The Comprehension Strategies of Second

Language French) Listeners:

A Descriptive Study’
Laurens Vandergrifi
The University of Ottawa

ABSTRACT This paper reports on a study o f the relationship between the types o f listening
comprehension strategies reported, the frequency o f their use, and the differencesin reported
use across four variables: level o f language proficiency, gender, listening ability, and learning
style. High school students o f French reported on their thought processes during a thinkaloud
procedure. All students reported using metacognitive and cognitive strategies, with an overall
increase in total number o f strategies reported by proficiency level. Results indicate clear differ-
ences in reported strategy use by listening ability and proficiencyleuel. The use of metacogni-
tive strategies, such as comprehension monitoring, problem identification, and selective
attention appeared to be the significant factor distinguishing the successful /?om the less suc-
cessful listener. Differencesfor gender were minimal, and differencesfor learning style were in-
conclusive. A qualitative analysis o f representativeprotocols also pointed to the integral role of
metacognitive strategies as well as differencesin.the use o fprior knowledge, inferencing,pre-
diction skills, and monitoring. Results are discussed in the light o f information-processingthe-
ory. Implications for pedagogy conclude the paper.

Learning strategies are becoming an impor- O’Malley and Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990;
tant part of a revitalized multidimensional Mendelsohn 1994).
Core French curriculum in Canada (programs Of the four language skills, listening is per-
where French is taught as a subject). The Na- haps the most critical for language learning at
tional Core French study (Leblanc 1990) rec- the beginning stages, especially for children.
ommends that explicit strategy instruction Listening is a highly integrative skill, and re-
become part of a General Language Educa- search has demonstrated its crucial role in lan-
tion syllabus. Provinces are revising their lan- guage acquisition (for example, Asher 1969;
guage programs to fit this new curriculum Postovsky 1978;Nord 1978 Winitz 1981;Byrnes
model, which includes a focus on the acquisi- 1984; Dunkel 1986, 1991; Leblanc 1986; Rost
tion of learning strategies. The growing inter- 1990; Feyten 1991; Mendelsohn and Rubin
est in learning strategies reflects an awareness 1995). Listening internalizes the rules of lan-
that students can, and need to, develop tools guage and facilitates the emergence of other
to become more effective and autonomous language skills. Therefore, given the salience of
language learners. This interest is further evi- listening in language learning, an investigation
denced by the release of a number of signifi- of listening comprehension strategies can help
cant books on the topic (Wenden and Rubin clarify the process of listening and provide a
1987; Brown 1989; Prokop 1989; Cohen 1990; more solid theoretical base for what teachers
should do in the classroom. Awareness and d e
Laurens (Larry] Vandergrift(Ph.D., University of Alberta, ployment of effective listening strategies will
Canada) is Assistant Professor (Second Language Edu- help students capitalize on the language input
cation) at the Faculty of Education, the University of they are receiving.
Ottawa, in Ottawa, Ontario (Canada). In order to elicit data on listening strategies,

Foreign Language Annals, 30, No. 3, 1997

 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNAS-FALL 1997

the present study used three different forms of tening process. Murphy concluded that effec-
verbal report (Cohen 1987), each one closer tive listeners use a wider variety of strategies
in time to the actual listening event: self-report and engage in more active interaction with
through delayed retrospection with a struc- the text. Murphy could not precisely name or
tured interview (Phase I), self-observation classify many of the strategies he had identi-
through immediate retrospection with a stim- fied since a systematic taxonomy of language
ulated recall (Phase ]I), and self-revealment learning strategies had not yet been suffi-
through introspection with a think-aloud pro- ciently developed. The distinction between
cedure (Phase 111). Phase I used a semistruc- metacognitive strategies (the mental activities
tured interview to uncover the types of for directing the learning process) and cogni-
strategiesstudents used in different situations; tive strategies (the mental processes used to
e.g., listening to the teacher, classroom listen- manipulate the target language in order to ac-
ing activities, listening to television in French, complish a task) had not yet been made in the
etc. (Vandergrift 1996). Phase II used a stimu- second language learning literature.
lated recall procedure to uncover the types of Henner Stanchina (1987) first called atten-
strategies students use to understand their in- tion to the importance of metacognitive strate-
terlocutor during a language proficiency in- gies in effective listening comprehension,
terview. This paper will focus on the results of particularly the integral role of monitoring in
Phase 111, which used a think-aloud procedure the process. She demonstrated that the way
to answer the following research questions: 1) in which listeners use syntactic, semantic,
What are the strategies that Core French high and schematic knowledge is a question of
school students report using while listening to effective or ineffective strategy use.. Effective
authentic texts? 2) How often do the students listeners are constantly elaborating and trans-
report using each listening strategy? 3) What forming what they hear. They 1) use their
are the differences in reported listening strat- stored knowledge and expectations to gener-
egy use by a) level of language proficiency;b) ate hypotheses on a text; 2) integrate new ma-
listening ability; c) gender; and d) learning terial into their ongoing interpretations; 3)
style? make inferences to fill gaps; 4) evaluate their
interpretations;and 5) revise their hypotheses
Literature Review when necessary. She concluded that effective
While second language strategy research listeners are able to recognize failure in com-
has expanded in recent years, the number of prehension and activate appropriate knowl-
studies in listening comprehension is rela- edge to repair the failure.
tively small (Bacon and Swaffar 1993), and Differences in listening strategies between
the research base for listening strategies is effective and less effective high school learn-
even more limited (Rubin 1994). The follow- ers were investigated by Chamot and Kupper
ing studies have attempted to identify the (1989). Using a think-aloud procedure, these
strategies learners bring to the listening com- researchers determined that effective students
prehension task. at the intermediate level made greater use of
The listening strategies of effective and less strategiessuch as selective attention, selfeval-
effective adult ESL learners were first studied uation, note-taking, and elaboration (use of
by Murphy (1985), using a think-aloud proce- world knowledge). Although there appeared
dure. He determined that effective listeners to be very little quantitative difference be-
were more open and flexible, using more tween the two groups in use of strategiessuch
strategies and a greater variety of different as inferencing and monitoring, there were
strategies. Less effective listeners, on the other qualitative differences;effective learners used
hand, concentrated too much on the text or these strategies with greater persistence and
on their own world knowledge,or they elabo- purpose. The results for university-level Russ-
rated on the text information too late in the lis- ian students in the same study indicated that

388
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1997

effective listeners d o more comprehension Vandergrift (1996), in the first phase of his
monitoring and problem identification and study, used a structured interview to identify
they combine strategies such as inferencing the types and number of distinct strategies that
and elaboration more often and in more in- high school Core French students at different
teresting ways. course levels reported using during different
Using a think-aloud procedure again, O'Mal- types of listening tasks. Students at all four
ley, Chamot, and Kiipper (1989) examined course levels reported using strategies related
listening strategies in greater depth with inter- to three broad categories: metacognitive, cog-
mediate-level high school ESL learners. A nitive, and socioaffective strategies. The total
qualitative analysis of the protocols demon- number of distinct strategies reported in-
strated that successful listeners appeared to creased by course level. Of the total number of
decide what to attend to when listening, main- strategies reported by each student, the largest
tain attention, and redirect it when distracted. percentage were cognitive strategies. Al-
They tended to approach texts globally, by in- though students reported fewer distinct
ferring meaning from context and effective metacognitive strategies, the number of r e
self-questioning, relating what they heard to ported strategies in this category increased by
their world knowledge and personal experi- course level; females tended to report a
ence. On the other hand, less successful lis- greater number of distinct metacognitive
teners were easily "thrown off" when they strategies than males. While the overall num-
encountered anything unknown, tended to bers were fewer than the numbers reported in
segment what they heard on a word-by-word the other two strategy categories, reported use
basis, and made fewer connections between of socioaffective strategies also increased by
new information and their own lives. From a course level.
quantitative perspective, successful listeners As stated earlier, knowledge about listening
appeared to use self-monitoring, elaboration, comprehension strategies is still cursory be-
and inferencing more than their less success- cause most language learning strategy re-
ful peers. search attention has been devoted to reading,
Bacon (1992a, 1992b) investigated the lis- writing, and speaking. While an understand-
tening strategies of university students learning ing of the complex processes may be limited,
Spanish by asking her subjects to think aloud the research literature on listening compre-
after listening to an oral text. Based on a quan- hension strategies points to some useful find-
titative analysis, she concluded that subjects ings for both content and methodology: 1)
used more cognitive than metacognitive metacognitive strategies such as selective at-
strategies and that, with regard to the latter, fe tention and comprehension monitoring, as
males used a significantly higher proportion well as cognitive strategies such as elabora-
than did the males, who tended to favor a "di- tion and inferencing, are reported more f r e
rect and more varied cognitive approach." In quently and in more effective combinations
her qualitative analysis of the differences be- by successful listeners; 2) a think-aloud proce
tween successful and less successful listeners, dure appears to be a productive methodology
Bacon concluded that success in listening a p for intervening in the listening process and
pears to be related to the use of a variety of having students report on the strategies they
strategies, flexibility in changing strategies, are using; and 3) a qualitative analysis of pro-
motivation, self-control, maintaining attention, tocols, in addition to a quantitative analysis,
and effective use of background knowledge appears to provide greater insight into the dif-
(elaboration). Interestingly, s h e noted that ferences between successful and less success-
monitoring appeared to be used equally by ful listeners.
successful and less successful listeners, al-
though the former were "more realistic in eval-
uating their comprehension."

