Listening Strategies and L2 Listening Comprehension: Does the Test Method Matter?

• Authors: Babak Mahdavy , Masoomeh Mousavi Namavar

Abstracts

EN

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

EN

listening comprehension; listening strategies; test method

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Śląski
• Journal: Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition
• Year: 2023
• Volume: 9
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 1-22

Dates

published

2023

Contributors

author

Babak Mahdavy

• Islamic Azad University

• https://orcid.org/0000000329440942

author

Masoomeh Mousavi Namavar

• Islamic Azad University

• https://orcid.org/0009000243338864

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

Identifiers

DOI

10.31261/TAPSLA.12097

Biblioteka Nauki

22446714