Understanding Spoken Spanish: A Course in Listening

Understanding Spoken Spanish: A Course in Listening

Maureen Weissen rieder Ohio University

ABSTRACT Thk paper outlines the format for a course dedicated exclusively to the teaching of listen- ing skills at the intermediate and advanced levels. Although findings are based on an actual class given at Ohio University in Spanish, implications are ap- plicable to all languages. Spec,@ teaching techniques are not described, but pedagogical directions are dkcussed. Suggestions dealing with materials, testing, grading, assignments, class interaction and organiza- tion are made to give an overall view of the course.

Introduction This paper describes the purpose and content of an

experimental course given at Ohio University in the spring of 1986 which was designed to teach listening comprehension skills to intermediate and advanced students of Spanish. It is hoped that this paper will serve to convince others of the importance that should be afforded to the teaching of listening, not only in in- dividual courses, but in curricula in general. It is fur- ther hoped that the description of this experience will provide colleagues with specific suggestions for the im- plementation of similar courses at their own institutions.

Of the four skills that are taught in foreign language classes, it is listening that usually receives the least atten- tion. The audio-lingual method of the 60’s heralded the “primacy of the spoken tongue and although everyone knew that “spoken” implicitly contained the notion of aural as well as oral skills, production was stressed almost to the exclusion of reception. With the

Maureen Wessenrieder (Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University) is Associate Professor of Hispanic Linguistics at Ohio University, Athens, OH.

exception of a few innovative attempts to actually teach listening, most textbooks defined listening com- prehension as the mere perception of textbook sentences and dialogues as they were found recorded on language tapes. The language used on these tapes was of the “model” variety-artificial, unmotivated sentences read by trained native speakers in a standard- ized dialect.

At advanced levels of the curriculum, listening was given even shorter shrift. Courses were designed to teach conversation, composition, and the reading of literature exclusively. Listening, on the other hand, was treated as a by-product. Since students had to listen to and comprehend the instructor and peers in class, it was assumed that listening skills were receiving their pedagogical due. Astute foreign language practi- tioners, however, began to take stock of the unbal- anced results of such an approach. While in 1%7, Car- roll (4) discovered that the typical foreign language major was leaving the university with oral proficien- cy skills reaching a 2-2 + on the FSI scale, Belasco (2, p. 19) was noting that “Cases exist where teachers can speak a foreign language with surprising fluency yet their skill in listening is well below that of the average native speaker!’

In the 70’s and SO’S, listening skills finally were given the spotlight. Encouraged by the findings of psycho- linguists, such as Asher and Krashen (1, 9, 10) who stressed the primacy of listening comprehension in the L1 acquisition of children, new methodologies designed to teach receptive skills made their way into L2 pedagogical materials? In such approaches, listening played the primary pedagogical role, upstaging the once all-important production, and even downgrading it to a “by-product” of listening. Although the extreme

Foreign Language Annals, 20, No. 6, 1987 531

532 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS

position that listening automatically spawns produc- tion skills has recently been criticized (Rivers, 13), few have questioned the need to increase the emphasis on receptive skills overall.

Ironically, contrasted with our historical slighting of the teaching of listening is the long acknowledged fact that receptive skills surpass production skills in at least two ways. First, listening occupies a greater percentage of our communication time than any other language skill. Estimates (Weaver, 16, p.12) place listening at 45 percent, speaking at 30 percent, reading at 16 percent and writing at 9 percent. Secondly, the average speaker must be able to comprehend a great deal of language that he or she will never produce. Most of us handle news reports, sportscasts, speeches, and lectures without having to produce them ourselves. We are exceptionally tolerant of regional varieties of language that we ourselves cannot imitate., and we appreciate clever and artistic linguistic innova- tions of which we ourselves may be incapable It seems most likely, then, that whether or not listening-first methodologies become this decade’s miracle cure for monolingualism, the need to teach listening will re- main. More importantly, it will take on a new and ex- panded role which will extend its confines from the single register of conversation to the multitude of language varieties now easily accessible through to- day’s technology. Moreover, the pedagogical realm of listening will probably expand from elementary courses, where it is taught for the purpose of foster- ing oral skills, to advanced levels where it will be taught for its own sake It is for these purposes that Span 3 6 9 ~ an experimental course in “Understanding Spoken Spanish” was designed.