389
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1997

Methodology ciency Interview (Lowe 1982) in order to de-

termine their level of language proficiency.
Subjects Results of these interviews generated the
Participants were high school Core French groupings of successful and less successful lis-
students (16-17 years old) from four different teners as indicated in Table 1.
course levels (year one and year two of a
three-year program; year five of a six-year pro- Listening Materials
gram; and year eight of a nine-year program). Two methods were used to choose appro-
Participants for the first phase of this study (36 priate oral texts. Observations from the pilot
students at four different course levels) were study were used to identify a number of suit-
randomly chosen, but, in order to ensure a able texts, particularly at the more advanced
pure sample, any dropouts from immersion level. In order to identify a range of easier
programs and any students who had discon- texts, a series of 25 potentially useful texts was
tinued their study of French and then started rated informally by a group of six students in
over at a later entry point were excluded. year four of language study, whose achieve-
Based on the results of the Phase 1 retrospec- ment in French was ranked as average by
tive interviews, 21 participants (10 successful their teacher. Students listened to each text
and 11 unsuccessful listeners) were chosen once and, immediately afterwards, indepen-
for the think-aloud sessions. Selection was dently ranked it on a level of difficulty from
based on both reported strategy use in Phase one to five. On the basis of these responses,
I and consultation with the teachers. Those re- four levels of authentic oral texts were chosen,
porting the greatest frequency,variety, and so- each one closely related to the life experience
phistication of strategy use were classified as and interests of adolescents.’ Easier texts
more successful listeners. Conversely, those at (Levels I-HI), taken from A la radio (Porter and
the other end of the continuum, reporting the Pellerin 1989),contained short language sam-
least frequency, variety, and sophistication of ples (about 45-60 seconds in real time) that
strategy use, were classified as less successful were spoken at a natural speed, but clearly,
listeners. This selection and subsequent and accompanied by appropriate real-life
grouping were further corroborated by the sound effects. Level I texts were administered
participants’ teachers on the basis of academ- to Novice I participants, Level I1 texts to
ic performance. Novice 11 participants, and Level 111 texts to
Participants were interviewed individually Novice 111 participants.The most difficult texts
in French using the ACTFL/ETS Oral Profi- (Level IV), taken from Communication + 3

Successful listeners Less successful listeners

390
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1997

(Boucher and Ladouceur 1988), contained data were recorded for at least three different
longer language samples (about two minutes texts. For each text, the tape was stopped at
in real time) characterized by a Quebecois the breaks indicated on the tape script, and
accent and accompanied by real-life sound participants attempted to verbalize what they
effects. Level IV texts were administered to were thinking. If the participant was unsure of
participants at the Intermediate level. Natural what to say or how to continue, the investiga-
discourse boundaries were chosen as appro- tor used noncueing probes such as “Whatare
priate points at which to stop the tape for you thinking now?”;“How did you figure that
thinking aloud. Texts of differing levels of dif-out?”;“What’sgoing on in the back of your
ficulty were essential to ensure that students mind?”; “Can you be more specific?”;etc.
talked about the strategies they were using, Great care was taken not to inadvertently
not their frustration with comprehension plant strategies in the participant’s mind. A
problems. second tape recorder was left on, recording
the text, the think-aloud data, and any investi-
Research Procedures gator prompts. Participants approached each
The think-aloud procedure was adapted text “cold”;that is, they had no idea what the
from O’Malley, Chamot, and Kupper (1989) text was going to be about. This was done de-
and Rankin (1988) and had two separate liberately so that no schemata were activated
phases: a training phase and a data collection before listening began and, potentially, all
phase. A training session (using mathematics thought processes leading to comprehension
problems or verbal reasoning tasks and actual could be accessed.
oral texts in French) was conducted prior to
the data collection sessions so that partici- Data Analysis
pants had a good understanding of how to Protocols were analyzed using a predefined
think aloud and had lots of opportunity to taxonomy of listening comprehension strate-
practice. Hosenfeld (Cohen and Hosenfeld gies identified, validated, and refined by
1981) noted that, unless students were re- O’Malley and Chamot (1990) and Vandergrift
minded to think aloud, they tended to retro- (1996). Although coding was guided by this
spect. All data collection sessions were classification scheme, it was not limited to
conducted on an individual basis and were these categories. Following Mann (1982), any
audiorecorded for later verbatim transcription strategy that did not fit these categories of
and coding. Sessions, lasting from 30-40 min- analysis was formally defined with an accom-
utes each, took place within a week after the panying example for reference in continued
training session. coding. A comprehensive list of listening
Each session included three stages: warm- strategies (Figure 1) includes definitions and
up, transition, and verbal report. The warm-up examples. The list is divided into three main
stage, consisting of appropriate questions and categories: metacognitive strategies (mental
humor, put participants at ease and estab- activities for directing language learning),
lished a good working relationship. In the cognitive strategies (mental activities for ma-
transition stage, participants practiced think- nipulating the language to accomplish a task),
ing aloud, using the materials from the train- and socio-affective strategies (activities in-
ing session. When they felt satisfied that their volving interaction or affective control in lan-
reports accurately reflected the completeness guage learning). These strategies are often
of their thoughts (about five minutes), partici- used in combination.
pants completed a trial run with the first text Verbal reports were transcribed verbatim.
on the tape. The trial run (not recorded) All protocols were coded independently by
proved to be useful for verifying the choice of the investigator and a trained assistant. They
text level before recording. met regularly to conduct reliability checks,
During the verbal report itself, think-aloud and discussions of coding difficulties helped

39 1
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS--FALL 1997

FIGURE 1
Listening Comprehension Strategies and their Definitions
with Representative Examples
Metacognitive Strategies
1. Planning: Developing a n awareness of what needs to b e done to accomplish a listening task, devel-
oping an appropriate action plan and/or appropriate contingency plans to overcome difficulties that
may interfere with successful completion of the task.
1 a. Advance Clarifying the objectives of a n I read over what w e have to do.
organization: anticipated listening task and/or I try to think of questions the teacher
proposing strategies for handling it. is going to ask.
1b. Directed Deciding in advance to attend in I listen really hard.
attention: general to the listening task and to I pick out the words that are familiar
ignore irrelevant distractors; so that ... (in combination with
maintaining attention while listening. inferencing)
_____________-_____-_-__----------------
Deciding to attend to specific I listen for the key words. I establish the
aspects of language input or speakers in the conversation, their
situational details that assist in relationship by tone of voice, how they
understanding and/or task will address each other. This will limit
completion. the topics of discussion (in combination
with planning, voice inferencing, and
. elaboration).
.......................................
Id. Self- Understanding the conditions that I try to get in the frame of mind to
management: help one successfully accomplish understand French.
listening tasks and arranging for the I put everything aside and
Dresence of those conditions. concentrate on what she is savins!.
2. Monitoring: Checking, verifying, or correcting one’s comprehension or performance in the
course of a‘iiste ig task. ._________________

2a. Compre- Checking, verifying, or correcting I translate and see if it sounds right
hension one’s understanding at the local (in combination with translation).
monitoring: level. I just try to put everything together,
understanding one thing leads to
understanding another.
.________________

2b. Auditory Using one’s “ear” for the language I use my knowledge of Portuguese,
monitoring: (how something sounds) to make primarily sound (in combination with
decisions. transfer).
I use the sound of words to relate to
other words I know.
2c. Doublexheck Checking, verifying, or correcting I might catch it at the end and then
monitoring: one’s understanding across the task I’d go back.
or during the second time through Sunny in the morning, that’s not
the oral text. making sense...(earlier) it sounded
like a cold front, something doesn’t
make sense to m e any more.
3. Evaluation: Checking the outcomes of one’s listening comprehension against a n internal measure
of completeness and accuracy
3a. Performance
evaluation: I Judging one’s overall execution of
the task.
How close was I? (at end of a
think-aloud report).

