Second Language Learning – Factors in Determining Individual Progress

Second Language Learning – Factors in Determining Individual Progress

Christopher Stern

From classroom and personal experience, language teachers and learners are clearly aware that individual language learners progress at different rates and in different ways.  (Aside from age, which has been discussed in the previous paper for this course), a number of factors come into play in accounting for these differences.  In this paper I will examine the following factors as they relate to individual language learning ability:  personality, previous language learning and classroom experiences,   beliefs, motivation, learning and communication strategies, behavior, and L1 proximity and interference.

Beginning with the most essential and possibly immutable factor, we have personality.  Learners will have a wide range of personality characteristics, which will influence their thinking, feeling, and behavior both inside and outside the classroom.  Among these, one author notes the opposing characteristics of: “introversion / extroversion, reflectiveness / impulsiveness, field independence / dependence, self-confidence, self-concept, self-efficacy, creativity, anxiety, and motivation (extrinsic / intrinsic).” (Cohen, 1996: 10)  Across this spectrum of personality types, it would seem obvious that those on the shy or introverted side would tend to engage less with speakers of the target language, not to mention their L1.  Researchers in the field have made such observations.  “Shy people are usually less inclined to enter into casual contacts with strangers.  They are less likely to avail themselves of opportunities to interact with members of the target language group.”  (Hinenoya and Gatbonton, 2000: 5)  On the other hand, it has often been noted that more typically successful language learners display an integrative disposition – “a positive interpersonal / affective disposition towards the L2 group and the desire to interact with and even become similar to valued members of that community.” (Dörnyei, 5)

In addition to personality, our feelings about previous language learning experiences influence our motivation, and subsequently, behavior.  Dörnyei has stated as much, saying “the subjective reasons to which we attribute our past successes and failures considerably shape our motivational disposition.” (Dörnyei, 8 – 9)  Furthermore, Dörnyei contends that “the classroom environment – and, more generally, the contextual surroundings of action” have a strong motivational influence.  He goes on to elaborate that course-specific components, such as the teacher, methodology, selected course materials and activities, as well as the specific group of students all play a part in shaping the motivational profiles of learners.  (Dörnyei, 11)

Very closely related to, and often contingent upon, one’s previous language learning experiences, are the beliefs that a learner may hold regarding their own language learning capability and the level of difficulty of the target language to be acquired.  This is especially true for many Asian learners of English, whose primary English language classroom experience may be that of teaching through a non-communicative method, with an extensive focus on grammar.  Such students often come away from their learning (or non-learning) experiences with two distinct beliefs intact:  1) with regard to language learning, they are somehow incompetent, and 2) English is a diabolically difficult language.  While some learners can make progress despite this type of experience, perhaps because of other factors outlined here, or because of secondary language learning experiences, addressing and challenging these beliefs are often the necessary first goals of the teacher in a more communicative language learning environment.

Motivation is classically divided into two forms – extrinsic and intrinsic.  Those learners who can be identified as having strong intrinsic motivation to learn a language will tend to achieve better results.  Extrinsic motivation, being based on external goals, and by which language is merely the means to their end, is nonetheless often a strong force in the acquisition of language.  According to Hinenoya and Gatbonton (2000), who use the terms integrative (intrinsic) and instrumental (extrinsic), “the classic finding of these studies is that the higher the learners’ desire to interact and integrate with the target group (integrative motivation) or to find employment, seek advancement, and so on (instrumental motivation), the better their performance in their course work and the higher their proficiency levels” (Hinenoya and Gatbonton, 2000: 1)

Different learners will approach both their learning and their communication in the TL in different ways.  Some will do so with more awareness and expertise than others.  While, as Griffiths notes, it is practically impossible to distinguish between whether the learner’s motivation in certain circumstances is to enhance learning or communication, more adept learners employ specific strategies.  (Griffiths, 2004: 3)  These strategies have been outlined differently by different authors, but I find Oxford’s six groups of learning strategies the most useful delineation.  These are:  memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies. (from Oxford, as outlined in Griffiths, 2004: 4)  Without going into further detail, it seems apparent that what is at issue is levels of awareness – the greater the cognitive and affective awareness the learner brings to the process of learning and language use in communication, the greater their success in language learning will be.

