed in the class 6. selective
discussion which they were not able to decipher earlier and/or attention and
compare all or selected sections of the aural form of the text monitoring
with a transcription of the text.

REFLECTION STAGE
7. Based on the earlier discussion of the strategies used to 7. evaluation
compensate for what was not understood, students write goals
for the next listening activity. A discussion of discrepancies
between the aural and written form of the text could also take
place at this stage.

(Adapted from Vandergrift 2004)

Figure 1 Stages of listening instruction and related metacognitive processes.

a carefully controlled study conducted over the (particularly for the low-proficiency group). The
period of one semester, intermediate-level university aural-written verification stage proved to be
learners of French who were guided through this particularly valuable to the low-proficiency group
process approach to listening outperformed learners for developing auditory discrimination skills and to
in the control classes (Vandergrift 2007). Results the high-proficiency group for more refined word
showed a modest but statistically significant pre- to recognition skills.
post-test gain for the experimental group. To control Research on this approach to teaching L2 listening
for the mitigating effects of the teacher variable, needs to be replicated in other settings and with other
both groups were taught by the same teacher and languages, and potential applications to independent
the texts used in both groups were identical. The learning settings using multimedia environments
hypothesis that weaker listeners in the experimental also need to be explored. In order to compensate
classes would make greater gains than the weaker for the peer interaction not available in such
listeners in the control group was not confirmed. learning contexts, the element of monitoring could
Successful L2 listeners can also benefit from be programmed into the listening tasks through
this kind of listening practice. Mareschal (2007) techniques such as ‘pop-up windows’ of predictions
found that a low-proficiency and a high-proficiency that represent varying degrees of accuracy (based on
group of learners of French (two small groups actual L2 listener predictions). L2 listeners could then
of civil servants in language training) exposed to compare these ‘programmed’ predictions with their
this pedagogical cycle during an eight-week course own predictions, which could lead to more active
were both better able to regulate their listening monitoring and more focussed attention to the text
processes. Through the analysis of a completed in subsequent listening efforts.
listening questionnaire (MALQ), stimulated recalls,
think-aloud protocols, listening diaries and a final
summative report, Mareschal was able to document
4.4 Authenticity and L2 listening
how the listening training beneficially influenced The ultimate goal of listening instruction is to
the listeners’ self-regulatory ability, strategy use, help L2 listeners understand the target language in
metacognitive knowledge and listening success everyday situations. Authentic listening materials are
199
Larry Vandergrift ■
best suited to achieve this goal because they reflect especially important area for listening development
real-life listening, they are relevant to the learners’ and research (Tschirner 2001; Goodwin-Jones 2007).
lives, and they allow for exposure to different varieties This section will examine recent research on the
of language. In fact, exposure to authentic-type texts use of multimedia environments to improve listening
and natural speech rate is preferred by L2 learners and ability and facilitate vocabulary learning.
can be beneficial for listening development. When
they are taught how to listen without the threat of
evaluation, learners find it motivating to learn to
5.1 Listening to videotext
understand rapid, authentic-type texts (Vandergrift Visuals can provide context and non-linguistic input
2002, 2003b; Mareschal 2007) since this practice can to activate top-down processing. Video clips can also
help them more easily access similar texts in real- be used successfully to prepare students for listening
life listening. Exposure to such texts can result in (Wilberschied & Berman 2004). In fact, L2 listeners
greater gains in comprehension ability than exposure who view and listen simultaneously appear to use
to simplified texts only (Gallien 2001; Blanco 2002) more top-down processing strategies to compensate
and on-line lessons using authentic video and audio for inadequate linguistic knowledge than those who
can help language instructors prepare listeners for only listen (Seo 2002). Furthermore, opportunities
‘optimal work’ with the aural input (LeLoup & to interact with a visual component, such as ‘digital
Pontier 1997; Robin 1997). stories’, can enhance comprehension. In a carefully
On the other hand, there is also room for adapted controlled, longitudinal experiment with young
texts or some form of text grading in the listening children learning English, Verdugo & Belmonte
classroom. As pointed out by Richards (2006), it is (2007) demonstrated that weekly interaction with ‘an
very difficult to find truly authentic texts appropriate internet-based technology’ using songs, games and
for beginner or low-proficiency listeners. Therefore, stories resulted in greater comprehension gains than
at beginning levels of language learning, texts that regular textbook-based listening activities.
approximate authentic form, and use appropriate Multimedia environments allow listeners to work
cultural and situational contexts as found in texts with audio, visual and text, in addition to other types
used by native speakers can serve a useful role in of support (e.g. annotations, dictionaries). Pictorial
developing L2 listening ability (Rogers & Medley support and written annotations can help L2 listeners
1988). However, authentic contexts, form and acquire more vocabulary and recall the aural text
speech rate should not be sacrificed in the interest better than pictorial annotations only or written
of simplifying L2 listening for the language learner annotations only (Jones & Plass 2002). Furthermore,
(Jensen & Vinther 2003). In their investigation of pictorial annotations have a stronger and longer-
preferred rate of speech by L2 listeners, Derwing & lasting effect than written annotations, both for
Munro (2001) found that adjusting the rate of speech vocabulary retention and retention of comprehended
did not result in improvements in listener ratings information. The use of written or pictorial
of ‘too fast’ or ‘too slow’. These results, along with comprehension measures also appears to make a
other studies, lead these researchers to conclude that difference (Jones 2004). While the visual component
slowing down the rate of speech is not necessarily is helpful for purposes of comprehension, listeners
helpful for comprehension purposes. need written support for purposes of production.
The question of the variety of language in listening Listening success in multimedia environments
instruction is explored by Fox (2002). She proposes may be related to spatial ability (Hernández 2004).
a model for the introduction, over time, of a number Listeners with high spatial ability appear to perform
of varieties of language, and social and situational better with visual support whereas those with low
variants within each variety. Students will 1) listen to spatial ability perform equally well in audio only and
language heard by L1 speakers in authentic contexts, multimedia environments.
