Listening Strategies and L2 Listening Comprehension: Does the Test Method Matter?
Abstract
Many studies have so far tried to examine the relationship between listening strategies and listening comprehension. However, it seems that none of them have focused on the effect of the test method on the findings. The present study has investigated the issue by having 55 English language learners respond to pictorial and non-pictorial listening test items with different response formats. The listening section of the Preliminary English Test (PET) and a 36-item listening strategies questionnaire were administered in the first session and after a week’s interval, the participants took a modified version of PET listening. The data were
collected in a language laboratory. Several correlation and regression tests were run to investigate the relationships between listening comprehension as measured by the original and modified PET listening tests and metacognitive, cognitive and socio-affective listening strategies. The results showed that L2 learners’ use of metacognitive listening strategies is the strongest predictor of listening performance. In addition, the findings indicated that the relationship between the use of listening strategies and listening performance is mediated
by the kind of test method which is used for measuring L2 listening. Directions for future research and implications for practice are presented.
Keywords
listening comprehension; listening strategies; test method
References
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford University Press.
Becker, A. (2016). L2 students’ performance on listening comprehension items targeting local and global information. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.07.004
Becker, S. R. (2021). Metacognitive instruction in L2 French: An analysis of listening performance and automaticity. Foreign Language Annals, 54(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12506
Bozorgian, H. (2014). The role of metacognition in the development of EFL learners’ listening skill, International Journal of Listening, 28(3), 149–161, https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2013.861303
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21(2), 227–249. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2307/3586733
Chen, A. (2009). Listening strategy instruction: Exploring Taiwanese college students’ strategy development. Asian EFL Journal, 11(2), 54–85.
Chien, C., & Wei, L. (1998). The strategy use in listening comprehension for learners in Taiwan. RELC Journal, 29(1), 66–94. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F003368829802900105
Cross, J. (2015). Metacognition in L2 listening: Clarifying instructional theory and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 883–892. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.258
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Dreyer, C., & Oxford, R. (1996). Learning strategies and other predictors of ESL proficiency among Afrikaans-speakers in South Africa. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 17–18). University of Hawaii Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Forbes, K., & Fisher, L. (2020). Strategy development and cross-linguistic transfer in foreign and first language writing. Applied Linguistics Review, 11(2), 311–339. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2018-0008
Goh, C. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns. System, 30(2), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00004-0
Goh, C., & Kwah, P. F. (1997). Chinese ESL students’ learning strategies: A look at frequency, proficiency, and gender. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 39–53.
Huang, S. C. (2018). Language learning strategies in context. The Language Learning Journal, 46(5), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1186723
In’nami, Y., & Koizumi, R. (2009). A meta-analysis of test format effects on reading and listening test performance: Focus on MC and open-ended formats. Language Testing, 26(2), 219–244. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265532208101006
Iwai, Y., (2011). The effects of metacognitive reading strategies: Pedagogical implications for EFL/ESL teachers. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 150–157.
Janusik, L. A., & Varner, T. (2020). (Re)discovering metacognitive listening strategies in L1 contexts: What strategies are the same in the L1 and L2 context? International Journal of Listening, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2020.1833724
Kassem, H. M. (2015). The relationship between listening strategies used by Egyptian EFL college sophomores and their listening comprehension and self-efficacy. English Language Teaching, 8(2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n2p153
Khezrlou, S. (2012). Cognitive strategy training: Improving reading comprehension in the language classroom. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(4), 77–98. https://dx.doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2011.372
Kobayashi, M. (2002). Investigation of test method effects: Text organization and response formats. Language Testing, 19(2), 193–220.
Kök, Z. (2018). Relationship between listening comprehension strategy use and listening comprehension proficiency. International Journal of Listening, 32(3), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2016.1276457
Liyanage, I., & Bartlett, B. J. (2012). Gender and language learning strategies: Looking beyond the categories. The Language Learning Journal, 40(2), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1191%2F0265532202lt227oa
Maftoon, P., & Fakhri Alamdari, E. (2020). Exploring the effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on metacognitive awareness and listening performance through a process-based approach. International Journal of Listening, 34(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2016.1250632
Monteiro, K., & Kim, Y. (2020). The effect of input characteristics and individual differences on L2 comprehension of authentic and modified listening tasks. System, 94, 102336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102336
Mullins, P. (1992). Successful English language learning strategies of students enrolled in the faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States International University, San Diego, CA.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., & Kupper, L. (1989). Listening comprehension strategies in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 10 (4), 418–437. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.4.418.
