Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ACADEMIC LISIENING'I
Cnuc CsnupnoNUniversity of Hawai'i
lhi! prper gurv.ya the PrinciPal flndlngs of r...trch in rcad.nl'clist€nlng and th€lr inPllcrtion. tot t.tch.a. rnd ..cond lan$rrg.Iaarnela. Re.arrch focua€d on acadaoic llatanlnE lor non-natlvauEerg of e language ha! baan concarnsd wlth (r) tha nltuaa ofacadenlc apaech in l€cturaa ( Iactura ttyla, atructula tnd contant,tnc!,uding rlpecta of usa of virutll, and frctora lnfluanclng th.conprehenrlon of l€ctur. cont.nt), (b) tha proc.aaat tacondllnguag. I€lrn.tt und.rgo whlla ll.t.ning (goala, atnt.gl.r,con.tructlon of m.anlng), (c) tha affacta ol rcadanlc aPaach oncomprrhcnelon end acqui.ition of th. ..cond hnguaga, rnd (d) rndthe trsLnlng of rcond lanEurg. l.rrn.rr at ll.t.na!. ln rcrdcolccont€rt!.
While the precise role of listening comprehension as input to second languagc
ac4uisition is still debated (see review of issues, critiques, utd dircussion in Barasch
& James, 194; Courch€ne, Glidden, St. Iohn, & Th6rien, 1992; hrsen-Freeman &Long, l99l; Wesche, 194), incneasingly large numbers of second language leamers
are engaged in academic (and othcr occupational) pursuits which rcquire them to
listcn to and comprehend grcat amounts of s€cond (arge$ language input.
International students are faced with sometimes complex information to be understood
and assimilated in order to Ptocccd with academic life. This is tnrc even for studeng
in their own country's advurced educational system in which a recond language is
used for academic purposes, as exemplifrod in scveral academic listening studies
conducted on English-spcaking professors at Sultan Qaboos University in Oman:
Fahmy & Bilton (1990), Flowerdew (1992), utd Griffiths (191a). In recent years'
applied linguists working in academic rcttings have subsunfily increased our
knowledge concerning academic listening asks and their significance for second
language leaming and t€aching.
* A re\.ised urd shorrned vcrsion of this paper will appcar in a volume entitled ,{
Guidefor Teaching Second Language Listening, edited by D. Mendelsohn & I.Rubin. San Diego: Dominie Press. The author acknowledges the obvious influence
especially of Pat Dunkel in this rcrriew.
llnivctdty o! Havdl WorHng Papcn tn ESL' Vol. 13, No. I, Fall 1994' pp. Zl'51.
24CIUWRON
Several excellent summaries exist on the general nature of listening
comprehension and its role in second langu,age learning and teaching (Dirven &Oakeshott-Taylor, 19&4, 1985; Dunkel, 1991; Iarsen-Freeman & [ong, l99l; bng,in press; Morley, 1991; Rost, 1990; Rubin, 1994; cf. also special isue on
"Comprehension," Applied Linguistia 7(3) 1985), and one significant bookspecificatly on academic listening will soon appear (Flowerdew, in press). A central
issue for second langu,age acquisition (SLA) is whether or not comprehension
activities alone are sufficient to promot€ SLA. Recent research has suggested that the
rate and ultimate level of attainment in the target language CfL) is faciliated by more
form-focussed learning activities (Lightbown, Spada, & Whib, 1993; hng, 1991).
Concerns in teaching listening comprehension have, however, focussed more on the
learners' own use of strategies, the understanding of learners' attitudes and purposes
in listening, and provision to learners of information on interprcting 12 speech incontext @unkel, 1991; Mendelsohn, 1994; Morley, 1991; Rost, 1990).
Research on teaching for comprehension in academic contexts is noticeably
sparse. Instead of a focus on how best to pr€pare learners for listening in academic
cont€xts, research has been on (a) describing features of lectures and faclors involved
in the academic listcning task, O) identi$ing particular learner behaviors and
strategies in listening, including notc-taking, (c) determining featutrcs of aural texts
that directly enhance comprehensibility, and (d) discovering the effects of srategy use
on comprehension. Tltis paper will revisw thesp ar€as of study, and following each,
suggestions and speculations about tcaching practicc will be made.
THE NAT(IRE OF SPEECH IN ACN)ENfiC LBCTT'RES
Some research on A fistening and interaction in academic rcttings has been
conducted outside a lecture-style context (e.9., the academic advising interview,
Bardovi-Ilarlig & Ilardord, 1990, 1993). However, the main tnurce sf 12 research
on academic listening has come from studies involving lectures and lecture
comprehension, or from simulations of lecture-type instnrction. Rost (190, chap. 5)
refers to this sort of lisrcning as "ttaisactiond" as opposed to "interactiond"; it isalso referred to as "non-collaborative," or "nonparticipatory." As a major source ofsecond language exposure for intprnational students, characteristics of lectures have
interested researchers for their conUibution to comprehensibility of lecture content and
acquisition of TL forms.