2) speak with one accent but learn to understand Widespread availability of video with multilingual
many others (based on L1 speakers’ idealized view soundtracks and captions offers L2 listeners the choice
of their own linguistic behaviour), and 3) understand of written support in either L1 or L2 to enhance
careful speech of educated L1 speakers, based on L1 comprehension. Markham, Peter & McCarthy (2001)
speakers’ expectations of what is appropriate for L2 compared the effects of different captions on listening
learners. to a short DVD segment. The L1 captions group
outperformed the L2 captions group who, in turn,
5. Listening in multimedia outperformed the no-captions group. On the other
hand, Stewart & Pertusa (2004) found that, after
environments watching two full-length films, those with L2 subtitles
The benefits of technology for listening instruction recalled slightly more vocabulary than the L1 group.
have been demonstrated since Joiner’s (1997) call In a post-study questionnaire, listeners in the L2 sub-
for more research in the area. New emerging titles group responded positively to the experience,
technologies and increased accessibility make this an reporting a greater ‘connection’ between the text and
200
■ Listening comprehension research
the sound track. In a subsequent experiment with a task. Computer tracking can often offer real-time
shorter film, the L2 group clearly outperformed the immediacy and insight into the listener’s work
L1 group. Stewart & Pertusa speculate that the length strategies; however, the use of web tracking data
of the films in the first study may have had a negative needs to be approached cautiously and the input data
impact on the listeners’ ability to recall the words, carefully scanned for irregularities (Weinberg 2005).
even though they may have been understood. They These data become more useful when complemented
rightfully argue that students will not learn to listen by stimulated recall protocols.
if they read in L1 to understand L2 aural texts. When listeners complete a listening task on
Visual information from videotext that comple- their own, their individual behaviour patterns
ments the audio track provides valuable support to (e.g. resources consulted, pauses, replays) can be
L2 listeners, particularly in the case of beginning-level quantified and correlated with performance on a
listeners. It is not always clear, however, how listeners final comprehension measure. For example, Roussel,
process both types of information simultaneously. Rieussic & Tricot (2006) compared the performance
Based on an analysis of listener think-aloud protocols, of three groups of listeners at different levels of
Gruba (2004) concluded that visual information proficiency who each listened to similar texts on
interacts differentially with aural information as different topics under different conditions: 1) listened
the listener develops a fuller understanding of the once, 2) listened twice, and 3) regulated their own
videotext. Gruba outlines a framework of meaning listening. Overall, each group recalled more idea units
construction useful for further research into the under the self-regulation condition, although there
interplay between visual and aural elements in the was a wide range of differences in performance. The
comprehension of videotext. difference in performance under the three conditions
was much less pronounced in the highest proficiency
5.2 Developing bottom-up listening skills group than in the other groups. In the self-regulated
condition, the advanced group used pause and replay
Digital technology is particularly useful for the
more actively than the two other groups, suggesting
development of perception skills. Multimedia
that they knew exactly what needed verification
software such as 123LISTEN (Hulstijn 2003) can
or closer attention. In another study, using web-
be used to segment digitized video or audio texts
delivered ESL lectures, Smidt & Hegelheimer (2004)
into short chunks, each segment accompanied by a
were able to ascertain, through an analysis of the
written transcript of the text. Listeners then choose
answers to comprehension questions, that students
one of three modes of listening: 1) non-stop listening
consulted the slides and transparencies rather than the
without the text, 2) listening by segment with
oral text. This finding helped explain why listening
delayed text display, and 3) listening by segment
comprehension did not improve significantly in this
with simultaneous text display. Hulstijn argues that
study, leading the researchers to conclude that the
the real value of this software is the second mode
incidental acquisition of vocabulary was likely due to
where students listen first and then try to interpret
reading, not listening.
what they are hearing. Only after attempting to
Hegelheimer & Tower (2004) examined the types
understand what they have heard (using prediction
of help functions students used and their relationship
and monitoring strategies) should students verify
with course performance. For listening, the ‘repeat
their understanding using text display to read the
previous sentence and transcription’ function, used
words in the segment. In a similar vein, a forthcoming
more by the lower-proficiency group, was negatively
initiative (see Hoeflaak 2004) will provide training in
related to performance, compared to the high
perception skills for French with a detailed feedback
proficiency group who rarely used this function. It
function based on a corpus of learner errors. In
is not clear when the listeners used this function;
another European initiative – EuroCom – Klein &
however, this behaviour may be evidence of the
Robert (2004) report on the use of online-tutorials
compulsion to translate often exhibited by beginner-
(focussing on decoding skills) for the acquisition
level listeners who have not learned how to use
of listening and reading competence in Italian,
contextual information and compensatory strategies
Romanian and Spanish. All of these initiatives hold
to predict and monitor (Osada 2001; Liu 2003). Use
great promise for developing perception skills and
of help functions (subtitles or transcripts) was further
will make an important contribution to L2 listening
explored by Grgurović & Hegelheimer (2007), this
in independent learning environments.
time with students listening to an academic lecture.
Overall, students interacted with subtitles more
5.3 Tracking on-line listener processing frequently and longer than with transcripts when
Computer technology is helpful for tracking the comprehension broke down. Surprisingly, students
interaction between listener, oral text, information did not use the help functions as often as anticipated,
sources used, time spent with each resource and particularly the lower proficiency listeners. Studies
decisions made (Liou 2000). This can provide on the use of help functions in multimedia settings
some insights into how listeners process a listening are helpful for determining what listeners deem to
201
Larry Vandergrift ■
be useful for comprehension purposes. As suggested parts, 2) type of word (technical terms, in this case),
by Rost (2007), we cannot assume that providing 3) type of word elaboration (implicit or explicit),
listeners with more help options will necessarily lead and 4) frequency of word occurrence. Understanding
to better learning outcomes. lectures involves more than a literal understanding
Research has demonstrated that students can of words, however. Use of metaphorical language
develop word segmentation and word recognition in lectures can lead to misunderstandings by
skills in multimedia environments. However, the L2 listeners (Littlemore 2001). Misunderstandings
potential of technology for teaching students how are more serious than non-understanding, since
to develop real-life listening skills has yet to be listeners can use clarification strategies to remedy
demonstrated (Jones 2006). While technology can comprehension when they do not understand.
potentially prepare students for real-life listening, are Littlemore recommends that lecturers increase
they able to transfer these skills to real-life contexts? redundancy, stating the same information in a
In her recent overview of research on listening different way, to alleviate this problem.
in multimedia environments, Jones cites five more Visual input (e.g. facial expressions, gestures,
areas for future research: 1) the extent to which illustrations, videos, slides) is often an integral part
visual support can actually reduce cognitive load for of the message and so the information will have to be
the listener, 2) the long-term effects of learning in processed simultaneously with auditory input (Gruba
multimedia environments, 3) the development of 2004). For example, gestures and facial cues can
vocabulary using aural testing strategies, 4) the effect facilitate the comprehension of videotaped lectures;
of student collaboration on learning in multimedia however, the degree to which these cues are used will
environments, and 5) the effectiveness of computer- vary as a function of listening proficiency (Sueyoshi
based feedback (Jones 2004). & Hardison 2005).