While some authors have differentiated between conscious behaviors (as strategies) and unconscious behaviors (as processes) with regards to learning (Cohen, 1996: 6), if we consider behavior as a generalized whole, referring to the set of activities in which an individual engages, it becomes obvious that certain kinds of behavior – socializing, attentive listening, etc. will lead to more language learning than others – sky gazing, Nintendo, etc..  It would seem that an individual’s behavior derives from and in a sense becomes the manifestation of all of the previously discussed factors.

With regard to L1 – TL proximity, learners of a language background which is closer to the target language (e.g. German learners of English), will typically have an advantage over learners whose L1 is linguistically more distant from the L2 (e.g. Thai learners of English).  This position has been justified in studies of the effect of previously know languages on the language learning process.  As quoted from Ringbom in Gass and Selinker (2008), “Similarities[between previously learned languages and the TL], both cross-linguistic and interlinguistic, function as pegs on which the learner can hang new information by making use of already existing knowledge, thereby facilitating learning.”  (Gass and Selinker, 2008: 137)  This further implies that learners who have already had the experience of acquiring one or more L2 will have subsequently easier experiences of acquiring an additional L2.  In fact, Klein, as reviewed in Gass and Selinker (2008), “found that multilinguals out-performed monolinguals in both [lexical and syntactic] types of learning.” (Gass and Selinker, 2008: 153)  This appears to be the case regardless of the proximity between the previously learned L2 and the subsequent TL:  the practice of having already learned an L2 is itself a transferrable skill.  It is likely that such a previous learning success has an impact on the learner’s belief system as well.  (Related to the topic of linguistic knowledge, it should also be noted that learners bring various amounts of background knowledge to their learning experience.  This too, serves as an aid to their language learning success, in that more background knowledge gives them a greater range of schemata to activate and reference in the process of language learning.)

Finally, L1 interference (also called language transfer) is a common impediment in the acquisition of any language.  Gass and Selinker (2008) summarize that “there are three interacting factors in the determination of language transfer: (a) a learner’s psychotypology, that is, how a learner organizes his or her NL; (b) perception of NL-TL distance; and (c) actual knowledge of the TL.” (Gass and Selinker, 2008: 150)  Interestingly,   the perception of NL-TL distance can function conversely to expectation – it was found that “when great similarities exist between the L1 and the L2, the learner may doubt that these similarities are real.” (Gass and Selinker, 2008: 138)

In conclusion, there are a number of factors which differentiate learners with regard to the degree of success they will achieve in learning a second language - personality, previous language learning and classroom experiences, beliefs, motivation, learning and communication strategies, behavior, and L1 proximity and interference.  It should be noted however that with the possible exceptions of personality and previous experiences, none of these factors are immutable.  Most can be changed:  motivation can be developed, and often goes through a natural waxing and waning; strategies and behavior can be achieved through specific training; and even L1 interference can be overcome through the application of attention and intensive study.

Sources:

¨  Cohen, A. (1996).  Second Language Learning and Use Strategies:  Clarifying the Issues.  Minneapolis:  Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota.

¨  Dörnyei, Z.  (no date).  Attitudes, Orientations, and Motivations in Language Learning:  Advances in Theory, Research, and Applications.  Nottingham:  University of Nottingham.

¨  Gass, S. & Selinker, L.  (2008). Second Language Acquisition:  An Introductory Course (3^rd edition).  New York:  Routledge.

¨  Griffiths, C. (2004).  Language Learning Strategies: Theory and Research.  Auckland:  School of Foundation Studies.

¨  Hinenoya, K. & Gatbonton, E. (2000).  ‘Ethnocentrism, Cultural Traits, Beliefs, and Proficiency:  A Japanese Sample.’  The Modern Language Journal 84 no2, 225 - 40.