The Students The course drew 22 students who had completed

two or more years of language training. More than half of them had just returned from our department’s three-month study abroad program in Mexico. Ad- dressing the differences between the language level of these students and those that had had no study abroad experience was perhaps my greatest challenge in the course Although I had no way to measure comprehen- sion skills upon beginning the course, through the ACTFL proficiency interview technique I was able to ascertain that oral skills ranged from a 0 + to a 2 +. In order to diminish the sense of fear and unjust competi- tion that such a disparity in language levels might bring about, I based the final grading scale on both the number of hours spent listening outside of class and the student’s performance on listening tests. Students tallied the amount of time they spent listening out of

class in a diary, where they also recorded new vocabulary and any information about the material or their listening strategies that they thought might be of help to fellow students.

The Materials Most of the materials for the course were taken from

one of three sources: 1) personal cassette tapes of read- ings, conversations, and interviews that had been col- lected over the years for a dialectology course; 2) commercially-prepared audio and video cassettes; and 3) audio and visual material recorded from satellite- transmitted television. All materials were “natural” in the sense that they were not specifically designed or doctored to address incomplete language skills. Some materials were comprised of “scripted” language, but only in those cases, such as television soap operas and newscasting, where “scripting” is considered natural to the register.

Since the purpose of the course was to expose the student to as many different varieties of Spanish as possible, the material was selected to represent diverse dialects and registers. Covered in the course were televi- sion and radio commercials, songs, newscasting, soap operas, interviews and third-party conversations, lec- tures, and jokes. Most materials were recorded on in- dividual cassettes and given to the student for out-of- class listening. In addition, students were asked to view television in Spanish on their own time. This material was made available to them through a satellite pick- up in the Ohio University listening lab. They were per- mitted to choose programs according to their interests but were expected to report the gist of the program in their diaries.

Selecting materials was perhaps the most time- consuming aspect of the course Working with natural materials that represented many dialects and registers complicated the already delicate task of balancing stu- dent interest in certain topics with the level of language difficulty such topics might contain. Thus, materials often seemed too difficult while less demanding ver- sions were not always easy to find or identify. In fact, the selection of some successful material seemed more a result of luck than of screening.

h p m t i o n of materials was also extremely demand- ing. Individual casettes of both audio and visual materials had to be duplicated for each student. Moreover, transcripts of all material had to be made before the daily work sheets were created. In some in- stances, students assisted with the preparation of materials. They taped interviews with native speakers and volunteered copies of their favorite songs. To some extent, this student involvement heightened interest in

DECEMBER 1987 533

the material.

Classroom Activities It is not my intention to describe here all of the

techniques that I used to teach listening. For this pur- pose I refer the reader to Penny Ur’s excellent manual, %aching Listening Comprehension, which contains diverse suggestions for pedagogical techniques. I do, however. want to give the reader an idea of how a class dedicated entirely to listening is organized on a daily basis, what classroom interaction is like, and how it differs from classes dedicated to productive skills.

Class Organization Discussion of the previous night’s listening assign-

ment occupied the first ten minutes of each class. As a brief comprehension check, students described the content of the material in general terms. They also in- dicated the level of difficulty and their own perception of the sources of their comprehension problems. Fmally, they described successful listening techniques

ing from context. repeating the phrases they did not comprehend, taking from dictation key words which were perceived but not understood, and listening to the

Which included strategies they had used, such as gum-

In teaching reoeptive skills there is always the danger that the student will become communicatiwely isolated.

tape several times, particularly allowing time to elapse between listenings. Many of these discoveries were, of

Engaging in listening activities can be a highly in- dividual, invisible, and isolating process Over which the instructor seemingly has little control. In dealing with broadcasts, songs, and the like, the listening class becomes a material-oriented endeavor and the tradi- tional notion of the teacher- or student-centered classroom is threatened. In order to avoid a sense of student isolation and a potential lack of interaction, I adopted the following measures:

1. AU activities were short and varied. Although they were asked to listen extensively outside of class, students rarely listened to more than IS consecutive minutes of material at any time during class. In this way, student attention could be focused repeatedly and frequent feedback could be provided.

2. Students were asked to listen to the material for some specific purpose During normal language use, listeners treat the language they hear with intention. They know that what they are listening to has a point and focusing on this point allows them to process meaning more easily. Under the artificial conditions of the classroom, however, student listeners do not necessarily establish intentionality for what they are about to hear. Not only does this complicate the listen- ing task, which often results in comprehension failure, but it also impedes interaction during class. When there are pre-specified goals to be attended to, there is commonality of purpose. This allows one to discuss the listening task with a focused perspective and to pin- point student success and failure more readily.