A system of ‘lecture buddies’ can help L2 listeners
better cope with academic listening demands. This
6. Academic listening system helped L2 listeners to better prepare for
Given the increasing number of overseas students lectures through pre-lecture discussion of class
who pursue their studies in English, academic readings with their ‘buddy’, to write better notes and
listening continues to be an important focus for L2 to clarify their understanding of the lectures with
listening research (Lynch 2006). Because of its unique their ‘buddy’ after lectures (Mendelsohn 2002).
focus and context, research on academic listening in The nature of academic listening is changing with
this review is examined separately from other types the increased use of Powerpoint and other visuals
of communicative one-way listening. in lectures. Research in multimedia environments
Discourse signalling cues can affect comprehension (Gruba 2004; Smidt & Hegelheimer 2005) is
of information in a lecture. Listeners who had the inconclusive about the value of written visual support
benefit of these cues accurately recalled more high- for academic lectures. McKnight (2004), for example,
level information units (main ideas) and low-level found that students focussed their attention on
information units (supporting or exemplifying the copying the visually presented material instead of
main ideas) (Jung 2003). Jung suggests that listeners listening to the lecture. More research is needed on
may benefit more from discourse signalling cues the interaction between visual and text in lecture
when the 1) text structure is not evident, 2) text type comprehension.
is known to the listener, 3) listener has the required
background knowledge for text topic, and 4) text
is unscripted. Interactive discourse structuring – the
7. Focussing on form in L2 listening
use of metadiscursive comments such as ‘First, let’s Although L2 listeners focus primarily on meaning,
look at’ or ‘what I will do now is’ – can also facilitate to what degree are they also able to pay attention
lecture comprehension, particularly for L2 listeners to form as they process what they hear? As
(Camiciottoli 2004). pointed out by Izumi (2003), the resourceful nature
Academic lectures can provide L2 listeners with of the comprehension process allows L2 listeners
rich input for vocabulary acquisition because of to understand yet-to-be acquired structures. Can
their focus on a defined topic and their inherent receptive training help listeners to focus on these
redundancy. In a carefully controlled experiment, structures and acquire them?
Vidal (2003) observed significant vocabulary gains Receptive training appears to provide learners
after students listened to three short lectures on with a knowledge base for comprehension. Arteaga,
the impacts of tourism. Four weeks later, both Herschensohn & Gess (2003) report that beginning-
groups had lost some of the vocabulary gains, level French students trained to use phonological
the higher proficiency group losing more than information in processing morphological infor-
the lower proficiency group. Word-related features mation performed better on an auditory discri-
that appeared to influence vocabulary acquisition mination task than a group receiving traditional
included 1) predictability from word form or word orthographic training. A context-based focus on
202
■ Listening comprehension research
phonological form allowed students to acquire the vs. summative), and 5) the affective dimension of
rule of gender agreement for adjectives as well as an assessment (anxiety).
increased ability in perceptual phonology. In a similar,
carefully controlled experiment with beginning-level
learners of Spanish, DeJong (2005) examined the
8.1 Construct validity
effect of receptive training in adjective agreement on Construct validity is important for assessment because
the processing speed of meaningful sentences. The it entails defining the construct, operationalizing the
listening groups were able to process the sentences behaviours that need to be assessed and then creating
with the target structure more quickly; however, the tasks (appropriate texts and response items) to elicit
acquired knowledge base that allowed for more rapid these behaviours. Construct validity in L2 listening
aural processing was not available for the production assessment is a particular challenge, given the covert
task. nature of listening. Listening processes are difficult
The effects of topic familiarity, mode of processing to verify empirically, and they interact in complex
(reading and listening) and pausing on the processing ways with different types of knowledge. Ultimately,
and comprehension of a perceptually salient structure comprehension can only be inferred on the basis
in Spanish were examined by Leeser (2004). Pauses of task completion. New research has uncovered
in texts on familiar topics did not increase listening important insights into the listening process; however,
comprehension, and recognition of the targeted more introspective studies, along the lines of Buck
form occurred in the reading protocols only. Leeser (1991) and Ross (1997), would deepen our under-
suggests that this is likely due to the nature of the standing of what motivates listener response, and
stimulus materials. In the De Jong and Arteaga et al. how variables such as task-type, knowledge-types and
studies, the targeted forms were embedded in listening processes interact in determining listener
meaningful, isolated sentences. In contrast, in the response.
Leeser study, the targeted form was embedded in Generally, the purpose of the listening test and
connected discourse (a short narrative). The effort the context of language use will guide construct
listeners expended for comprehension likely did not definition (Buck 2001). However, target language use
leave enough cognitive resources for them to attend cannot be clearly defined for general proficiency tests
to the targeted form in the same way as in the reading and L2 classroom assessment. For these uses, Buck
mode. Wong (2001) found similar comprehension (2001: 114) proposes a default listening construct that
differences when listeners attended to form (a definite assesses:
article) compared to when they attended to meaning
(a key lexical item). the ability to 1) process extended samples of realistic spoken
In order to overcome attentional constraints language, automatically and in real time; 2) understand the
linguistic information that is unequivocally included in the text;
and still make listening instruction a vehicle for and, 3) make whatever inferences are unambiguously implicated
language acquisition, Richards (2005) proposes by the content of the passage.
attention to form as a second phase of listening
instruction, following a focus on comprehension. This construct is sufficiently flexible and broad to fit
This phase of a listening lesson, appropriate for most contexts, and to allow listeners to demonstrate
classes where comprehension and acquisition are their comprehension ability.
both relevant goals, would consist of noticing Research into the assessment of listening surfaced
activities (to focus on the form) and restructuring new factors for consideration and highlighted the
activities (communicative practice in using the difficulty of finding conclusive empirical evidence
form). As proposed by Richards, the focus could be for grounding assessment tools. In an attempt to find
on any relevant language form, not merely on those empirical evidence for some of the competencies
that are perceptually salient (as in the above studies). underlying academic listening, based on theorized
This two-part instructional strategy merits research listening taxonomies, Wagner (2002) examined the
for its effectiveness in facilitating short-term and construct validity of a video-based test guided by a
long-term acquisition of a particular language form model of six competencies and two factors (bottom-
and its effect on overall listening development. up and top-down processing). Some evidence for a
two-factor model emerged; however, instead of the
hypothesized top-down and bottom-up factors, the
8. Listening assessment two factors that emerged were the ability to process
This section focusses on issues relating to the 1) explicitly stated information, and 2) implicitly
assessment of L2 listening as reflected in the most stated information. Wagner attributes the lack of
recent research literature published since Buck’s definitive results to the difficulty in differentiating
comprehensive treatment of the question in 2001. between listening processes that appear to occur
These issues appear to be 1) what is assessed (construct simultaneously. Research by Wagner, important to
validity), 2) task characteristics (task type, item type), empirically operationalizing the listening construct,
3) mode of input, 4) type of assessment (formative demonstrates the enormous difficulty of the task.