¨  Nikolov, M. (2000).  ‘The Critical Period Hypothesis Reconsidered: Successful adult learners of Hungarian and English.’  IRAL 38 (2), 109 – 24.

Developing First and Second Language Ability: Acquisition and Learning

Developing First and Second Language Ability:  Acquisition and Learning

Christopher Stern

Acquiring one’s mother tongue differs distinctly from learning a ‘foreign’ or ‘second’ language in multiple aspects.  In this paper I will discuss some possible explanations for these differences.  First, I will look at the activation of Universal Grammar as the creation of certain linguistic pathways, which in the process obscures others, as evidenced in L1 interference.  Next, I will examine psychological and age-related factors.  Finally, I will provide differing definitions of ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning,’ arguing that both processes are necessary in gaining proficiency in L2.

Becoming a speaker of one’s mother-tongue is the first activation of UG.  Is it possible, that as with gene activity, linguistic experiences can ‘turn on’ or ‘turn off’ ‘switches’ thus making subsequent learning more difficult?  Robert Sapolsky, in examining the ‘nature vs. nurture debate’ in biology, observes that “noncoding DNA does something interesting indeed.  It’s the instruction manual for how and when to activate those [coding] genes. . . . And what regulates this genetic activity?  Often the environment.”  (Sapolsky, p. 20)  Similarly, perhaps it is our L1 environment, which activates aspects of UG, turning on certain linguistic pathways, and in doing so, turning off others.

L1 interference may be seen as a manifestation of this.  It almost always appears where the L2 structure is a more complex solution than the equivalent L1 structure.  Some examples include:  (Thai L1 to English) verb conjugation and tenses, and singular and plural differentiation, which cause problems for Thai learners; and (English L1 to Thai) the numeration system, using a simple counting method (English), or classifiers (Thai), which causes difficulty to learners of Thai whose first language is English.  This would seem to indicate that our UG exists as an only partially formed system which is then specifically informed by the acquisition of L1.  Subsequently, any arena within a certain L2 in which matters are comparatively complicated will typically produce L1 interference, unless the L1 is equally complicated in a similar way.

In relation to the four “logical possibilities” concerning innate mechanisms of UG as proposed by Mitchell and Myles, I would come closest to agreeing with the first, “that they continue to operate during second language learning, and make key aspects of second language learning possible,” but would disagree with the final clause here “in the same way that they make first language learning possible.”  (Mitchell, R. and Myles, F.)  I contend that these mechanisms, having already been activated by acquisition of an L1, are to varying degrees, depending on various factors, compromised.  They continue to make second language learning possible, but not in the same way.   More specifically, during adult acquisition of an L2, our capacity to notice has been compromised by our expectations of how a language and its grammar function, which have been acquired in the process of our L1 acquisition.  Because L1 is acquired prior to any other linguistic stimuli, acquisition proceeds without the filter or any specific linguistic expectations or paradigms.  But, because a specific linguistic paradigm (as differentiated from UG) already exists in the mind of the L2 learner, the L2 has to be learned as well as acquired.  Unlike the L1, except for the rare individual who can approach her observation without any expectations, it cannot simply be acquired.

In regards to a phonetic system, this position appears to be consolidated by Bavin’s observations.  He notes that early childhood acquisition of L1 begins with “The ability to discriminate other sounds, specific to the language of their environment” and “develops as they gain more experience with that language.  Conversely, the ability to discriminate the earlier sounds weakens if these sounds are not part of the language being acquired.”  (Bavin, E. L., 3)

Additionally, there are differences in the fundamental nature of L1 and L2 acquisition related to psychological development. Mother-tongue acquisition is our first experience of attaining a means towards self-expression, identity formation, socialization, and the ability to nominalize, and thus, to some degree, create, our reality.  After this has been achieved once, at huge caloric expense, the motivation to achieve it again is far less likely to be as strong as in the first instance.  To provide a parallel example from an academic standpoint, if you have worked hard to earn a post-graduate degree in a particular field, you will then utilize that degree to further your career, rather than pursuing an additional degree in an unrelated field.  It is the rare individual who accumulates degrees only for the sake of doing so.  In regards to the factor of motivation, it is interesting to note that in Nikolov’s study, the most successful L2 speakers “have a very strong intrinsic motivation to become bona fide residents of the target language society” and “try to feel at home in the culture as well as in the language.”(Nikolov, 5)