392
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNAD-FALL 1997

FIGURE 1 (continued)
3b. Strategy Judging one’s strategy use. 1 don’t concentrate too much to the
evaluation: point of translation of individual
words because then you just have a
whole lot of words and not how
they’re strung together into some
kind of meaning.
....................................
4. Problem Explicitly identifying the central I’m not sure but “partager” and I’m
identification: point needing resolution in a task or not really sure what that means.
identifying a n aspect of the task that I think that kind of has something to
hinders its successful completion. d o with that.
Music, there is something, ...”des jeux”,
_I_don’t
- _ _ _ _ _ _know
_ _ _ _ _ _what _ - - - - -is.
_ _ _ _ _ _that -------------

Comitive Stratesties
1. Inferencing: Using information within the text or conversational context to guess the
meanings of unfamiliar language items associated with a listening task, to predict out-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . Or
comes, . . . f. i ~in
. . . to missing information.
.____________________________-_

la. Linguistic Using known words in a n utterance I use other words in the sentence.
Inferencing: to guess the meaning of unknown [ try to think of it in context and
words. guess.
.................... .___________________-___-_----

lb. Voice and Using tone of voice andlor I listen to the way the words are
paralinguistic paralinguistics to guess the meaning said.
inferencing: of unknown words in an utterance. I guess, using tone of voice as a clue.
.................... ._____________________---____

lc. Kinesic Using facial expressions, body I try to read her body language.
inferencing: language, and hand movements to I read her face.
guess the meaning of unknown 1 use the teacher’s hand gestures.
words used by a speaker.
.................... ___________________________

Id. Extralinguistic Using background sounds and I guess on the basis of the kind of
inferencing: relationships between speakers in information the question asks for.
a n oral text, material in the response I comprehend what the teacher
sheet, or concrete situational chooses to write on the board to
referents to guess the meaning of clarify what she is saying.
unknown words.
le. Between parts Using information beyond the local Because in the beginning she said
inferencing: sentential level to guess at meaning. “course,” so maybe it was, maybe it
was a race ...may be a horse race ...
You pick out things you d o know
and in the whole situation piece it
together so that you d o know what it
does mean.

.................... ______________________------__________________--------------------------------
2a. Pemnal Referring to prior experience I think there is some big picnic or a
elaboration: personally. family gathering, sounds like fun, I
don’t know ...
You know ...maybe they missed each other,
because that happens to me lots we just
miss accidentally and then you call
up and say, “Well,what happened?”
...................................................................................................
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1997

FIGURE 1 (continued)
2b. World Using knowledge gained from Recognizing the names in sports
elaboration: experience in the world. helps you to know what sport they
are talking about.
I use the topic to determine the
words that I will listen for (in
combination with selective attention).
2c. Academic Using knowledge gained in [I know that] from doing telephone
elaboration: academic situations. conversations in class.
I relate the word to a topic we’ve
studied.
I try to think of all my background
in French.
2d. Questioning Using a combination of questions Something about sixty-one,
elaboration: and world knowledge to brainstorm restaurant, sixty-one. Maybe it’s the
logical possibilities. address.
Um, he said he started, probably
fixing up his apartment, something
about his apartment. Probably just
moved in, um, because they’re fixing
it up.
Making u p a story line, or adopting Sounded like introducing something,
a clever perspective. like it says here is something but I
can’t figure out what it is, it could
b e like ...one of the athletes, like
introducing some person or something.
I guess there is a trip to the Carnival
in Quebec so maybe it is like
something for them to enter a date,
to write. o r draw ...
2f. Imagery: Using mental or actual pictures or I can picture the words in my mind.
visuals to represent information; I make pictures in my mind for
coded as a separate category but words I know, then I fill in the
viewed as a form of elaboration. picture that’s missing in the sequence
of pictures in my mind.
3. Summarization Making a mental or written summary I remember the key points and run
of language and information them through my head, “what
presented in a listening task. happened here and what happened
here” and get everything organized
in order to answer the questions.
4. Translation: Rendering ideas from one language I translate.
to another in a relatively verbatim 1’11 say what she says in my head,
manner. but in English.
A little voice inside me is translatinq.
5. Transfer: Using knowledge of one language I try to relate the words to English.
(e.g., cognates) to facilitate listening I use my knowledge of other
in another. languages: English to understand
German and Portuguese (primarily
sound) to understand French.
6. Repetition: Repeating a chunk of language (a I sound out the words.
word or phrase) in the course of I say the word to myself.
performing a listening task.

394
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1997

FIGURE 1 (continued)

7. Resourcing: Using available reference sources of I look it up in a dictionary.

information about the target I look in the back of the book.
language, including dictionaries,
textbooks, and prior work.
8. Grouping: Recalling information based on 1 try to relate the words that sound
grouping according to common the same. (in combination with
attributes. auditory monitoring).
I break up words for parts I might
recognize.
9. Note-taking: Writing down key words and I write down the word.
concepts in abbreviated verbal, When I write it down, it comes to
graphic, or numerical form to assist my mind what it means.
performance of a listening task.
10. Deduction/ Consciously applying learned or self- I use knowledge of the kinds of
induction: developed rules to understand the words such as parts of speech.
target language.
11. Substitution: Selecting alternative approaches, I substitute words, translate and see
revised plans, or different words or if it sounds right (in combination
phrases to accomplish a listening with translation and comprehension
task. monitoring).

Socioaffective Strategies
1. Questioning for Asking for explanation, verification, 1’11 ask the teacher.
clarification: rephrasing, or examples about the 1’11 ask for a repeat.
language and/or task; posing
auestions to the self.
2. Cooperation: Working together with someone I ask someone who knows the word.
other than an interlocutor to solve a I ask a friend.
problem, pool information, check a I ask the person next to me.
learning task, model a language
activity, or get feedback on oral or
written Derformance.
3. Lowering Reducing anxiety through the use of I think of something funny to calm
anxiety: mental techniques that make one feel m e down.
more competent to perform a I take deep breaths.
listening task.
4. Self- Providing personal motivation I try to get what I can.
encouragement: through positive self-talk and/or 0 . K ...my hunch was right.
arranging rewards for oneself during I tell myself that everyone else is
a listening activity or upon its probably having some kind of
completion. problem as well.
5. Taking Becoming aware of, and getting in I take it home and take it out on my
emotional touch with one’s emotions while family.
temperature: listening, in order to avert negative O.K. I’m getting mad ‘cause I don’t
ones and make the most of positive understand.
ones.

Source: Adapted from O’Malley and Chamot (1990, 137-139); Oxford (1990, 21); Vandergrift (1996).