203
Larry Vandergrift ■
8.2 Task characteristics and testing 8.3 Mode of input
conditions Mode of input for listening assessment is receiving
Speech rate and response mode deserve attention more research attention with the increased availability
in assessment, based on research demonstrating their of multimedia and digital technologies. Test
effects on task and item difficulty. Brindley & Slayter developers are interested in determining the relevance
(2002) found that the complex interactions among and usefulness of visual support in the assessment
the different components of a task make it difficult to of L2 listening. Coniam (2001) found that students
identify the difficulty level of an item. In this study, listening to an audio version of an educational
adjusting one task variable did not necessarily make discussion obtained higher comprehension scores
the task easier or more difficult, since task difficulty than a group listening to the video version. Over
proved to be a function of interaction between 80% of the video group felt that the video had
listener characteristics and task characteristics. The not facilitated comprehension and they expressed
speech rate variable, for example, is difficult to op- preference for audio. Ginther (2002) investigated
erationalize when rates vary throughout a text. This the relative effect of two kinds of visuals on the
has repercussions for the text-type variable. Other comprehension of mini-talks in the computerized
task characteristics can affect task and item difficulty. TOEFL test. Content visuals (pictures related to
Speaker accent and dialect, for example, can bias tests the actual content of the verbal exchange) slightly
against ESL listeners (Major et al. 2002, 2005). enhanced comprehension; however, context visuals
Research demonstrates that the interaction (pictures that set the scene for the upcoming verbal
between the components of listening assessment exchange) were found to be less useful.
may be as important as the components themselves. Given that visual support in L2 testing may
Rupp, Garcia & Jamieson (2001) used multiple only be marginally useful, do test-takers actually
regression analysis (MRA) and classification and watch the video monitor? Wagner (2007) found
regression tree (CART) to examine item difficulty. that listeners do pay attention to the video monitor
While MRA pointed to text characteristics and text- (on average 69% of test time) rather than to the
item interaction as contributors to item difficulty, test materials only and that a greater percentage of
CART showed how these overlapped in different time was given to watching the dialogues than the
combinations in easy versus difficult items. Although lecturettes. In contrast to the listeners in the Coniam
increased item difficulty was commensurate with study, the listeners in Wagner’s study supported the
increased sentence length, word count and type- use of videotext in listening assessment and did not
token ratio, these variables were influenced by find video distracting. Similar findings were reported
information density, lexical overlap with distracters, by Feak & Salehzadeh (2001) concerning the
item type and type of match. Furthermore, Cheng development and validation of a listening placement
(2004) determined that response format has a test using video. Multiple speaker interactions,
significant effect on listening test performance. where the visual complemented the spoken element,
Students completing multiple choice cloze items were judged by both students and instructors to
outperformed students who completed traditional be a valid test of language use in diverse academic
multiple choice items who, in turn, outperformed environments. Given the increased use of multimedia
students who completed open-ended questions. classrooms, more research is needed in this area.
The effect of note taking has also been examined.
Carrell, Dunkel & Mollaun (2004) concluded that
note taking during a computer-based listening test 8.4 Formative vs. summative assessment
may help L2 listeners, depending on the length of An important study by Ross (2005) demonstrates
the lecture, the topic, and listener proficiency. Jotting that formative assessment methods can have a positive
down notes can compensate for memory constraints impact on L2 listening success. Differences in TOEFL
and enhance face validity of the test. listening and reading sub-scores were tracked over a
Acknowledging that audio, as well as video, will period of eight years for any evidence of change in test
play a prominent role in teaching and assessing performance as a result of a shift in classroom assess-
L2 listening, Read (2002) investigated the effects ment from product-oriented, summative procedures
of types of aural texts. Students listening to a to more process-oriented, formative approaches. The
scripted monologue outperformed those listening three analyses of achievement and proficiency growth
to an unscripted discussion of the same content. pointed to gains in listening (but not reading) for
These results conflict with earlier findings that the formative assessment cohort. In explaining these
aural texts incorporating unscripted dialogue were results, Ross speculates that shifting the locus of
easier to understand (Shohamy & Inbar 1990). Read control to students through more ‘process-oriented
attributes this discrepancy to the complexity of the portfolios, self-assessment, peer-assessment, group
text variables and concludes that listening tests should projects and cooperative learning tasks’ (p. 337) may
include a variety of input reflecting a range of genres. lead to increased learner engagement. The results
204
■ Listening comprehension research
of this large-scale, carefully designed, longitudinal the three listening phases posited by Anderson (1995),
study have important implications for L2 listening but provide more detailed insight into the interaction
instruction. of various components. This model merits further
exploration, particularly for explaining how listeners
8.5 Affective dimensions of L2 listening might build a mental model of the text in memory.
assessment Further research into the factors that contribute
to variance in L2 listening can also help to
On the affective side of assessment, Arnold (2000) and inform a model of L2 listening and help teachers
In’nami (2006) examined the effects of anxiety. Based better understand what needs to be emphasized
on listening test scores and questionnaire data, Arnold in listening instruction. There is evidence that
demonstrated the positive effects of visualization- metacognition, L1 listening ability and L2 vocabulary
relaxation training exercises on improving listening are significant contributors. Other hypothesized
performance and on changing the listening test factors such as sound discrimination ability, working
beliefs of advanced EFL learners. Other research by memory capacity, and prior knowledge need to be
In’nami, using structural equation modelling, led him explored. Furthermore, based on Bernhardt’s (2005)
to conclude that test anxiety is an anxiety problem work in L2 reading, these factors should be examined
in general, and does not influence listening test as a cluster of variables, rather than one at a time, to
performance. He suggests that personal characteristics account for potential interaction of these variables.
such as self esteem, high proficiency and successful
experience with tests may explain these results. 9.2 Teaching listening
These results, in concert with those of Ross (2005),
highlight the potential contribution of formative Past research often focussed on the pre-listening phase
assessment procedures to developing listener confid- of instruction, investigating the success of various
ence and to changing learner beliefs about listening. types of preparatory activities or advance organizers
in enhancing comprehension. More research is
9. Directions for future research needed on pedagogical approaches that focus on the
actual process of listening and help language learners
Recent research in L2 listening, as noted in this improve overall as listeners, as advocated by Field
review, has led to some new insights into the processes (2001, 2007b), Goh (2002b) and Lynch (2006).
underlying listening, as well as the teaching and Integrated approaches that teach students how to
assessment of this skill. Research results are not always regulate top-down and bottom-up approaches need
consistent; however, some of the research is prelim- to be investigated in carefully controlled classroom
inary and gaps remain. We now turn to a discussion studies (Berne 2004). In that light, studies that teach
of research questions that can advance theorizing in students how to listen, such as the study reported
L2 listening and further our understanding of how by Vandergrift (2007), need to be replicated with
to teach this skill. In particular, the use of emerging different languages in different contexts. Similarly,
technologies for teaching and learning L2 listening is the types of interventions proposed by Rost (2007)
becoming an increasingly promising field for research. in multimedia environments need to be fleshed out
and empirically verified.