Even more crucial is the fact that the L1 and L2 learner develop their abilities at different ages,  and consequently during differing stages of brain development, activity and function.  Steven Pinker, writing about the most crucial years for L1 acquisition in The Language Instinct, states:

Synapses continue to develop, peaking in number between nine months and two years (depending on the brain region), at which point the child has fifty percent more synapses than the adult!  Metabolic activity in the brain reaches adult levels by nine to ten months, and soon exceeds it, peaking around the age of four.  The brain is sculpted not only by adding material but also by chipping it away.  Synapses wither from the age of two through the rest of childhood and into adolescence, when the brain’s metabolic rate falls back to adult levels.  Language development, then, could be on a maturational level, like teeth.  (Pinker, p. 314)

And in reviewing a study examining the validity of the Critical Period Hypothesis, David Singletons states:  “Among the late bilinguals two distinct but adjacent centres of [brain] activation were revealed for L1 and L2, whereas in the early bilinguals a single area of activation for both languages emerged.”  (Singleton, 13)  This would appear to point to physical evidence towards the CPH.

Nonetheless, as a result of studies of speakers of Hungarian with native-like proficiency, Nikolov states “I think it has been shown that the strong version of CHP cannot be maintained.”  (Nikolov, M.)  Singleton concurs, stating that age is only one of many factors determining the proficiency level ultimately attained in any language.  He elaborates on four factors in L2 learning: motivation, cross-linguistic factors, education and general cognitive ability.  He goes on to cite another study which, rather than validating the ‘strong version of CPH,’ indicates a steady decline of (English) L2 proficiency corresponding directly to immigrants’ age of arrival in New York State.  This diminished view of CHP would seem to correspond to recent findings of continued brain plasticity throughout the adult years.

I would maintain the there are crucial distinctions between language acquisition and language learning.  Language acquisition is the largely unconscious process of developing ability to use language through unexamined interaction with our environment.  It is the way in which, for the most part, we become adept users of our mother-tongue.  For some people, or in some cases, it can be the primary means of becoming adept at a second language. It is intrinsically an intuitive, synthesizing process.   Acquisition can be further refined, or further informed, though learning.  Language learning, on the other hand, is the application of conscious effort in developing understanding of and, ideally, the ability to use a language system.  This is the manner in which native speakers may refine their knowledge and use of the ‘mother-tongue.’  It is usually the primary means by which individuals sometimes become adept at (but frequently only learn about) a second language.   It is intrinsically an analytical, compartmentalizing process.   Learning can, but does not necessarily lead to, acquisition.

Based on these definitions, I contend that in almost every case L1 development occurs through the process of acquisition, usually followed by a period of learning within a formal education system.  A clear example differentiating acquisition from learning pointing towards the need for the latter in L2 development is given in Churchill’s case study.  He makes the observation that “the inaccuracy in the written form and the internal inconsistency in some of the productive form/meaning relations [regarding a particular lexis item]remained unresolved until I had the time and space to work with these semantic forms, my computer, and a dictionary.” (Churchill, 14)    Having first encountered the word in a communicative context, Churchill has followed the somewhat less usual route of acquisition followed by learning.  L2 development, especially learning a foreign language, ordinarily follows the course of learning first, followed by acquisition through use for actual communicative purposes.

This clarification between acquisition and learning can also be of help the teacher of ESOL.  It points towards the need to provide students with both structured learning opportunities as well as chances to creatively produce and explore language, resulting in acquisition.  This is exemplified in teaching methodology in the distinctions between focus on form and focus on function, grammar as product and as process, and in the present-practice-produce model of lesson planning.  What is important to recognize, and which is all too frequently forgotten in today’s emphasis on communicative teaching, is that both learning and acquisition are required:  developing ability in an L2 cannot take place with one but not the other.