3. Students were asked to share comprehension prob- lems and strategies with peers. Having been asked to monitor their own listening methods while working at home, students came to class prepared to discuss the material and how they handled it. Not only did this give me an idea of the level of difficulty being ex- perienced by different segments of the class but it enabled students to exchange ideas on how to ap- proach the material.

course, “coaxed” from the students in that at the beginning of the course, the majority of students were relatively naive about the listening process in general. When new material was presented, students listened

for the first time to a more extensive stretch of language (IS minutes) with global goals in mind. They were asked to identify general dialect characteristics or note an arbitrary number of familiar words. On repeated listenings, goals were narrowed so that more specific information was gathered. Outlined on work sheets, these specific goals took distinct forms depend- ing upon the difficulty of the material. For more challenging language, goals were specified in such a way so as to supply students with partial information. In acwrdance with recent studies that show that prior knowledge of topic aids comprehension (Dunkel, S), I often supplied the student with a list of topical items that had only to be matched with what was heard. Where vocabulary was a problem, vocabulary matches or searches were also employed (see Appendix). Since these distinct exercises could not be done simultaneously, the material was cycled so that repeated henings of shorter segments resulted in ever- increasing comprehension of the material.? More demanding exercise types such as questions and dic- tations were left for later cycles In mom difficult cases, less information was deleted in cloze exercises and questions were posed so that partial information was supplied through the form of the question.

When a new register was presented, pre-listening ex- ercises included a brief and general discussion of register-related features. Students were adept at volunteering comments on characteristics such as language style (informaVformal, fast/slow), dialect (accentedlstandard), organizational arrangements (set-up/punch line, lead statement/development), and register-specific topics and vocabulary. It has been sug- gested that these elements may serve not only as com- prehension clues but as kinds of cognitive slots or

534 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS

templates that are matched and filled.3 Since it is generally assumed that the patterns in the template aid comprehension, I made an effort to point out register- specific features as they presented themselves in the material.

Also discussed was how typical hearer intentions vary with distinct registers. As mentioned previously, it has been shown that without purpose, listeners fare less well than when they bring purpose to the listening task. Thus, for example, a listener who tried to process all of the game results of a typical sportscast would probably be at a loss in remembering all of the teams and corresponding scores. The listener who narrowed his scope with the purpose of recalling only the score of his favorite team, however, would fare much better. Thus, it would be difficult, if not unnatural, to ask students to understand the total message of all registers.

On a contrary note, one would not engage in such aural scanning while listening to a song that one wanted to learn by rote. Theoretically, then, it was im- portant to determine which messages were reievant listening targets for each register, so that natural listen- ing goals could be established. In practice, however, it was not always feasible to attend to the establishment of these goals without regard to the level of language difficulty involved. When language was beyond a stu- dent's listening skills, the language itself had to be treated in greater detail than may have been dictated by the corresponding natural goal. Thus, an elemen- tary student who knew numbers only imperfectly would have difficulty comprehending sports scores without more detailed treatment of the numbers than the corresponding goal of scanning might seem to warrant. Similarly, at the advanced level, natural listen- ing goals had to be abandoned for difficult registers such as news broadcasting. Native listeners are known to remember little more than the general topic of the news they hear (Katz, 7). In fact, news briefs are generally viewed as telescoped agendas geared towards topical update rather than complete treatment of a theme. Asking students to comprehend only the general thrust of the news, however, was not an easy task. The goal may have been global and register- appropriate, but in some instances it seemed that students had to process detail to arrive at an understanding of gened theme. This, in turn, was dif- ficult, owing to faulty language skills that did not in- clude the vocabulary, patterns, and routines typical of the register. As a result, the necessity of teaching language details often eclipsed the desideratum of matching natural listening goals to register type.'

In the final minutes of class, students were assigned

work for the next day. On most occasions, the assign- ment involved reviewing the same material covered in class. Work sheets were distributed so that the stu- dent's involvement with the material at home was directed at all times. These homework tasks provided the discussion material for the beginning segment of class on the following day.

Testing Student tests were designed with the dual purpose

of measuring achievement and proficiency. Achieve- ment was monitored by designing tests that contained the same material as students had worked with in class. The aim of such testing was to reward students for their diligence in working with the material and for the familiarity with specific vocabulary and structures which resulted from such diligence. Because of the familiarity of this material, testing of this type did no1 provide strict assessment of listening skills; however. it did serve to build confidence. For obvious reasons', the tests solicited specific language constructs rather than content, and took the form of dictations or vocabulary and structure elicitation.