9.1 Listening processes In recent years, attention to form in L2 listening has
emerged as a promising new area of research, given
Although difficult to investigate, listening processes
the salience of listening in language learning. It will be
need to be better understood. More research on
constrained, however, by forms that are perceptually
the knowledge sources and processes involved in
salient. Research on an ‘acquisition phase’ of
listening at different proficiency levels can inform
listening (subsequent to a ‘comprehension phase’), as
pedagogy. More in-depth studies that probe the
advocated by Richards (2005), can also lead to greater
listener’s decision-making processes, while engaged
understanding of how transcriptions of an aural text
in different listening tasks, are important for the
can be exploited during a post-listening phase to
advancement of listening theory.
draw attention to language form. However, this
Compared to the other language skills, very few
conceptualization of attention to form and listening
theoretical models have emerged for L2 listening
is somewhat different, given that listeners work with
and no progress has been made during the last few
a written version of the aural text while listening.
years. This is likely due to the implicit nature of
listening; listening processes cannot be observed
and any hypothesized models are difficult to verify
9.3 Bi-directional listening
empirically. The Levelt (1995) speaking model has Bi-directional listening does not receive sufficient
not received much attention as a comprehension research attention (Lynch 2002) or classroom
model after initial work by Dörnyei & Kormos attention (Morley 1999), considering that this is what
(1998). Its three components (acoustic-phonetic listeners do most in real-life listening. The classroom,
processor, parser and conceptualizer) appear to match however, is a rather artificial environment for learning
205
Larry Vandergrift ■
since interaction with L1 speakers other than the assessment, and listening for personal enjoyment, this
teacher is rarely possible. Research on teaching question needs to be examined in all three conditions.
listeners in classroom settings how to negotiate
meaning, clarify misunderstandings and contribute 9.5 Listening assessment
appropriately to conversations with a more proficient
speaker would enhance our understanding of this Further studies to define the listening construct will
dimension of L2 listening. be useful for model building and listening assessment.
As mentioned earlier, research has demonstrated that
interaction between the various components of a test
9.4 Listening in multimedia environments may be as important as the components themselves.
Introspective studies are required to probe more
New technologies offer seemingly endless possibilit- deeply into the decisions a listener makes while
ies for exploring aural and videotexts: repeated audio engaged in different types of assessment tasks.
delivery, slowed audio text delivery, transcribed texts Knowledge about the role of anxiety in listening
to accompany webcasts, captioned video, translation assessment remains inconclusive. Familiarizing
bots and voice chats (Robin 2007). How listeners use listeners with different strategies for dealing with
new technologies, the choices offered to the listener the affective dimension of listening and language
in accessing the text, and how the listener exploits learning (see e.g. Oxford 1990), and investigating
those choices continue to be important avenues for their effectiveness through questionnaires and in-
research into listening comprehension in multimedia depth interviews may shed more light on how to
environments. Motivated and strategically independ- cope with listening anxiety. More importantly, as
ent listeners are curious enough to explore this tech- noted above, there is a need to investigate the effect
nology on their own. Will the less motivated language of process-based listening practice without the threat
learner do so? How will learners who are not techno- of evaluation on anxiety and learner attributions.
logically literate or those with weak visual perception The impact of formative evaluation procedures
skills respond? While the vast array of new techno- such as those reported in Ross (2005) merit further
logies hold promise for the teaching of L2 listening, investigation. The exact nature of these procedures
learners may need to be taught ‘meta-technical’ skills and their unique contribution to listening success
to exploit the ‘raw’ electronic resources for their own needs to be investigated through qualitative methods.
goals. What kinds of help options are useful to L2 In sum, listening processes are complex and
listeners, and how do they relate to listener goals and they interact with different knowledge sources,
learning styles? The challenge for future research is human characteristics and other contextual factors in
‘daunting but clear’: we need to understand not only complex ways. These processes and their interactions
how listeners use these resources, but how teachers need to be explored using in-depth qualitative
learn to control these technologies so they can enable methods to better understand how L2 listeners attain
L2 listeners to ‘mediate the script’ (Robin 2007). successful comprehension.
While the capacity of technology to prepare L2
listeners for real-life listening is evident, the ability
to transfer listening skills acquired in multimedia
10. Conclusion
environments to real-life listening needs to be Developments in the research and understanding of
investigated. The benefits of technology for teaching L2 listening have accompanied general developments
word segmentation skills and word recognition in communicative language teaching, a better under-
skills have been demonstrated; however, the ability standing of the nature of oral communication and de-
of language learners to transfer listening skills velopments in technology. Research has increased our
acquired in multimedia environments to real- understanding of some of the factors that influence
life listening contexts needs to be demonstrated. listening outcomes; however, the listening process
The opportunities and limitations of multimedia itself needs more research attention, using methods
learning environments, and the affordances of those that probe how listeners, who are metacognitively
environments from L2 listeners’ perspectives, need to aware, build meaning and remedy comprehension
be understood (White 2006). breakdown. At the same time, rapid developments in
The potential benefits of simultaneous visual and the use of network-based multimedia open the door
auditory input are not clear. This question emerged to a vast library of resources for listening practice.
in research on both the teaching and the assessment of Broader access to these new technologies will likely
listening, and the results appear to be contradictory. shift the focus from the classroom to independent
Future studies using qualitative methods such as inter- learning, with new research challenges.
views, questionnaires, concurrent think-alouds and If L2 listening research is seen as a building project,
stimulated recall may be able to reveal what students the conclusion of this review is that work is still
are attending to and why. Given that the purpose for needed to shore up the foundations, while new layers
listening is different for academic listening, listening are built on findings that have been confirmed as

206
■ Listening comprehension research
strong and lasting. Expansion is occurring through of EFL listening comprehension. Applied Language Learning
new wings on all sides, and the electrical system, 14, 83–105.
Carrier, K. (1999). The social environment of second
elevators, and intercom between the various parts of language listening: Does status play a role in
the structure are upgraded as links are made between comprehension? The Modern Language Journal 83.1, 65–79.
previously independent work. At the same time, the Carrier, K. (2003). Improving high school English language
architects continue to press for greater recognition of learners’ second language listening through strategy
this building project in the larger complex of language instruction. Bilingual Research Journal 27.3, 383–408.
Carton, A. S. (1971). Inferencing: A process in using and
learning and teaching. learning language. In P. Pimsleur & T. Quinn (eds.), The
psychology of second language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 45–58.
Acknowledgements Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction:
Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied
I am grateful to Catherine Mareschal for her help Linguistics 25, 98–111.
in the literature search, and to four anonymous Chen, Y. (2005). Barriers to acquiring listening strategies for
LT reviewers whose comments and suggestions for EFL learners and their pedagogical applications. TESL-
EJ 8.4. <http://www-writing.berkeley.edu:16080/tesl-
revision have helped me to improve the quality of ej/ej32/a2.html> accessed 16/1/2007.
this paper. Any remaining errors are my own. Cheng, H. (2004). A comparison of multiple-choice and
open-ended response formats for the assessment of listening
proficiency in English. Foreign Language Annals 37.4, 544–
References 555.