Sources:

¨ Bavin, E. L. (1995).  Language Acquisition in Cross linguistic Perspective.  Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 373-396.

¨Churchill, Eton.  A Case Study of a JSL Learner and a Word: A Dynamic Systems Account of the Path from Ecology to Form-relations.  To appear in: Applied Linguistics.

 ¨ Mitchell, R. and Myles, F.  (1998). Second Language Learning Theories.  London:  Arnold.

¨ Nikolov, M.  (2000). ‘The Critical Period Hypothesis Reconsidered:  Successful adult learners of Hungarian and English’ IRAL 38 (2), 109 – 24.

¨Pinker, Steven.  (1994). The Language Instinct – The New Science of Language and Mind.  London:  Penguin Books.

¨ Pinker, Steven.  (2007). The Stuff of Thought – Language as a Window into Human Nature.  London:  Penguin Books.

¨ Sapolsky, Robert M. (2005).  Monkeyluv - And Other Essays on Our Lives as Animals.  New York:  Scribner.

¨Singleton, David in Mayo, Maria G. and Lecumberri, Maria G. (Eds.).  (2003). Age and the Acquisition of English as a Foreign Language.  Clevedon:  Multilingual Matters.

The Listening Skill: Cognitive Processes, the L2 Classroom, and an Authentic Listening Text

The Listening Skill:  Cognitive Processes, the L2 Classroom, and an Authentic Listening Text

Christopher Stern

Listening to speech in order to construct meaning is an intricate process, which, because we engage in it on a daily basis in order to function as speakers of our native language, we generally overlook.  In this paper, I will first explore the cognitive processes and other mental features of listening in our native language, and then examine how they can shed light on the activity of listening in an L2, and help to inform more effective practice of listening to the L2 as the acquisition of a skill.  Finally, I will review a listening text (Real Lives, Real Listening, Unit 1) in order to critically examine the tasks and text included in consideration of those cognitive processes and mental features, and the degree to which they are activated, overlooked or further developed.

The Cognitive Process and Mental Features of Listening

In examining the cognitive process of listening to speech (herein: listening), it may be most central to introduce the concepts of bottom-up and top-down processing, both of which play an important part in the creation of meaning.  Stated simply, bottom-up processing is processing beginning at the phonemic level – putting sounds together to form words, words to form phrases, phrases to form sentences.  Top-down processing occurs though relating information from bottom-up processing to any relevant information we already have stored in our long-term memory.  From our long-term memory, in top-down processing we access “three types of background knowledge … (1) linguistic information … (2) knowledge of the world … (3) knowledge of discourse structure” (Omaggio, 2001: 145)

The cooperative and co-dependent bottom-up and top-down processes are just the starting point in modeling the cognitive process of listening.  The model for this process comprises three distinct mental entities – the memory store, working (or short-term) memory, and long-term memory.  A dedicated memory store exists for each of the five senses, for the purpose of retaining, for a very short period, sensory information in an unanalyzed form.  There are three stages to the cognitive process of listening, calling on both bottom-up and top down processing.  In the first stage, sounds come into the auditory sensory store.  This is the basis for bottom-up processing.  It has been found that auditory information can be retained in its unanalyzed form for up to four seconds in the sensory store.  In the second stage, this auditory information is held in the working memory while it is checked for concordances against information in the long-term memory in order to construe meaning.  This is the activity of top-down processing.  In the third stage, once meaning has been created, it may be transferred from working to long-term memory.  It is instructive to note that such information is kept in a reduced form. (Underwood, 1989: 2)

                Carroll, in Psychology of Language, makes three very useful observations related to the mental process of listening.  First, he states “The relatively longer duration of the auditory store may enable us to reanalyze auditory messages that we did not understand initially.”  (Carroll, 1999: 48)  Secondly, he notes that most information in the sensory stores “disappears very rapidly because it is not germane to our current goals.” (Carroll, 1999: 48)  And finally, he observes that in order to store information more efficiently we “chunk the words into grammatical constituents such as noun and verb phrases” (Carroll, 1999: 51). 