Proficiency was measured by using materials which were similar in theme and register but with which students had no prior contact. In these tests, informa- tion content as well as specific language forms wen: elicited. Individual differences in student ability wen: more apparent in these tests than in corresponding achievement tests. Specific fmdings on developing pro- ficiency, however, seem incon~istent.~ The pilot nature of the testing, the lack of control for the varying linguistic factors found in the materials used, and the amount of time it takes for advancement in proficiency to register on such tests were felt to contribute to in- consistency in the findings. Clearly, certain register!;, such as news broadcasting, were of greater difficulty than others. It is speculated that limiting the level of difficulty in the testing task (cg., recognition or COII-

firmation exercises) for such registers will give more measurable results. For the purpose of the pilot course, however, grades were curved to counteract testing inconsistencies.

Conclusion Despite the inconsistency in findings with regard 1.0

the assessment of listening proficiency, I judged the course a success overall. The concept for a course in listening drew an enrollment wbich, at our institution, is large for advanced level studies. I interpreted this in- itial reception as a perceived need for such an offering on the part of students. This was confirmed in course evaluations where students reported that in their opin-

DECEMBER 1987 535

ions, the class should be offered as a regular part of our curriculum. In fact, evaluations were quite positive in all respects.

This is not to indicate that there were no disappoint- ments or difficulties in the course The preparation of materials, the lack of effective pre- and post-tests, and the varying levels of language background at the in- termediate and advanced levels were cause for concern and constant adaptation. These problems are not without solution, however. On the contrary, they challenge us to experiment further. For future offer- ings, I envision a more “cooperative” classroom where intermediate students confirm and deny general material content while their advanced counterparts supply detail and interpretation. Exercises for out-of- class assignments and testing will also be adapted to reflect student background and the difficulty of the language register involved. In the past, the lack of technology may have made

authentic listening comprehension materials next to impossible to collect, and the lack of theoretical in- sights into the proms of listening may have obscured possible solutions to its treatment in class. Now, however, findings in both psychology and technology lend a new optimism to the teaching of listening. Pedagogical techniques now reflect findings on testable psychological hypotheses and, materials, although not as easily gathered as in their correspond- ing written form, are more accessible to the general practitioner. At last, listening can come into its own, shedding its image as a by-product and assuming its rightful place in our curricula beside other language skills.

NOTES ISee, for example, James S. Holton and Norhma Gomez-

Estrada, 1978, f ipaiok Curso Primem W. W. Norton: New York and Ttacy Terrell, et al., 1986, DosMundos, New York: Random House.

?For a more detailed description of spiraling or “cycling:’ see Oller (1986) and Weissenrieder (1987).

3There are several theories describing discourse processing. See, for example, Schank and Abelson, 1977; Meyer, 1975; and Kintsch, 1977.

‘The now well-known i + 1 theory proposed by Stephen Krashen suggests that listening materials should be just beyond the student-listeners’ linguistic grasp for effective language acquisition to take place through the comprehen- sion process. Although a very alluring theoretical idea, rarely do natural materials lend themselves to such a neat hierarchy of language difficulty. Krashen’s theory is suggestive of a language system that is uniformly organized in evenly spaced rungs that scale a universally applicable comprehension lad- der. Given the diversity of the linguistic backgrounds and in- terests of the students in my class, I would venture the guess

that their acquisition systems look more like randomly-placed and unevenly-sized patches of language knowledge that would one day merge in an individually unique way to form a complete language system. A system, I might add, that would turn them into individual listeners with varying degrees of listening skills, not entirely unlike their native listener counterparts.

’Since my purpose here is to outline how the class was con- ducted rather than to discuss its overall assessment, I shall leave specific findings on evaluation for another time

REFERENCES 1. Asher, J.J. “Children’s first language as a model for

second language learning!’ Modern Language Journal

2. Belasco, S. “Aital cal aprene las lengas estrangikras, Comprehension: the key to Second Language Learn- ing:’ in Harris Winitz, ed., The Comprehension Ap- prooch to Breign Language Instruction. Rowley, M A Newbury Press (1981): 14-33.

. “The feasibility of learning a second language in an artificial unicultural situation:’ in Paul Pimsleur and Terence Quinn, eds., The Psychology of Second Language Learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press (1971): 1-10.