Oxford R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: a synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System, 17(2), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(89)90036-5
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. E. (1995). Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, 23, 359–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00023-D
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). Promoting metacognition and motivation of exceptional children. RASE: Remedial & Special Education, 11(6), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F074193259001100604
Rahimirad, M., & Shams, M. R. (2014). The effect of activating metacognitive strategies on the listening performance and metacognitive awareness of EFL students. International Journal of Listening, 28(3), 162–176. http://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2014.902315
Reynolds, T., Perkins, K., & Brutten, S. (1994). Comparative item analysis: Study of a language placement test. Language Testing, 1(1), 1–13.
Riazi, A. M. (2016). The Routledge encyclopedia of research methods in applied linguistics: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Rukthong, A. (2021). MC listening questions vs. integrated listening-to-summarize tasks: What listening abilities do they assess? System, 97, 102439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102439
Sadeghi, K., & Soleimani, M. (2016). The relationship between anxiety, shyness, ambiguity tolerance, and language learning strategies. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 11(1), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/22040552.2016.1187652
Sahragard, R., Khajavi, Y., & Abbasian, R. (2016). Field of study, learning styles, and language learning strategies of university students: Are there any relations? Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2014.976225
Schmidt, E., & Hegelheimer, V. (2004). Effects of online academic lectures on ESL listening comprehension, incidental vocabulary acquisition, and strategy use. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(5), 525–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958822042000319692
Teng, F. (2020). The benefits of metacognitive reading strategy awareness instruction for young learners of English as a second language: Metacognitive instruction in reading. Literacy, 54 (1), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12181
Tragant, E., & Victori, M. (2012). Language learning strategies, course grades, and age in EFL secondary school learners. Language Awareness, 21(3), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.609622
Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb02362.x
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C. M., Mareschal, C., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire (MALQ): Development and Validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00373.x
Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60(2), 470–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00559.x
Vogely, A. (1995). Perceived strategy use during performance on three authentic listening comprehension tasks. Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05414.x
Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. London: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537.
Wang, Y. & Treffers-Daller, J. (2017). Explaining listening comprehension among L2 learners of English: the contribution of general language proficiency, vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive awareness. System, 65, 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.013
Yi’an, W. (1998). What do tests of listening comprehension test? A retrospection study of EFL test-takers performing a multiple choice task. Language Testing, 15(1), 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F026553229801500102
Islamic Azad University Iran, Islamic Republic of
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2944-0942
Islamic Azad University Iran, Islamic Republic of
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4333-8864
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Copyright Holders of the submitted texts are the Authors. The Reader is granted the rights to use the material available in the TAPSLA websites and pdf documents under the provisions of the Creative Commons 4.0 International License: Attribution - Share Alike (CC BY-SA 4.0). The user is free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
1. License
The University of Silesia Press provides immediate open access to journal’s content under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
2. Author’s Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author/s, has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author/s.
If the article contains illustrative material (drawings, photos, graphs, maps), the author declares that the said works are of his authorship, they do not infringe the rights of the third party (including personal rights, i.a. the authorization to reproduce physical likeness) and the author holds exclusive proprietary copyrights. The author publishes the above works as part of the article under the licence "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International".
ATTENTION! When the legal situation of the illustrative material has not been determined and the necessary consent has not been granted by the proprietary copyrights holders, the submitted material will not be accepted for editorial process. At the same time the author takes full responsibility for providing false data (this also regards covering the costs incurred by the University of Silesia Press and financial claims of the third party).
3. User Rights
Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, the users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit the contribution) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the article for any purpose, provided they attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
4. Co-Authorship
If the article was prepared jointly with other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.
I hereby declare that in the event of withdrawal of the text from the publishing process or submitting it to another publisher without agreement from the editorial office, I agree to cover all costs incurred by the University of Silesia in connection with my application.