395
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1997

to resolve questions and discrepancies; inter- is compared to that of Intermediate listeners, it

rater reliability was .78. is evident that the latter group reports using a
When coding was completed, a listening higher percentage of metacognitive strategies.
comprehension strategy profile was devel- As reported metacognitive strategy use in-
oped for each participant. Each coded report creases by proficiency level, reported use of
of a strategy (token) was tabulated. A strategy certain cognitive strategies (transfer and trans-
profile for each participant was created by rep lation) decreasessharply.Since the nature of a
resenting each strategy and strategy group re- think-aloudprocedure is not conducive to elic-
ported as a percentage of total reported iting the report of socioaffectivestrategies, this
strategy use by that participant. For example, if category of strategies was reported as less than
participant D reported 134 strategies while one per cent of the total strategy use. For that
thinking aloud during the three texts, of which reason, incidence of reported use of these
29 were metacognitive strategies, 104 were strategies is presented here only and will not
cognitive strategies and 1 was a socioaffective be discussed further.
strategy, then D’s strategy profile would be:
metacognitive (21.65 percent), cognitive Metacognitive Strategies Reported
(77.61 percent), and socioaffective (.07 per- The most interesting pattern of reported
cent). Furthermore, if D reported elaboration strategy use emerging from the data in Table 2
(a cognitive strategy) 22 times and compre- is the increase in metacognitive strategies. In-
hension monitoring (a metacognitivestrategy) termediate listeners reported using more than
14 times, then these strategies would be re- twice as many metacognitive strategies as
ported in D’s profile as: elaboration (17.65per- Novice listeners. In fact, strategies such as
cent) and comprehension monitoring (10.46 comprehension monitoring, planriing, and
percent). Profiles were then grouped accord- problem identification were reported twice as
ing to the different variables to be examined: often by Intermediate listeners. Comprehen-
1) level of language proficiency, 2) gender, 3) sion monitoring appears to be the meta-
listening ability,and 4) learning style. Grouped cognitive strategy reported most often. Even
data for each variable were analyzed for any though the dominant report of cognitive strate-
emerging patterns or trends in the nature and gies tends to mask the report of metacognitive
frequency of reported strategy use. strategy use, comprehension monitoring actu-
The ensuing presentation of results must be ally becomes the fourth most reported strategy
understood as suggestive of trends and pat- for Intermediate listeners, bypassing cognitive
terns in strategy use rather than definitive, strategies such as translation, transfer, and rep
since the numbers within each grouping are etition that were reported more frequently by
too small to provide any power for a statistical Novice listeners. Reported use of planning was
analysis. As such, the results should be inter- rather surprising since there was no opportu-
preted as distinct possibilities that will need to nity for planning before each listening task. As
be validated with a larger sample. was mentioned earlier, participants began
each task “cold”;that is, they were not pre-
Results pared in any way (e.g., vocabulary, questions,
title, introductory contextual statement, etc.)
Reported Strategy Use for what they were about to hear. Therefore,
The data presented in Table 2 (on the next the strategies that relate to planning tended to
page) provides an overview of reported strat- be “on-line,”predicting what might happen on
egy use for all participants by major categories the basis of what was just said or what was un-
and for each strategy within a category. Cogni- derstood so far, as illustrated in the following
tive strategies are reported most by all partici- examples:
pants, followed by metacognitive strategies.
When reported strategy use by Novice listeners

396
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1997

TABLE 2
Mean Number of Strategies Reported by Category
for Novice and Intermediate Listeners
Strategy Novice Intermediate Total
n=14 n=7 n=2 1
Planning 1.62 2.45 1.90
I Comprehension monitoring
.. __
! 4.53 10.41 6.49
I Self-evaluation 11 0.17 1.40 0.58
Problem identification 2.30 4.79 3.13

Repetition 8.67 5.04 7.46

Grouping 0.59 0.00 0.39
Deductionhnduction 1.01 0.37 0.80
I Elaboration 1 20.46 1 21.71 I 20.88 I
Summarization 20.38 29.87 23.54
Transfer 11.38 2.90 8.55
Translation 13.09 4.73 10.30
lnferencing 15.50 15.84 15.61
Cognitive potal) 91.08 80.46 87.54
Socioaffective (Total) 0.30 0.49 0.36
1 (Number represents a percentage of total strategy use)
Doesn’t sound like what...the guy had a listeners in reported use of cognitive strategies.
good weekend. He’s about to tell the girl Whereas summarization is the dominant re-
why. (Intermediate 111) ported strategy for Intermediate listeners, fol-
lowed by elaboration, both of these strategies
I don’t know just the, I don’t know. He are reported equally by Novice listeners. Infer-
was saying what kind of special it’s encing appears to be the third most reported
gonna be. I’m just waiting for it to come. strategy, with almost equal reported use by
(Novice 11) Novice and Intermediate listeners. The major
difference between these groups appears in
Cognitive Strategies Reported the strategies reported most frequently after
A further examination of Table 2 reveals the three most salient strategies cited above.
eight different cognitive strategies reported by Whereas Novice listeners reported more sur-
participants. In particular, three strategies are face-processing strategies such as translation,
reported heavily by all listeners: summariza- transfer, and repetition, Intermediate listeners
tion, elaboration, and inferencing. This is fol- reported more use of deepprocessing, meta-
lowed by strategiessuch as translation,transfer, cognitive strategies such as comprehension
and repetition. Grouping was reported only at monitoring and problem identification. It a p
the Novice level and induction/deduction re- pears that a shift in depth of processing may be
ported sporadically at both levels. an important distinction between Novice and
Another interesting pattern of reported Intermediate listeners.
strategy use conveyed by this table is the dif-
ference between Novice and Intermediate
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1997

Relationship Between Reported Strategy Use pattern of heavy reported use of summariza-
and the Variables Under Investigation tion, elaboration, and inferencing seems to
stabilize at the Intermediate level, where a re-
ProficiencyLevel ported increase in metacognitive strategies is
Some basic differences in the reported use counterbalanced by a decrease in cognitive
of listening comprehension strategies have al- strategies such as transfer, translation, and
ready been established for listeners at the repetition. It is also interesting to note that the
Novice and lntermediate levels of language use of repetition increases through the Novice
proficiency. This section will examine data level and drops off sharply at the lntermediate
presented in Table 3 for more subtle shifts in level. The shifts in reported metacognitive
strategies reported between sublevels within strategy use between sublevels is less dra-
each of these two proficiency levels. matic. Comprehension monitoring tends to in-
Within the Novice level there is an interest- crease by sublevel and level off at the
ing shift from one sublevel to another with r e Intermediate level, at which point the report
gard to the reported use of cognitive strategies of other metacognitive strategiessuch as plan-
such as elaboration, summarization, transfer, ning and self-evaluation increases slightly.
translation,and inferencing. Novice I listeners
reported a strong preference for elaboration, Gender
inferencing,and transfer.At the Novice 11 level, The data presented in Table 4 (on the next
however, reported use of cognitivestrategies is page) show that there are very few differ-
more evenly distributed than at any other sub- ences when reported strategy use for all male
level. At the Novice 111 level, listeners reported and female participants is compared. Female
a strong preference for summarization, fol- students reported using slightly more meta-
lowed by elaboration and inferencing. This cognitive strategies than males, almost exclu-

TABLE 3
Mean Number of Strategies Reported by Proficiency Level

Translation 9.74 17.47 6.80 3.88 4.37

Inferencing 20.39 11.71 16.31 15.87 15.81

398
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1997

sively self-evaluation strategies. Overall, the examination of individual strategies reveals

pattern of reported strategy use presented in that the most notable differences lie in the re-
Table 4 is evident again for both male and ported use of comprehension monitoring and
female students. The same six cognitive strat- problem identification.
egies-i.e., summarization, elaboration, in- Comparing successful and less successful
ferencing, translation, transfer, and repetition listeners, differences in reported cognitive
- c o n t i n u e to be the strategies reported most strategy use are not as sharp as differences in
often, followed by the metacognitive strategy reported metacognitive strategy use. The most
of comprehension monitoring. The only dif- striking difference lies in the report of transfer;
ference lies in the reported use of repetition; less successful listeners report using this strat-
male students reported it more than females, egy almost twice as much as their more suc-
resulting in male students ranking it higher cessful counterparts. Presumably, their limited
than transfer, which was preferred by female linguistic base forces them to rely more on
students. cognates as a basis for inferencing. Both repe-
tition and translation were reported almost
Listening Ability equally by both successful and less successful
An examination of the data presented in listeners.
Table 4 reveals that the biggest difference be- In conclusion, from a quantitative perspec-
tween successful and less successful listeners tive, the major difference between successful
appears to lie in the reported use of metacog- and less successful listeners appears to lie in
nitive strategies. Successful listeners report their reported use of metacognitive strategies,
twice the number of metacognitive strategies primarily comprehension monitoring. This
reported by less successful listeners. A closer ability to monitor is complemented by a facil-