Chiang, J. & P. Dunkel (1992). The effect of speech
Akker, E. & A. Cutler (2003). Prosodic cues to semantic modification, prior knowledge and listening proficiency
structure in native and nonnative listening. Bilingualism: on EFL lecture learning. TESOL Quarterly 26, 345–374.
Language and Cognition 6.2, 81–96. Chung, J. M. (2002). The effects of using two advance
Altenberg, E. P. (2005). The perception of word boundaries in organizers with video texts for the teaching of listening
a second language. Second Language Research 21.4, 325–358. in English. Foreign Language Annals 35.2, 231–241.
Anderson, A. & T. Lynch (1988). Listening. London: Oxford Coniam, D. (2001). The use of audio or video comprehension
University Press. as an assessment instrument in the certification of English
Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications language teachers: A case study. System 29, 1–14.
(4th edn.). New York: Freeman. Cook, M. & A. J. Liddicoat (2002). The development of
Arnold, J. (2000). Seeing through listening comprehension comprehension in interlanguage pragmatics: The case of
exam anxiety. TESOL Quarterly 34, 777–786. request strategies in English. Australian Review of Applied
Arteaga, D., J. Herschensohn & R. Gess (2003). Focusing on Linguistics 25.1, 19–39.
phonology to teach morphological form in French. The Cutler, A. (2001). Listening to a second language through the
Modern Language Journal 87.1, 58–70. ears of a first. Interpreting 5, 1–23.
Bechtel, W. & A. Abrahamsen (1991). Connectionism and the Cutrone, P. (2005). A case study examining backchannels in
mind: An introduction to parallel processing in networks. Oxford: conversations between Japanese-British dyads. Multilingua
Blackwell. 24, 237–274.
Berne, J. E. (2004). Listening comprehension strategies: A Deci, E. L. & R. M. Ryan (1995). Human autonomy: The
review of the literature. Foreign Language Annals 37.4, 521– basis for true self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (ed.), Efficacy,
531. agency, and self-esteem. New York: Plenum, 31–48.
Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second De Jong, N. (2005). Can second language grammar be learned
language reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25, through listening? An experimental study. Studies in Second
133–150. Language Acquisition 27, 205–234.
Blanco, B. (2002). The role of linguistic input in language Derwing, T. & M. J. Munro (2001). What speaking rates do
acquisition: A listening comprehension-based study considering the non-native listeners prefer? Applied Linguistics 22.3, 324–
input limitations of the EFL environment. Ph.D. dissertation, 337.
Indiana University. Dipper, L., M. Black & K. L. Bryan (2005). Thinking
Brindley, G. & H. Slayter (2002). Exploring task difficulty in for speaking and thinking for listening: The interaction
ESL listening assessment. Language Testing 19, 369–394. of thought and language in typical and non-fluent
Buck, G. (1991). The testing of listening comprehension: An comprehension and production. Language and Cognitive
introspective study. Language Testing 8.1, 67–91. Processes 20.3, 417–441.
Buck, G. (1995). How to become a good listening teacher. Dörnyei, Z. & J. Kormos (1998). Problem-solving mecha-
In D. Mendelsohn & J. Rubin (eds.), A guide for the teaching nisms in L2 communication: A psycholinguistic perspec-
of second language listening. San Diego, CA: Dominie Press, tive. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20, 349–385.
113–128. Dunkel, P. (1991). Listening in the native and second/foreign
Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge: Cambridge language: Toward an integration of research and practice.
University Press. TESOL Quarterly 25.3, 431–457.
Cabrera, M. & P. Martı́nez (2001). The effects of repetition, Elkhafaifi, H. (2005a). Listening comprehension and anxiety
comprehension checks, and gestures, on primary school in the Arabic language classroom. The Modern Language
children in an EFL situation. ELT Journal 55, 281–288. Journal 89, 206–220.
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2004). Interactive discourse structuring Elkhafaifi, H. (2005b). The effects of prelistening activities
in L2 guest lectures: Some insights from a comparative on listening comprehension in Arabic learners. Foreign
corpus-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes Language Annals 38.4, 505–513.
3, 39–54. Farrell, T. C. & C. Mallard (2006). The use of reception
Carrell, P., P. Dunkel & P. Mollaun (2004). The effects of note strategies by learners of French as a foreign language. The
taking, lecture length, and topic on a computer-based test Modern Language Journal 90.3, 338–352.

207
Larry Vandergrift ■
Feak, C. B. & J. Salehzadeh (2001). Challenges and issues in Harris, T. (2003). Listening with your eyes: The importance
developing an EAP video listening placement assessment: of speech-related gestures in the language classroom. Foreign
A view from one program. English for Specific Purposes 20, Language Annals 36, 180–187.
477–493. Hasan, A. (2000). Learners’ perceptions of listening
Field, J. (2001). Finding one’s way in the fog: Listening comprehension problems. Language, Culture and Curriculum
strategies and second-language learners. Modern English 13, 137–153.
Teacher 9.1, 29–34. Hegelheimer, V. & D. Tower (2004). Using CALL in the
Field, J. (2003). Promoting perception: lexical segmentation classroom: Analyzing student interaction in an authentic
in second language listening. ELT Journal 57, 325–334. classroom. System 32, 185–205.
Field, J. (2004). An insight into listeners’ problems: Too Hernández, S. S. (2004). The effects of video and captioned text
much bottom-up or too much top-down? System 32, 363– and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities on second language
377. listening comprehension in a multimedia learning environment.
Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.
lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly 39.3, 399–423. Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four
Field, J. (2007a). Looking outwards, not inwards. ELT Journal skills. TESOL Quarterly 40.1, 109–131.
61.1, 30–38. Hoeflaak, A. (2004). Computer-assisted training in the
Field, J. (2007b). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: comprehension of authentic French speech: A closer view.
Cambridge University Press. Computer Assisted Language Learning 17, 315–337.
Flowerdew, J. & L. Miller (2005). Second language listening: Holden, W. (2002). Listen and learn. English Teaching
Theory and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Professional 23, 18–20.
Foster, P. & A. Ohta (2005). Negotiation for meaning and Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement.
peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21, 112–126.