4. carroll. John, R “Forrign Language Proficiency Levels Attained by Language Majors Near Graduation from College!‘ Foreign Language Annals I (1%7): 131-51.

5. Dunkel, Patricia A. “Developing Listening Fluency in L2 Theoretical Principles and Pedagogical Considera- tions!’ Modern Language Journal 70 (1986): 99-106.

6. Holton, James S. and Norhma G6mez-Estrada. EspaRok Curso Primero. New York: W. W. Norton, 1978. Katz, E. “The Mass Communication of Knowledg&‘ in Getting The Message Across. Paris: UNESCO Press

8. Kintsch, W. “On Comprehending Stone$‘ in M.A. Just and P.A. Carpenter, ads.. Cognitive P m e s e s in Com- prehension. Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977.

9. W h e n , Stephen D. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1981.

. “The Input Hypothesis:’ in James E. Alatis, ed., Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press (1980): 168-80.

11. Meyer, B.F. The Organization of Prose and I ts Effect On Memory. Hague: Mouton, 1975.

12. Oller, John W. and John W. Oller, Jr. “An Integrated Pragmatic Curriculum: A Spanish Program:’ in John W. Oller Jr. and Patricia A. Richard Amato, eds., Methods That Work: A Smorgasbord of Ideas for Language Teachers. Rowley, MA: Newbury House (1983): 20-37. Rivers, Wilga. “Comprehension and Production in In- teraCtiw Language Teacw.’ Modern Language Journal 70 (1986): 1-7.

56 (1972): 133-9.

3.

7.

(1975): 93-114.

10.

13.

536 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS

14. Shank, RC. and R.P. Abelson. Scripts, Plans GO& 16. Waver, Carl. Human Listening: ProCerrandBelrwior. and Understunding. H i l W NJ: LawmceErlbawn Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-MerriU, 1972. Associates, 1977. 17. Weissenrieder, Maureen. “Listening to the News in

IS. Tmd, Tiq , MagdakM Andrade, Jeanne Egase, and Spanish!’ Modern LmguageJoumi71(1987): 1827. Elias Migud Munm DasMundar Ncw Mrk: Random 18. Ur. Penny. Tecrhing Lisrening Comprehension. New House, 1986. York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

~~~- ~ ~

APPENDIX This appendix is a collage of the direction lines taken from student work sheets and tests. It demonstrates

the kinds of tasks students were asked to perform while listening to distinct registers. It includes vocabulary matches and searches, cloze devices, true and false, text correction, directed scanning, and questions and answers. Purposes for these ererCises were varied and included the teaching of language as well as the teaching of listening comprehension. Exercise types are given in no specific order and do not reflect the “cycle“ in which they would have occurred in the overall treatment of the material.

1. Directed Scanning Listen to the commercials once through. If you understood the kind of product or service advertised, write it in the space provided under the word Pducto. Rewind and listen to the commercial again. As you do, jot down as many key words as you can. Now rewind and listen to the entire tape Count how many products or services you understood on this hear- ing that you did not understand the first time through. Listen to the following newsbriefs. Check those topics covered: (political problems in Yemen, an official visit to Russia, Japan-Soviet relations, etc)

2. Vocabulruy Match - Listen to the following jokes. Now check off the words you heard in the following categories:

Animales: jirafa, elefante, piijaro, paloma, cordero, cochino, puma Problemas nacionales: crisis, manifestaciones, temblor, fuego forestal, deudas. inflacibn, dkficit. accidente de aviones, terremoto Gente: damnificados. peluquero, partidos politicos, equipos, embajador, quemados, niios de la India, panadero. ni6os indios

3. Vocabulary h h e s - In the following commercial, you will hear the words for shuveand sideburn. Write these words in Spanish. - List all the commands you hear. - List as many cognates as you hear. - List the words that are related or derived from the following verbs: ucompuhr, visifur, quemur, etc - List all the words that indicate the following topics: violence, disaster, government officials. etc

4. ILtUdFalse - Listen to the following newsbrief on the political difficulties now occurring in South Yemen. Indicate with

5. Cloze - ’hke from dictation the following partially reproduced dialogue. 6. Questions and Answers - Listen to the following interview. The questions used in the interview are listed on your work sheer. In the

7. Tar( Comctioa - Listen to the song as you read the words. Make corrections to the text according to what you hear.

a check those statements that are true.

space provided, take notes on the answers given by the interviewee.