TABLE 4
Mean Number of Strategies Reported by Gender and Listening Ability
Strategy
1 Male
n=8 1 Female
n=13 1 Successful
n=10 I Less
!5u;yssful 1
Planning 1.97 1.85 2.04 1.76
Comprehension monitoring 6.29 6.61 8.91 4.28
Self-evaluation 0.12 0.88 1.oo 0.22
Problem identification 3.37 2.98 4.22 2.13

399
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNA=-FALL 1997

ity to pinpoint what needs more attention or nificant shifts in the types of cognitive strate-
greater clarification (problem identification). gies reported from one sublevel to another; a
more stable pattern of reported strategy use
Learning Style emerges at the Intermediate level. Novice I lis-
It is reasonable to hypothesize a close rela- teners report heavy use of elaboration, infer-
tionship between cognitive style and pattern encing, and transfer in order to build meaning
of strategy use (e.g., Ely 1989; Skehan 1991). from oral texts. Because of their limited lin-
Since the possibility of such a relationship be- guistic knowledge, they recognize very few
tween listening strategies and learning style words. They overcome this limitation by using
had not previously been examined, each par- what they do recognize: cognates from their
ticipant in this study was asked to complete first language (transfer) and contextual, ex-
the Leuming-S@lelnoentory (LSI) (Kolb 1985). tralinguistic cues such as background noise,
Scores were tabulated and plotted on a grid tone of voice, and relationships between
that placed each participant in o n e of four speakers (e.g., child talking to a n adult) for in-
quadrants: 1) Type 1 learners: innovative, di- ferencing purposes. The French/English
vergent intuitors; 2 ) Type 2 learners: analyti- words and other nonlinguistic cues have im-
cal, assimilating intellectuals; 3) Type 3 mediate meaning to the Novice I listener and
learners: commonsense, convergent imple- are therefore processed automatically, with-
mentors; and 4) Type 4 learners: dynamic, ac- out analysis in short-term memory (STM)
commodating inventors. (Eastman 1991). This allows Novice I listeners
An analysis of the relationship between to allocate some attentional resources in STM
type of learning style and reported listening to draw on world knowledge and life experi-
comprehension strategy use uncovered only ence (elaboration), using topdown processes
modest differences in strategy use by learning in guiding their interpretation (inferencing).
style; however, considering the size of the Constraints on attentional resources d o not
numbers in the various cells and the some- allow Novice 1 listeners to do more. In fact, the
times considerable variation in reported strat- qualitative analysis revealed that attempts at
egy use within the same cell, it would not be translation (bottom-up processing) interfered
justifiable to draw any conclusions. This ob- with the perception of additional semantic
servation is reported here in response to a cues, a finding also noted by Eastman. The
claim by Oxford (1994) that often the rela- constraints on attentional resources may also
tionship between strategy use and learning explain the minimal report of comprehension
style is either 1) not examined or 2 ) not re- monitoring at this level. As suggested by infor-
ported because, presumably, the results did mation-processing theory (McLaughlin, et al.
not point to any meaningful relationship. 1983), Novice I listeners are struggling to cope
with the rapid sound stream of authentic texts,
Discussion and they may not be capable of simultane-
As mentioned earlier, the preceding results ously 1) holding in memory what they have al-
should be understood as suggestive of trends ready understood, 2) parsing new incoming
and and patterns in strategy use. These results input for more meaning, and 3) evaluating the
are not conclusive and must be interpreted as congruency of the new information with the
distinct possibilities that will need to be vali- old. There appears to be very little room in
dated with a larger sample. The following dis- STM for deeper processing strategies such as
cussion will attempt to explain the results monitoring.
within a n information-processing framework Novice 11 listeners do not appear to strongly
(McLaughlin et al. 1983). favor any strategy. Report of elaboration,
translation, summarization, transfer, inferenc-
Language Proficiency ing, and repetition is more evenly distributed
At the Novice level there appear to be sig- here than at any other sublevel. The sharp rise

400
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1997

of translation from Novice I is noteworthy. and words, allowing Intermediate listeners to

Novice I1 listeners are familiar with more process larger chunks of information and to
words than Novice I listeners, but their lexicon allocate more attentional resources to moni-
may not be sufficiently internalized for auto- toring (Shiffrin and Schneider 1977). The fact
matic access to meaning in LTM. Therefore, as that inefficient surface-level strategies such as
suggested by Eastman (1991), these listeners repetition, transfer, and translation have now
naturally feel compelled to translate, allocat- been superseded by deeper processing strate
ing precious attentional resources to this inef- gies, lends further support to this claim.
ficient strategy. It appears that this level may
be a period of instability in strategy use and Gender
that listeners begin to rely more on translation. Other than the modest difference in report
This may suggest that the Novice I1 level is a of self-evaluation strategies by females, there
pivotal period for strategy instruction, a find- appear to be few differences in reported strat-
ing also noted by Prokop (1989). If efficient egy use by gender. This surprising finding dif-
listening strategies are not taughvlearned b e fers from the findings of Phase I (Vandergrift
fore or at this level, students may either con- 1996) and other studies comparing differ-
tinue to experience frustration in language ences in general language learning strategies
learning, or drop out. reported by males and females (e.g., Ehrman
The essential difference between Novice and Oxford 1989;Oxford, Nyikos, and Ehrman
and Intermediate listeners is that Intermediate 1988). All of those studies, however, used ret-
listeners report twice as many metacognitive rospective self-report as a methodology. Even
strategies. Although both groups of listeners in the Bacon (1992a) study, subjects were
report using summarization, elaboration, and asked a series of questions immediately after
inferencing the most, the difference in the pat- listening to the entire text, in order to elicit
tern of reported strategy use after these strate strategies and check comprehension.
gies is noteworthy. Whereas Novice listeners Although it would be impossible to access
report using other cognitive strategies, such as the complete “online” thought processes of
translation, transfer, and repetition, Intermedi- participants, the introspective methodology
ate listeners report using metacognitive strate used in this study, reporting while listening,
gies such as comprehension monitoring, may come closer to revealing actual thought
selective attention, and problem identifica- processes than previous studies on reported
tion. As mentioned earlier, a shift in depth of strategy use by gender. In fact, the present in-
processing may be an important distinction vestigator discovered on a number of occa-
between Novice and Intermediate listeners. sions that, in spite of the numerous pauses in
The dramatic increase in the report of the texts, a n important moment in compre-
metacognitive strategies at this level may be hension had occurred before the pause, but
explained by the composition of the sample: the participant could no longer recall what
almost all successful listeners. Presumably, had happened.
through time and necessity, Intermediate lis- How might the apparent difference be-
teners have learned that success in listening tween “reported‘strategy use and “actual”
and second language learning requires the di- strategy use be explained? Studies on gender
recting control of metacognitive strategies. differences tell us that females typically excel
Concomitantly, learners who have not ac- at verbal fluency; they have a stronger social
quired these strategies have become frus- orientation than males (Maccoby and Jacklin
trated and have withdrawn from second 1974); they rely heavily on verbal problem-
language study (a second language is not r e solving strategies (Otten 1985); and they rely
quired in the jurisdiction in which the study heavily on verbally and socially mediated a p
took place). Prolonged language exposure proaches in their interactions (Halpern 1992).
has internalized many structures, routines, This, in addition to the tendency of males to

40 1
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS--FALL 1997

be less self-disclosing and of females to be quantitative difference in use of summariza-

conversation smoothers (Kramarae 1985), tion by Julie and Evan is only a modest four
may explain why females report more strate per cent, their understandings of the text are
gies. Strategy use by gender definitely merits qualitatively different, a finding also noted by
further study to examine the possible differ- Bacon (1992b) for her subjects. A qualitative
ences between reported use and actual use of analysis of representative protocols reinforced
learning strategies o n a wide variety of lan- the quantitative results by pointing to the inte-
guage tasks. gral role of metacognitive strategies. In addi-
tion, differences became apparent in the
Listening Ability effective use of world knowledge, use of p r e
A quantitative representation offers only a diction skills, quality of inferencing, and tim-
superficial picture of the differences between ing and depth of comprehension monitoring?
successful and less successful listeners. It can- The following protocols and discussion il-
not capture how a strategy is used or the par- lustrate the difference in approach used by
ticular combinations of strategies that trigger Julie (an unsuccessful listener) and Evan (a
meaning (Chamot et al. 1987). Neither can it successful listener). Both are in their second
capture the effective use of a strategy, such as year of French, although Julie is repeating the
the accuracy of an inference, an appropriate course. They are listening to an advertisement
connection to prior knowledge (elaboration), about a new magazine for young people
or depth of summarization. For example, in called Formidable.
the protocols provided below, although the

C’est une annonce sHciale. Attention les jeunes! Formidable! fait ses dCbuts!Vous at-
tendez ce magazine depuis longtemps, et le voila enfin!
Julie: Eh, he is talking to les jeunes, I guess, Euan: He is asking for the attention of all the
younger people, he is saying Attention which young people, attention les jeunes;
is listen.
Int.: O.K.
Int.: Mmm,
Euan: He says something about attention to
Julie: Eh, a magazine, for children.. the youth or something.