                Of additional use in understanding the process of listening is the concept of automatic and controlled processes.  Carroll notes that the working memory has a limited processing capacity (Carroll, 1999: 49), and defines controlled processes as those which draw upon this limited capacity.  He notes the importance of this concept when considering the cognitive load of complex tasks, and the possibility of cognitive overload leading to “impaired performance.” In contrast, automatic processes are those which “do not require extensive capacity.”  (Carroll 1999: 54)  In regards to listening, “One language processing task that is automatic, at least for adults, is recognizing common words.”  (Carroll 1999: 55)

Given the importance of a goal in the cognitive process of listening, it is appropriate to consider the reasons for which listening takes place in authentic situations.  These have been well delineated by Underwood.  He summarizes by providing “five main reasons for listening …(a) to engage in social rituals (b) to exchange information (c) to exert control (d) to share feelings (e) to enjoy yourself”  (Underwood, 1989: 4)  He then goes on to delineate all kinds of listening situations for which students should be prepared.  Although perhaps outdated in regards to genre, these include all the typical situations in which one listens to one’s native language.  More pertinent than listing the various situations in which native speakers listen, is to note the various goal-dependent roles of the listener.  These include listener as information gatherer (as in when listening to a lecture), listener as audience (watching TV or a film, listening to radio), listener as participant (and speaker, co-creating and directing the event), as side participant, and as overhearer.  (Flowerdew, 2005:89)  In each case, the listener has a different purpose, by which what is germane and what is not is determined.  It is instructive to note that the last role, that of overhearer, while being  the most typical role of the student listener, is the least common role of the authentic listener, and the one which provides the fewest authentic listening goals.

Likewise, given the importance of top-down processing in the act of listening, it is instructive to examine all the elements which may come into play.  Flowerdew notes eight “distinct dimensions of listening …Individualized, Affective, Cross-cultural, Strategic, Social, Intertextual, Contextualized, Critical” (Flowerdew, 2005: 85).  While fitting well with Omaggio’s triadic framework of linguistic, world and discourse knowledge, all of these comprise a listener’s background knowledge or lack thereof, thus determining top-down processing capability.

Implications for Effective Listening Practice in the L2 Classroom

                Because of the dyadic nature of listening, it is important that listening tasks address both top-down and bottom-up processes.  While the bottom-up process only occurs through listening itself, the top-down process can be activated prior to listening, by providing contextual cues, notably within the realms of students’ linguistic and world knowledge.  This is known as activating the schemata.  Numerous authors concur on the importance of activating schemata, as well as on the importance of choosing a text for which students have a schema to be activated.  Omaggio states:  “learning must be meaningful to be effective and permanent.  For material to be meaningful, it must be clearly relatable to existing knowledge that the learner already possesses.”  (Omaggio, 2001: 144)  Furthermore, “comprehension …is not a matter of simply processing the words of the message, but involves fitting the meaning of the message to the schema that one has in mind.”  (Omaggio, 2001: 148)  This process of activating schemata can be accomplished in the classroom through introduction of any one of a number of facets of the listening – the topic, the relation of the speakers to each other, the location of the communication, the discourse genre, etc. – and asking students to consider what they already know in regards to it. 

Brown argues that “you don’t want to dwell too heavily on the bottom-up, for to do so may hamper the development of a learner’s all-important automaticity in processing speech.”  (Brown, 1994: 246)  While I agree with the importance of activating schemata, I take issue with his phrase “a learner’s all-important automaticity.”  Carroll notes that “not all top-down processing is facilitative …expectations may actually interfere with learning new material.”  (Carroll, 1999: 54)  That is to say, automatic reliance on top-down processing can lead to expectations which, when contradicted, are simply not perceived.