Linguistics 26, 402–430. Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second
Fox, C. (2002). Incorporating variation in the French language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration,
classroom: A pedagogical norm for listening comprehen- rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition
sion. In S. Gass, K. Bardovi-Harlig, S. Magnan & J. Walz and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge
(eds.), Pedagogical norms for second and foreign language learning University Press, 258–286.
and teaching: Studies in honour of Albert Valdman. Amsterdam: Hulstijn, J. H. (2003). Connectionist models of language
Benjamins, 201–219. processing and the training of listening skills with the aid of
French, L. (2003). Phonological working memory and L2 multimedia software. Computer Assisted Language Learning
acquisition: A developmental study of Quebec francophone children 16, 413–425.
learning English. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Laval. In’nami, Y. (2006). The effects of test anxiety on listening test
Gallien, C. (2001). Documents d’écoute et débutants: compte performance. System 34, 317–340.
rendu d’une étude empirique. Mélanges pédagogiques 26, 91– Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in
110. second language learning. In search of the psycholinguistic
Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high and rationale of the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics 24,
low level language learners. TESL-EJ 8. <http://www- 168–196.
writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej30/a1.html> accessed Jensen, E. D. & T. Vinther (2003). Exact repetition as input
20/9/2006. enhancement in second language acquisition. Language
Ginther, A. (2002). Context and content visuals and Learning 53, 373–428.
performance on listening comprehension stimuli. Language Jin, K. (2002). The effect of teaching listening strategies in
Testing 19, 133–167. the EFL classroom. Language Research 38.3, 987–999.
Goodwin-Jones, R. (2007). Digital video update: YouTube, Johnston, J. D. (2006). Technology-mediated language training:
Flash, High-Definition. Language Learning & Technology Listening sub-skills technical report. University of Maryland
11.1, 16–21. Centre for Advanced Study of Language (CASL). Mimeo.
Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language Joiner, E. (1997). Teaching listening: How technology can
learners’ listening comprehension problems. System 28, 55– help. In M. Bush & R. Terry (eds.), Technology-enhanced
75. language learning. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Publishing
Goh, C. (2002a). Exploring listening comprehension tactics Group, 77–121.
and their interaction patterns. System 30, 185–206. Jones, L. (2004). Testing L2 vocabulary recognition and recall
Goh, C. (2002b). Teaching listening in the language classroom. using pictorial and written test items. Language Learning &
Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Technology 8.3, 122–143.
Goh, C. & Y. Taib (2006). Metacognitive instruction in Jones, L. (2006). Listening comprehension in multimedia
listening for young learners. ELT Journal 60, 222–232. environments. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (eds.), Calling
Graham, S. (2003). Learner strategies and advanced level on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign
listening comprehension.Language Learning Journal 28, 64– language teaching. San Marcos, TX: CALICO, 99–125.
69. Jones, L. & J. Plass (2002). Supporting listening comprehen-
Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learners’ sion and vocabulary acquisition in French with multimedia
perspective. System 34, 165–182. annotations. The Modern Language Journal 86, 546–561.
Grgurović, M. & V. Hegelheimer (2007). Help options and Jung, E. H. (2003). The role of discourse signaling cues
multimedia listening: Students’ use of subtitles and the in second language listening comprehension. The Modern
transcript. Language Learning & Technology 11.1, 45–66. Language Journal 87.4, 562–577.
Gruba, P. (2004). Understanding digitized second language Kiany, G. R. & E. Shiramiry (2002). The effect of
videotext. Computer Assisted Language Learning 17, 51– frequent dictation on the listening comprehension ability of
82. elementary EFL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 20, 57–63.
Gruba, P. (2006). Playing the videotext: Media literacy Kim, J. (2002). Affective reactions to foreign language
perspectives on L2 listening comprehension. Language listening retrospective interviews with Korean EFL
Learning & Technology 10.2, 77–92. students. Language Research 38, 117–151.
Harley, B. (2000). Listening strategies in ESL: Do age and L1 Klein, H. & J. M. Robert (2004). L’eurocompréhension
make a difference? TESOL Quarterly 34, 769–776. (EUROCOM), une méthode de compréhension des

208
■ Listening comprehension research
langues voisines. Études de linguistique appliquée 136, 403– Murphy, J. M. (1985). An investigation into the listening
418. strategies of ESL college students. ERIC document
Leeser, M. J. (2004). The effects of topic familiarity, mode Reproduction Service No. ED 278 275.
and pausing on second language learners’ comprehension O’Malley, J. M. & A. U. Chamot (1990). Learning strategies
and focus on form. Studies in Second Language Acquisition in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
26, 587–615. University Press.
LeLoup, J. W. & R. Ponterio (2007). Listening: You’ve got Osada, N. (2001). What strategy do less proficient learners
to be carefully taught. Language Learning & Technology 11.1, employ in listening comprehension? A reappraisal of
4–15. bottom-up and top-down processing. Journal of the Pan-
Levelt, W. (1995). The ability to speak: From intentions to Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 5, 73–90.
spoken words. European Review, 3, 13–23. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every
Lindfield, K. C., A. Wingfield & H. Goodglass (1999). teacher should know. New York: Newberry House Publishers
The contribution of prosody to spoken word recognition. & Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Applied Psycholinguistics 20, 395–405. Richards, J. C. (2005). Second thoughts on teaching listening.
Liou, H. C. (2000). Assessing learner strategies using RELC Journal 36.1, 85–92.
computers: New insights and limitations. Computer Assisted Richards, J. C. (2006). Materials development and research –
Language Learning 13.1, 65–78. Making the connection. RELC Journal 37.1, 5–26.
Littlemore, J. (2001). The use of metaphor in university Read, J. (2002). The use of interactive input in EAP listening
lectures and the problems that it causes for overseas students. assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1, 105–
Teaching in Higher Education 6, 333–349. 119.
Liu, N. F. (2003). Processing problems in L2 listening Robin, R. (2007). Learner-based listening and technological
comprehension of university students in Hong Kong. Ph.D. authenticity. Language Learning & Technology 11.1, 109–115.
dissertation, Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Rogers, C. V. & F. W. Medley (1988). Language with a
Long, D. R. (1990). What you don’t know can’t help you. purpose: Using authentic materials in the foreign language
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 65–80. classroom. Foreign Language Annals 21, 467–478.
Lynch, T. (2002). Listening: Questions of level. In R. B. Rose K. R. & G. Kasper (eds.) (2001). Pragmatics in language
Kaplan (ed.), Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford University Press, 39–48. Ross, S. J. (1997). Listener inference on a second language test.
Lynch, T. (2006). Academic listening: marrying top and In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (eds.), Advances in communi-
bottom. In Usó, Juan & Martı́nez, Flor (eds.), 91–110. cation strategies research. Harlow: Longman, 216–237.
Lynch, T. & D. Mendelsohn (2002). Listening. In N. Schmitt Ross, S. J. (2005). The impact of assessment method on
(ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics. London: Arnold, foreign language proficiency growth. Applied Linguistics
193–210. 26.3, 317–342.
Macaro, E., R.Vanderplank & S. Graham (2005). A systematic Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching listening. Harlow:
review of the role of prior knowledge in unidirectional Longman.
listening comprehension. In Research Evidence in Education Rost, M. (2007). ‘I’m only trying to help’: A role for
Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research interventions in teaching listening. Language Learning &
Unit, Institute of Education, University of London Technology 11.1, 102–108.