Int.: So what is going through your mind? Int.: So, what are you thinking?
What are you thinking now?
Eoan: He just wants to talk about something
Julie: The thing is, I guess, a magazine for that appeals to young people, 1 didn’t get it.
younger children, and children, that’s all I
got. Int.: O.K., no ideas what it is that he is getting at?

Evan: No.
_-_--_------------------~-------------------------------------------------------

Both listeners use bottom-up processing to quickly cue into the audience for this particular
text, but only Julie has understood at this point that it is a magazine. Even though Evan missed
the word “magazine,”his protocol demonstrates an awareness of the type of text that this might
be and what he has to listen for (problem identification). Julie’s protocol indicates evidence of
surface processing; i.e.,translation.

402
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1997

Aujourd’hui, chez votre marchand de journaux, vous trouvez Formidable! le magazine

fait sficialement pour vous, les jeunes.
Julie: Something about a special, it’s for, 1 Euan: Something about a magazine, he is try-
know he said vous in there, so that must mean ing to plug in on a magazine for young people.
for just about everybody.
Int.: How d o you know that?
Inf.: Uh, uh.
Euan: Well, maybe a store; a magazine, could
Julie: That’s really all 1 can tell. be in a store too.

Inf.:What are you thinking about that?

Euan: I’m trying to think about a store for

youth, I don’t know. For young people, I don’t
know.
------__---------_____-_-------~---------~_~---------~~~---------~~------

Evan now quickly identifies that a magazine is the subject of the text. On the other hand, Julie
just focuses on the “special” (transfer from specialement) and further surface processing (analy-
sis of “vous”); she does not tie this in with earlier information. Evan considers the possibility of
the often-confused “magasin/magazine,” checks out the plausibility of both, and decides that
there is not yet enough information to make a definite decision (comprehension monitoring).

Dans Formidable! on vous parle de vos personnalitCs prCfCrCes--chanteurs,

groupes, vedettes de cinCma et de la tClC, athlGtes, etc.
Julie: He is saying there’s like great conversa- Euan: It’sspecially suited, I think it’s a maga-
tion, parle, that’s speaking so, there’s movies, zine especially suited for the athletes, the
tele fund-raising, that must be magazine, so I singers and there is something forevery one
got that. Like listings to movies, conversa- in it.
tions, that’s about all I got.
Int.: Uh huh.

Euan: It says prefer, prefere is prefer.

Int.: Uh, uh.

Euan: What you prefer, singing, athletes, or

acting. Athletes, or athletic groups.
----__---______------_----~_-~----------~~----------~~---------~-------

Both listeners have used cognates such as Me, athlethes, cinema (transfer) to elaborate fur-
ther on their understanding. Although Evan, like Julie, engages in some surface analysis here
(prefer=prefere) he is still focused on what this text is about (topdown processing); he appears
to have decided that it concerns a magazine. On the other hand, Julie appears to be heading
off into tangents. With no solid conceptual framework into which she can fit new information,
Julie lacks the sense of direction necessaly for differentiating between information that is con-
gruent or incongruent with the framework. Therefore her summarization, which contains ele
ments of truth, is incomplete and disjointed.

403
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1997

Beaucoup de bons articles, de belles photos, et de bandes illustrbes.

Julie: With great photos, and articles, well ... Euan: Yeah, there is good photography in it, so
I think altogether he is kind of selling this mag-
Int.: So what are you thinking? azine to young people, and trying to make it
appeal to young people because there is all
Julie: Eh, he is talking, I don’t know, about like kind of things in it interesting to Young people.
a magazine for young people I guess they can
get involved with maybe, I’m not really sure.

Both listeners appear to be trying to tie things together. Julie is back to her magazine schema but
does not seem too certain about it. Julie’s apparent lack of selfconfidence (manifest in all three s e
sions) may explain her hesitant and passive approach. Evan has now clearly decided that this is a
promotional offer for a magazine for young people. This allows him to confidently interpret the
upcoming input within the conceptual framework that he has activated and verified.

I1 y a des coupons pour des offres spcciales et un concoum a tous les mois. Ce mois
ci vous pouvez gagner un voyage au Carnaval de QuCbec!
Julie: I guess there is a trip to the Carnival in Euan: There is coupons in it for special offers,
Quebec, so maybe it is like something for I heard that, and there is contests in it, that
them to enter a date, to write, o r draw, you can win a trip to the Quebec Carnival,
gagner, for to win.
fnt.: How do you know that?
Int.: How d o you know there’s a contest?
Julie: Eh, because just by the way he explained
to them what can be done so I guess if they Euan: Well, something, h e said something
write an article or draw a picture or I don’t about you can win a trip to the Quebec
know what else. Carnival.

fnt.: Mmm, mmm. Int.: So ..

Julie: Maybe they can win a trip to the Carnival Euan: So, this magazine has all these things in
or something if that’s what they write about. it and he’s just trying to make it interesting.

fnt.: Mmm, mmm. Anything else going on in

your mind?

Julie: No.
Evan continues to systematically accommodate the new information into the conceptual frame
work he established earlier. Even though he does not know the word for contest (concours), he
is able to infer its meaning on the basis of the schema and new linguistic input. Meanwhile Julie
appears to have forgotten about the idea of a magazine and just attempts to understand what she
presently hears without connecting it with what she already knows. Using the jigsaw puzzle
metaphor (Long 1989), Julie has lost the sense of the overall picture (the final product) so that she
no longer knows where to fit the pieces that she is able to comprehend. Cognitive style may also
help to explain the difference in approach that is evident at this point. Julie may be too field-in-
dependent, failing to perceive the whole picture, whereas Evan may be more fielddependent, al-
lowing him to sort out the pieces without losing track of the whole picture.

404
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS--FALL 1997

Et Formidable! n’est pas cher! Seulement 1,50$ par mois. Oui, c’est vrai, mes amis!
Vous ne payez que 1,50$ par mois. Formidable? Oui, c’est Formidable!
Euan: Well, the magazine is $1.50, and this
Julie: He is saying that’s true. 1 guess they
person, he’s trying to sell it to, I don’t know if
were talking about that before, that’s really
he’s like accepting it or not, I heard a couple
great, and it’s true, it’s great, that’s what I
caught the second part, the ending. words that I didn’t quite understand, like
after h e said ‘Formidable’ and I missed the
Inf.: Mmm. Anything more that you think is word after that.
going on in your mind about this thing?
Inf.:Uh, uh. Any more ideas? ... No?
Julie: No.