                Because, as Carroll noted, information that is not germane to our goals for listening quickly disappears from the sensory store, it is important to provide students goals in listening.  To some extent, goal generation occurs simply through the process of activating schemata.  But this in and of itself is not enough.  This is why pre-listening activities follow on with listening tasks, which are to be introduced and considered by the student before the listening itself, in order to provide the student a reason to listen.  Thus, prior to listening, activities are designed to address only two purposes:  providing context, and creating motivation.  (Field, 2002: 243) 

                Finally, in consideration of the limited processing capacity of working memory, it is important that listening tasks are presented in a way that is manageable for students.  Nunan, among many other authors, emphasizes the role of comprehensible input (Nunan, 2002:  238).  When using authentic texts, comprehensibility is best achieved by simplifying student tasks.  (Field, 2002: 244) Thus, through multiple listenings, tasks can be given which develop from an extensive, or gist-oriented, to an intensive, or detail-oriented nature.  Because auditory information is stored in a chunked or reduced form, questions requiring listening for detail should be given attention before listening, as a cue for what to listen out for, while summarizing activities may be information-specific but not word-specific.

Real Lives, Real Listening, Unit 1

The text and accompanying exercises chosen were taken from Real Lives, Real Listening, available at http://www.northstarelt.co.uk/, and billed as a “new series of ready-made, unscripted, authentic listening materials featuring native and non-native speakers.”  As can be seen from the transcript, this particular listening takes the form of an interview, and, as the interviewer’s questions follow quite naturally on ‘Scott’s’ replies, seems quite likely to be truly authentic, rather than even semi-scripted.  In order to direct discussion of the tasks, I will summarize the transcript as being an interview with Scott, a young Australian living in a suburb of London, regarding the various living situations and neighbourhoods he has lived in in London.

The first task of Section 1 (Pre-Listening Comprehension) is titled Schema building, and this seems a good start.  However, it takes the form of multiple choice questions, all relating to Australia (none of which are answered in the text), while none of the listening text relates to Australia in any way, and so, as an exercise in schema-building seems to miss the point.  Task B, Discussion, follows on with a further question regarding Australia, a question asking students to consider why Scott may have left, and finally asking whether students know what an Australian accent sounds like.  While the last question is unlikely to yield any discussion beyond “yes”,” no”, or “difficult to understand,” the first two, again do not serve to prepare the learners in any way for what they will hear.  A better schema building exercise, given the content of the text, may be to ask students to discuss what they know about London, what sort of living arrangements young unmarried people often have in Western countries, and the advantages and disadvantages of living in certain types of neighbourhoods.   The last task in this section, Normalisation, is a very good idea, as it “is designed to help you get used to Scott’s voice.”  However, it is nothing more than a gap-fill exercise.  As such, it is technically an intensive listening task rather than a pre-listening task.  While pedagogically it seems sound in encouraging students to examine the exercise before listening to try to guess the (grammatical) types of words that may be needed, practically it is over-challenging as a listening activity, as all the information comes in far too quickly – most likely confusing students and interrupting their transfer from sensory store to paper.  Rather than ‘normalise’ students to Scott’s voice it may simply serve to convince them of the difficulty of catching so much information in so short a time span.

In Section 2 (Listening Comprehension), we see a continuation of intensive listening tasks, where students are asked to listen for very specific information.  The tasks take the form of questions which must be answered with specific, discrete information (A, C and E), or gap-fill (B, D and F). Furthermore, at no point are students encouraged to discuss or check their answers with other students.   Ideally, at this point, students should first be given a more global listening task, for example:  Does Scott live in a nice part of London?  Why do you think he does or doesn’t?  Discuss your answer with your friends.  After such a task, students then can move on to listening a second time for more specific information. 