Major, R., S. F. Fitzmaurice, F. Bunta & C. Balasubramanian Roussel, S., A. Rieussec & A. Tricot (2006). L’effet de
(2002). The effects of non-native accents on listening l’autorégulation matérielle de l’écoute sur la compréhen-
comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment. TESOL sion en classe de langue: Compte-rendu d’expérimen-
Quarterly 36.2, 173–190. tation. <http://perso.orange.fr/andre.tricot/Roussel-
Major, R. C., S. F. Fitzmaurice, F. Bunta & C. RieussecTricot_JETCSIC.pdf> accessed 15/12/2006.
Balasubramanian (2005). Testing the effects of regional, Rupp, A., P. Garcia & J. Jamieson (2001). Combining multiple
ethnic and international dialects of English on listening regression and CART to understand difficulty in second
comprehension. Language Learning 55, 37–69. language reading and listening comprehension test items.
Mareschal, C. (2007). Student perceptions of a self-regulatory International Journal of Testing 1, 185–216.
approach to second language listening comprehension development. Sanders, L. D., H. J. Neville & M. G. Woldorf (2002). Speech
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa. segmentation by native and non-native speakers: The use of
Markham, P., L. Peter & T. McCarthy (2001). The effects lexical, syntactic, and stress-pattern cues. Journal of Speech,
of native language vs. target language captions on foreign Language and Hearing Research 45, 519–530.
language students’ DVD video comprehension. Foreign Schoonen, R., J. Hulstijn & B. Bossers. (1998). Metacognitive
Language Annals 34.5, 439–445. and language-specific knowledge in native and foreign
McKnight, A. (2004). Learning by listening and note-taking? language reading comprehension: An empirical study
International students and academic lectures. Ph.D. dissertation, among Dutch students in grades 6, 8 and 10. Language
La Trobe University. Learning 48, 71–106.
Mecartty, F. (2000). Lexical and grammatical knowledge in Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second language.
reading and listening comprehension by foreign language In C. Doughty & M. Long (eds.), The handbook of second
learners of Spanish. Applied Language Learning 11, 323–348. language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 382–
Mendelsohn, D. (2001). Listening comprehension: We’ve 408.
come a long way, but. . . Contact 27, 33–40. Seo, K. (2002). The effect of visuals on listening compre-
Mendelsohn, D. (2002). The lecture buddy project: An hension: A study of Japanese learners’ listening strategies.
experiment in EAP listening comprehension. TESL International Journal of Listening 15, 57–81.
Canada Journal 20.1, 64–73. Shohamy, E. & O. Inbar. (1991). Construct validation of
Mendelsohn, D. (2006). Learning how to listen using listening comprehension tests: The effect of text and
learning strategies. In Usó, Juan & Martı́nez, Flor (eds.), question type. Language Testing 8.1, 23–40.
75–90. Smidt, E. & V. Hegelheimer (2004). Effects of online
Morley, J. (1999). Current perspectives on improving aural academic lectures on ESL listening comprehension,
comprehension. <http://www.eslmag.com/modules.php? incidental vocabulary acquisition and strategy use. Computer
name=News&file=article&sid=19> accessed 2/4/2007. Assisted Language Learning 17.5, 517–556.

209
Larry Vandergrift ■
Stewart, M. A. & I. Pertusa. (2004). Gains to language learners Vandergrift, L. (2007). Teaching students how to listen:
from viewing target language close-captioned films. Foreign Effects on listening achievement. Paper presented at the
Language Annals 37.3, 438–447. annual meeting of the American Association of Applied
Sueyoshi, A. & D. M. Hardison (2005). The role of Linguistics, Cosa Mesa, CA, USA.
gestures and facial cues in second-language listening Vandergrift, L., C. Goh, C. Mareschal & M. H.
comprehension. Language Learning 55, 661–699. Tafaghodatari (2006). The Metacognitive Awareness
Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in Listening Questionnaire (MALQ): Development and
English as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal validation. Language Learning 56, 431–462.
89, 543–562. Verdugo, D. & I. A. Belmonte (2007). Using digital stories
Tschirner, E. (2001). Language acquisition in the classroom: to improve listening comprehension with Spanish young
the role of digital video. Computer Assisted Language Learning learners of English. Language Learning & Technology 11.1,
14, 305–319. 87–101.
Tyler, M. (2001). Resource consumption as a function of Vidal, K. (2003). Academic listening: A source of vocabulary
topic knowledge in nonnative and native comprehension. acquisition? Applied Linguistics 24.1, 56–89.
Language Learning 51, 257–280. Wagner, E. (2002). Video listening tests: A pilot study.
Usó-Juan E. & A. Martı́nez-Flor (eds.) (2006). Current trends Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics 2/1. Teach-
in the development and teaching of the four language skills. Berlin: ers College, Columbia University. <http://www.tc.edu/
Mouton de Gruyter. tesolalwebjournal/wagner.pdf> accessed 2/3/2007.
Valiente, J. J. (2005). Le contrôle de la compréhension Wagner, E. (2007). Are they watching? Test-taker viewing
orale dans une intervention métacognitive en FLE. Paper behaviour during an L2 video listening test. Language
presented at the Colloque international de didactique Learning & Technology 11.1, 67–86.
cognitive, Université de Toulouse, France. Weinberg, A. (2005). Les chansons de la francophonie web
Vandergrift, L. (2002). It was nice to see that our predictions site and its two web-usage-tracking systems in an advanced
were right: Developing metacognition in L2 listening listening comprehension course. CALICO Journal 22.2,
comprehension. The Canadian Modern Language Review 58, 251–268.
555–575. White, C. (2006). State of the art review article: The distance
Vandergrift, L. (2003a). From prediction through reflection: learning of foreign languages. Language Teaching, 39.4, 247–
Guiding students through the process of L2 listening. 264.
The Canadian Modern Language Review 59.3, 425– Wilberschied, L. & P. M. Berman (2004). Effect of using
440. photos from authentic video as advance organizers on
Vandergrift, L. (2003b). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward listening comprehension in an FLES Chinese class. Foreign
a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Language Annals 37.4, 534–543.
Learning 53, 463–496. Wilson, M. (2003). Discovery listening–improving perceptual
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Learning to listen or listening to learn? processing. ELT Journal 57, 335–343.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 3–25. Wong, W. (2001). Modality and attention to meaning and
Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation form in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 23,
orientations, metacognitive awareness and proficiency in 345–368.
L2 listening. Applied Linguistics 26, 70–89. Zhang, D. & C. Goh (2006). Strategy knowledge and
Vandergrift, L. (2006). Second language listening: Listening perceived strategy use: Singaporean students’ awareness
ability or language proficiency? The Modern Language Journal of listening and speaking. Language Awareness 15.3, 199–
90, 6–18. 219.

210