These final protocols reinforce what has al- ing and produces protocols that are charac-
ready been noted. Although the price is re- terized by rich, coherent, and comprehensive
peated, Julie does not pick up on it. This may summarization in contrast to the more super-
be d u e to a deficient conceptual framework ficial, disjointed, and incomplete summariza-
and/or a n inability to anticipate the logical tion by less successful listeners.
components of a magazine advertisement. Less successful listeners like Julie experi-
Therefore, Julie just picks u p on individual ence difficulty because they squander pre-
words (“vrai” and “formidable”),but never re- cious time and attentional resources on
ally interacts with the text as a whole. On the inefficient surface processing strategies such
other hand, Evan picks up on the price as a as translation (Eastman 1991). Translation
natural component of a promotional offer and takes more time and attentional resources
even speculates (selective attention) o n and builds less meaning because it involves
whether the offer will be accepted, hinting surface mapping between languages, and
that that may be the meaning of the words he generally fails to activate conceptual pro-
did not get (problem identification). cesses (Swaffar 1988). This results in frequent
In conclusion, the verbal reports of Julie shifting of conceptual frameworks, inade-
and Evan demonstrate sharp differences in quate suppression of irrelevant information,
depth of interaction with the text. Successful and rapid fading of recently comprehended
listeners like Evan are able to use their world information (Gemsbacher et al. 1990). The re-
knowledge more productively, relating the sult is a n incomplete and disjointed under-
text to their own experience. There is less standing of the text. Less successful listeners
shifting between potential frameworks of in- lack the regulating control of metacognitive
terpretation and a greater ability to rapidly strategies to help them focus on meaning.
suppress irrelevant information, so that listen- Without a conceptual framework and a direc-
ers d o not lose previously comprehended in- tion provided by anticipation, listening efforts
formation (Gernsbacher et al. 1990). Meaning become aimless, resulting in haphazard de-
is accumulated as new input interacts with ployment of strategies that generate only iso-
previous knowledge and the expectations lated parcels of meaning.
generated by the conceptual framework. This
allows successful listeners to devote atten- Pedagogical Implications
tional resources to a continuous cycle of Because it is done in real time, listening is
metacognitive activity involving comprehen- perforce a selective process. What listeners
sion monitoring, further prediction of new in- decide to select for processing is crucial for
formation, and monitoring again (O’Malley, successful comprehension. Evidence from
Chamot, and Kupper 1989). Effective linking this study would indicate 1) that metacogni-
of strategies fosters efficient cognitive process- tive strategies play a key role in what success-

405
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNAS-FALL 1997

ful listeners choose to select for processing interaction. Teacher intervention during this
and 2) that the beginning two years of lan- phase is virtually impossible because of the
guage learning may be pivotal in acquiring ephemeral nature of listening. Periodic prac-
these strategies and in fostering successful lan- tice in decision-making skills and strategy use
guage learning. A pedagogical sequence that can sharpen inferencing skills and help stu-
guides students through the listening process dents to monitor more effectively. Strategies to
may be most suitable for nurturing the devel- be practiced include: logical inferencing and
opment of metacognitive awareness and the appropriate use of world knowledge (elabora-
acquisition of metacognitive strategies in tion) (see Mendelsohn 1994), cognate awar-
three categories: planning, monitoring, and eness and word derivation skills (see Cashman
evaluating. Since many students already a p 1990).
peared to be familiar with a number of plan-
ning strategies, special emphasis should b e Teach Students to Evaluate the Approach to,
placed on activities that nurture monitoring and Outcome ot; Their Listening Efforts
and evaluating. A teaching framework for lis- Students can evaluate the results of deci-
tening tasks (e.g., Glisan 1988; Duplantie and sions made during a listening task. The teacher
Massey 1984; Underwood 1989) can guide stu- can encourage self-evaluation and reflection
dents through the mental processes for suc- by asking students to evaluate the effective-
cessful listening comprehension. ness of strategies used. Group or class discus-
sions on the approach taken by students can
Teach Students to Plan for Listening also stimulate reflection and valuable evalua-
Prelistening activities are crucial to good tion. Students should be encouraged to share
second language pedagogy. During this criti- individual routes leading to success; kg., how
cal phase of the listening process, teachers someone guessed (inference) the meaning of
prepare students for what they will hear and a certain word or how someone modified a
what they are expected to do. First, students particular strategy. Focusing on the process as
need to bring to consciousness their knowl- well as the product of listening can help stu-
edge of the topic, the organization of the in- dents to reflect on their learning and can en-
formation in the text, and any relevant courage them to consciously adjust their
cultural information. Second, a purpose for strategies.
listening must be established so that students In order for students to develop successful
know the specific information they need to lis- listening strategies, it would appear wise for
ten for and/or the degree of detail required. teachers to work within this framework during
Using all the available information, students the first two years of language learning, at
can make predictions to anticipate what they least. At Novice levels, the teacher needs to
might hear. Prelistening activities can help stu- act in a metacognitive role for the students,
dents make decisions about what to listen for discouraging a reliance on language decod-
and, subsequently, to focus attention on ing in favor of cues that encourage topdown
meaning while listening. processing strategies. As students move b e
yond the Novice level, teachers gradually
Teach Students How to Monitor Their Com- transfer to the student their metacognitive role
prehension and serve in a facilitating role instead.
During the listening activity itself, students This study has demonstrated that Novice I
continue to monitor their comprehension and listeners can comprehend the gist of authentic
make decisions about strategy use. Students texts without any advance p r e p a r a t i ~ n . ~
need to continually evaluate what they are Therefore, listening practice with authentic
comprehending for 1) consistency with their texts is possible at early stages of language
predictions and 2) internal consistency, i.e., learning.5 These texts, however, must relate to
the ongoing interpretation of the oral text or the life experience of the students and contain

406
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE A N N A L S - F a 1997

appropriate characteristics to facilitate com- texts. In order to develop confidence and to pro-
prehension at this level. The fact that Novice I vide students with input that contains structures
listeners could not translate phrases and were slightly beyond their level of competence, listening
obliged to focus on every semantic cue avail- comprehension instruction at this level will also in-
able to them, indicates that a topdown, mean- volve extensive teacher talk supported by concrete
ing-based approach can be successfully used referents and actions/gestures to facilitate compre
at this level. Such an approach needs to be nur- hension.
tured through a subsequent period when l i s
teners may feel compelled to translate and use REFERENCES
less efficient bottom-upstrategies.This calls for Asher, J. J. 1969. “The Total Physical Response A p
ample opportunities for guided practice in lis- proach to Second Language Learning.” The
tening so that deployment of appropriate Modem Language Journal 56: 133-139.
metacognitive strategies becomes automatic, Bacon, S. M. 1992a. “The Relationship Between
before, during, and after the listening activity. Gender, Comprehension, Processing Strategies,
and Cognitive and Affective Response in For-
NOTES eign Language Listening. ” The Modern Lan-
‘This paper reports on part of a larger study guage Journal 76,2): 160-178.
(Vandergrift 1992), parts of which have already been -. 1992b. “Phases of Listening to Authentic
presented at the Second Language LeamingForeign Input in Spanish: A Descriptive Study.” Foreign
Language Acquisition (SLA-FLL) Conference, Language Annals 25,4: 317-334.
Purdue University, February 1993 and the 10th Bacon, S. M., and J. Swaffar. 1993. “Reading and
World Congress of the International Association of Listening Comprehension: Perspectives on R e
Applied Linguistics (AILA), Amsterdam, August search and Implications for Practice,” 124-155 in
1993. The author gratefully acknowledges financial A. H. Omaggio, ed., Research in Language
support, in part, from the Social Sciences and Learning: Principles, Processes, and Prospects.
Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC Lincolnwood, I L National Textbook.
Award No. 792-914349). He also wishes to thank Boucher, A-M., and M. Ladouceur. 1988. Communi-
Andrew Cohen and other anonymous reviewers for cation flus 3. Montreal: Centre Educatif et Cul-
their careful reading of this manuscript and their sug- turel.
gestions for improvement. Any errors or omissions Brown, H. D. 1989. A Practical Guide to Language
remain the responsibility of the author alone. Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
* For purposes of this research, the term Byrnes, H. 1984. “The Role of Listening Compre-
“authentic” is used to refer to oral texts that “... hension: A Theoretical Base.”Foreign Language
reflect a naturalness of form, and an appropriate- Annals 17,4: 317-329.
ness of cultural and situational context that would Cashman, D. M. 1990. “Strategiesfor Survival,Corn
be found in the language as used by native speak- munication and Growth in a CommunicativeEx-
ers” (Rogers & Medley 1988,468). periential Classroom at the Junior High Level: A
”or a more in-depth qualitative analysis of pro- Monumental Undertaking,” 61-73 in 1. Mailhot-
tocols of listeners at different levels of language Bernard and D. M. Cashman, eds, Canada’sLan-
proficiency, see Vandergrift (in press). guages: A Time to Reevaluate. Canada: Official
This does not mean, however, that one should Languages Education Conference ‘88.
not prepare students for a listening task. If students Chamot, A. U., and L. Kupper. 1989. “Learning
in this study could successfully comprehend the Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction.”For-
gist of an authentic text without any preparation, eign Language Annals 22,l: 13-24.
appropriate preparation activities should help Chamot, A. U., J. M. O’Malley,L. Kupper, and M. V.
them to attain an even more detailed level of com- Impink-Hernandez. 1987. A Study of Learning
prehension. Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction: First
This is not to suggest that listening practice at Year Report. Rosslyn, VA: Interstate Research As-
this level would involve exclusive use of authentic sociates.