Section 3, titled Interesting Language Points, begins with an examination of contrasting uses of simple and continuous verb forms in tasks A and B.   As this is grammar- and not listening-specific it is not germane to our discussion.  However, tasks C and D proceed to examine aspects of speech particular to the Australian accent.  The following Section 4, Further Listening Practice, is of more interest from a listening perspective.  Task A, Recognising sentence stress, would prove useful to listeners, with the added bonus that it asks students (unfortunately, again singly rather than in pairs), to predict which words might be stressed, then to check their predictions against the listening.  Tasks B, C and E deal with minimal pairs, and task D with linking.  In training students’ bottom-up listening skills these are sound (no pun intended) exercises.  Unfortunately, this section of tasks fails to recognize the most interesting language points in regard to authentic spoken English – the ‘Um’s, the pauses, the reformulations, the back-channeling on the part of the interviewer, the ‘Yeah, yeah’ and collocated chunks of language such as “It’s all about …”

While there are an additional four pages of tasks, I will finish my analysis here, with the brief note that as opposed to the further gap-fill exercises, it would probably be much more instructive to focus in post-listening on class-specific difficulties that come up during the course of the initial listenings.  As Field has stated:  “the main aim of a listening lesson is diagnostic …A diagnostic aim for the listening lesson implies a change in lesson shape …it is much more fruitful to allow time for an extended post-listening period in which learners’ problems can be identified and tackled.” (Field, 2002: 246)

                In summary, while providing students exposure to authentic listening texts is a necessity in the classroom, this is only one element of a well-thought out listening lesson.  A well-developed listening lesson will take into consideration all aspects of the actual cognitive processes of listening, encouraging both top-down and bottom up processing, activating relevant schemata, as well as conversation, examining aspects specific to spoken language, and allowing time to deal with class-specific issues as they arise.

Sources:

Brown, D.  (1994).  Teaching by Principles.  Location:  Prentice Hall.

Carroll, D. (1999).  Psychololgy of Language.  Location:  Brooks/Cole.

Field, J. in Richards & Renandya, Eds.  (2002).  Methodology in Language Teaching.  Cambridge:  CUP.

Flowerdew, J. & Miller, L.  (2005).  Second Language Listening.  New York:  CUP.

Lam, W. in Richards & Renandya, Eds.  (2002).  Methodology in Language Teaching.  Cambridge:  CUP.

Nunan, D. (1991).  Language Teaching Methodology.  Location:  Prentice Hall.

Nunan, D. in Richards & Renandya, Eds.  (2002).  Methodology in Language Teaching.  Cambridge:  CUP.

Omaggio Hadley, A.  (2001).  Teaching Language in Context, 3^rd Ed.  Boston:  Heinle & Heinle.

Richards & Renandya, Eds.  (2002).  Methodology in Language Teaching.  Cambridge:  CUP.

Underwood, M.  (1989). Teaching Listening.  Location:  Longman.

REAL LIVES, REAL LISTENING series

YOUNG ADULT/ADULT

Author: SHEILA THORN
Levels: Elementary, Intermediate & Advanced

Download a free sample unit (932k)

Download accompanying audio files (19.6mb)

A new series of ready-made, unscripted, authentic listening materials featuring native and non-native speakers. Created by Sheila Thorn of The Listening Business these materials train, rather than just test, the students in listening. They boost students’ confidence in their listening skills by exposing them to authentic texts, and introduce the learner to the grammatical structures and lexis which are used most frequently in spoken English. The materials also help students deal with those aspects of informal spoken English which they find so challenging, e.g. assimilation, elision, linking and colloquial expressions.

Each topic in the series is at three levels (Elementary, Intermediate and Advanced) and each book includes a free CD with five interviews (different interviews at every level), each followed by detailed comprehension and language practice exercises which can be used in the classroom or for self-study.

The series reflects the latest academic theories on the importance of authentic listening practice in language acquisition. The series also shows our new awareness of the huge differences between spoken and written English highlighted by recent research on spoken English corpora. Forthcoming titles are listed below, and the series will feature over 100 native and near-fluent non-native English speakers from all the main regions of Britain, as well as Australia, Canada, the USA, South Africa, Africa, China, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, Russia, South Korea, Sweden and Turkey.

The books come with a free CD, comprehensive transcripts and helpful glossaries. Teachers’ notes are free online, containing classroom support and background notes.

source:                 http://www.northstarelt.co.uk/