407
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-FALL 1997

Cohen, A. D. 1987. “Using Verbal Reports in Re- Henner Stanchina, Carolyn. 1987. “Autonomyas
search on Language Learning,”82-95in C. Faerch Metacognitive Awareness: Suggestions for Train-
and G. Kasper, eds., Introspection in Second Lan- ing Self-Monitoring of Listening Comprehen-
guage Research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. sion. ” Mdanges Pgdagogiques,69-84.
-. 1990. Second Language Learning: Insights Kolb, David A. 1985. Learning-Swle Inventoory. Re-
for Learners, Teachers and Researchers. New search instrument. Boston: McBer and Com-
York Newbury House. pany.
Cohen, Andrew D., and Carol Hosenfeld. 1981. Kramarae, C. 1985. Women and Men Speaking.
“SomeUses of Mentalistic Data in Second Lan- Rowley, MA: Newbury.
guage Research.”Language Learning 31,2: 285- Leblanc, Raymond. 1986. L’koute dans I’en-
313. seignement des langues secondes A des debu-
Dunkel, P. A. 1986. “Developing Listening Fluency tants. Canadian Modern Language Review 42,3:
in L2: Theoretical Principles and Pedagogical 643-657.
Considerations.”The Modern Language Journal -. 1990. Rapport synthh&se:Etude Nationale
70,2: 99106. sur les programmes d’gtude de francais de base.
-. 1991. “Listening in the Native and Sec- Ottawa: Association canadienne des pro-
ondIForeign Language: Toward an Integration fesseurs de langue seconde.
of Research and Practice.” TESOL Quarterly Long, Donna R. 1989. “Second Language Listening
25,3: 431457. Comprehension:A Schema-Theoretic Perspec-
Duplantie, M., and M. Massey. 1984. Proposition tive.” The Modern Language Journal 73,l: 32-
pour une pedagogie de I’ecoute des documents 40.
authentiques oraux en classe de langue sec- Lowe, P. 1982. The ILR Handbook on Oral interview
onde. Etudes De Linguistique Appliquge 56 Testing. Washington, DC: Defense Lan’guage ln-
(Decembre):4859. stitute.
Eastman, J. K. 1991. “Learning to Listen and Com- Maccoby, E. E., and C. N. Jacklin. 1974. The Psy-
prehend: The Beginning Stages.”System 19,3: chology o f Sex Differences.Stanford: Stanford
179188. University Press.
Ehrman, M., and R. Oxford. 1989. “Effects of Sex Mann, Sandra, J. 1982. “Verbal Reports as Data: A
Differences, Career Choice, and Psychological Focus on Retrospection,”87-104 in S. Dingwall
Type on Adult Language Learning Strategies.” and S. J. Mann, eds., Methods and Problems in
The Modern Language Journal 73,l: 1-13. Doing Applied Linguistic Research. University of
Ely, C. M. 1989. “Toleranceof Ambiguity and Use Lancaster: Department of Linguistics.
of Second Language Strategies.”Foreign Lan- McLaughlin, B., T. Rossman, and B. McLeod. 1983.
guage Annals 22,5: 437445. “Second Language Learning: An Information-
Feyten, C. M. 1991. “The Power of Listening Ability: Processing Perspective.”Language Learning 33:
An Overlooked Dimension in Language Acqui- 135-158.
sition.” The Modern Language Journal 75,2: 173- Mendelsohn, David J. 1994. Learning to Listen: A
180. Strategy-Based Approach for the Second-Lan-
Gemsbacher, M. A,, K. R. Varner, and M. E. Faust. guage Learner. San Diego, CA: Dominie.
1990. “Investigating Differences in General Com- Mendelsohn, D., and J. Rubin, eds. 1995. A Guide
prehension Skill. ” Journal of Experimental Psy- for the Teaching of Second Language Listening.
chology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 16,3: San Diego, C A Dominie.
430-4445. Murphy, John M. 1985. An Investigation into the Lis-
Glisan, Eileen W. 1988. “A Plan for Teaching Lis- tening Strategies of ESL College Students. [ERIC
tening Comprehension: Adaptation of an ln- Document Reproduction Service No. ED 278
structional Reading Model.” Foreign Language 2751
Annals 21,l: 916. Nord, James R. 1978. “DevelopingListening Flu-
Halpem, D.F. 1992.Sex Differencesin Cognitive Abil- ency Before Speaking: An Alternative Para-
ities, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum. digm.” System 8: 1-22.

408
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALE-FALL 1997

OMalley, J. M., and A. U. Chamot. 1990. Learning Skehan, P. 1991. “Individual Differences in Second
Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.Cam- Language Learning.” Studies in Second Lan-
bridge: Cambridge University Press. guage Acquisition 13: 275-298.
O’Malley, J. Michael, Anna U. Chamot, and Lisa Swaffar, J. K. 1988. “Readers, Texts and Second
Kiipper. 1989. “Listening Comprehension Strate Languages: The Interactive Processes.” The
gies in Second Language Acquisition.“ Applied Modern Language Journal 72,2: 123-149.
Linguistics 10,4: 418437. Underwood, M. 1989. Teaching Listening. London:
Otten, C. M. 1985. “Sensorimotor Biases in Cogni- Longman.
tive Development,” 57-126 in R. L. Hall, ed., Vandergrift, L. 1992. The Comprehension Strate-
Male-Female Differences:A Bio-Cultural Perspec- gies of Second Language (French) Listeners.
tive. New York: Praeger. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University
Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: of Alberta, Edmonton.
What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: -. 1996. “Listening Strategies of Core French
Newbury House. High School Students.” Canadian Modem Lan-
-. 1994. “La Difference Continue ...: Gender guage Review 52,2: 200-223.
Differences in Second1 Foreign Language Learn- -. In Press. “Constructing Meaning in L2 Lis-
ing Styles and Strategies,” 140-147 in Jane tening: Evidence from Protocols,” in S. Lapkin,
Sutherland, ed., Exploring Gender. Englewood ed., French as a Second Language Education in
Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Canada: Recent Empirical Studies. Toronto, ON:
Oxford, R., M. Nyikos, and M. Ehrman. 1988. “Vive University of Toronto Press.
La Difference? Reflections on Sex Differences in Wenden, A,, and J. Rubin. 1987. Learner Strategies
Use of Language Learning Strategies.” Foreign in Language Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Language Annals 21,4: 321-329. Prentice-Hall.
Porter, R., and C. Pellerin. 1989. A La Radio! Winitz, Harris, ed. 1981. The Comprehension A p
Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman. proach to Foreign Language Instruction. Row-
Postovsky, Valerian A. 1978. “Why Not Start Speak- ley, MA: Newbury House.
ing Later?,” 17-26 in M. Burt et al., eds., View-
points in English as a Second Language. New
York: Regents.
Prokop, M. 1989. Learning Strategies for Second
Language Users. Queenston, ON: Edwin Mellen
Press.
Rankin, J. Mark. 1988. “Designing Thinking-Aloud
Studies in ESL Reading. ” Reading in a Foreign
Language 4,2: 119132.
Rogers, C. V., and F. W. Medley. 1988. “Language
with a Purpose: Using Authentic Materials in the
Foreign Language Classroom.” Foreign Lan-
guage Annals 2 1,5: 467478.
Rost, M. 1990. Listening in Language Learning. New
York: Longman.
Rubin, J. 1994. “A Review of Second Language Lis-
tening Comprehension Research.” The Modern
Language Journal 78,2: 199-221.
Shiffrin, R. M., and W. Schneider. 1977. “Controlled
and Automatic Information Processing: 11. Per-
ceptual Learning, Automatic Attending, and a
General Theory.” Psychological Review 84: 127-
190.

409