Academic lectures have been identifiod as a register distinct from written tcxts or
ACADEMIC LISTENING 25
conversations (see early work by Dudlcy-Evans & tohns, l98l; Murphy & Candlin,
l9?9; Shaw, 1983; Wijasuriya, l91li cf. also Ll comparative stylistic andyses such
as Chafe & Danielewicz, 1987). Obviously, lectures tend to be monologic and
relatively pluned with resp€ct to the content (cf, Ochs, 1979). Still' a certain amount
of adjustment and unplanned spcoch can bc cvident, indicative of the lecturcr's
awareness of lisrcner presenc€ Urd neCdS (see, for instance, the "aSides" of Strodt-
Irp€Z, 1991). In fact, Shaw's (1983) detaited ethnographic urd discourse analysis of
university engineering lectures noted an important paradox: that the professors expect
more of an informal dialogue to arise from their lectures than in fact does happen,
even though they perceive that they leave opportunities for it. This may be a result of
the typicat noed of the lecturer to mainAin control of the floor, even in the least
formal type of lecture. Dudley-Evurs and Johns' (1981) identification of three broad
styles of lecture sp€cch has thus been widely recognized as relevant to an
understanding of the role allotted to list€nc8. These styles trci conversatiortol,
rlwtorical, and reding. They fall more or les on a continuum from informal to
formal and from more to less interactive with the listener.
It would seem, therefore, important for second language t€achers !o be aware of
the marks of general lecture style, in order to Pr€parc their students to anticipate both
general lecture structutE urd signals of information flow, urd the signals in lectures of
opportunities for questions and interaction with the lecturer.
Discoune Fcaturcs ol l*cturesExamples of typical analytical dcscripton of discoursc fcaturcs are shown in thc
following Table 1. One of the morc prominent characteristics of lecturcs is the use of
certan l.eticat phroses or rhetorical marlcerc which help to signal dre major content
and seguence in argument, and to demarcatc boundaries of non+ssential information
(Decarrico & Nattinger, 1988; Irbauer, 1985; Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992; Olsen
& Huckin, 1990; Rounds, 198?a; Shaw, 1983). These have atracted tps€archers'
attention both for their inherent usefulness in undershnding tho structure of the
discourse, urd as potentid aids in uaining listeners to understand betts.
uoFr4qq$ ol Bot6g
aHrom oql q rrpdgr rcltn c$ q orq1f,
fmou rc'spttt{
ttqqodl[rcrnrodfrl
[fpo cpgalnoqrlfc$r.urtrerBqc a oqcl
tutaOQ
l
iI sotrt ztdlllL
"'I tnlt X ug Kpo s,t1
"lry qqA wzlqotd o11l
"'rlrt'x ut sry 8W"'s'ottw4tp nn
"'pq 4 npd upu etg"'ot 8Po4 qa
"\r.tt', ptP tst{s,t4
ruIuou& '.arcJgdc$d
'ouo$B$rqu "cdft
Fuoplugcp:rcpuBEes
ruoplugcp'urlppJd rsoplrodds
:ronqilrp prldfJ.c ltuctso
uo$$F qns
p{!JoJ-rE.s
FErodryo.ncE8rJ cldoo arrr eg tu;lrq
lepo4de cEJnorolp ucaaqcq srncco
qclln ryoArilrury 4dot tmppr rtl!.t ilJnocrlp 1o cpo4dc uy
uopqnldrcor'qfiqmenrBJdul
'lEnorci pEJqIE!4puroJ
lEnoor pcpuqxe.uoplugep .uopeucpg
:[rcocnbc qq;nodl-e1rp-rdccuo3
uopanlr^e .uopnpr .pro6
:[ocmcnb-er elqprodl-tq^pr-Eqqord
tugupldrc'tupn4uoc'tq{ggpnb
' tur.Oprnf .tulpocuuocer
'iqr4ruurutu .tumil .tuluecru
'tulqlrccep'tmpqcooc .tu.nmcog
-rJclJlE ep!8v
-raglpn!-JqBnlE^a
-Joplof,-rcggdurerg
..ilrz.lJIEtgnS
--ucgyp oldog
-crclnll cgdo;
066t 'Eoltlg
? rl[qpd
Zg6l'uorpneqJlrofproqrg Lqqrcof
Z66l 'lrrrprettrold:FoF
ACADEMIC LISTENING
Although we still lack research on thc effects of teaching these, Nattinger &DeCarrico (192, chap. 6) display at somo length the differences in such formsbetween less and mone formal lccture stylcs, making the further distinction between
"global" and "local" macro-organizers. Supporting [.ebauer's (1984, 1985) approachto using clozed vergions of lecture traffcripts, they arguc that if students are trainedto recognize such markers as guides to lecture structure, to understand theirsometimes metnphorical and formulaic functions, students' processing of lectureinformation will be enhanced. They illustratc ways in which such marbrs (such as
"now'), with only slight changes in tone or cont€xt, can havc quite distinctfunctions. Similarly, Strodt-Lopez (1991) shows that asides, which have identifiablemarkers, internal structure, and functions related to the main lecturc, are imporantfeatures of lecturcs that maintain audience-spealer rapport and may in fact clarifythe speaker's orientation to the main points. l,eamers can be helped to identify and
process such segments within a larger monologue.
Secondly, some research has becn devoted io identifying broader informationaldiscoune fwrtioru in lectures: definitions (Flowerdew, 1992), vocabulary
elaborations (Chaudron, 1982; Fahmy & Bilton, 190), and various move tl1es (as
in the discourse analytical uadition of Halliday sccn in Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975).
Moves have been further identifred cither according to functional move categories
(Cook, 1975) or transaction typcs (Shaw, 1983). While the identification of specific
realizations that arc associated with such functions and moves is not likely, listenen
can expect general types of lectur€ transactions and moves and some natural
sequencing of functions to occur. So ingtruction has a sound basis in prcsenting and
evaluating sample lecturcs that illustrat€ thesc. In all cascs, mating learners morc
aware of the forms and variable function of such features of lecturps should impmve
their ability to proccss lectur$-to prcdict, identify, and associaE meanings and
references both within and outside the lectures.
There have, finally, been some studies of other featurcs such as atypical
pragmatic use of especially first-person pronouns (Rounds, 1987a, 198?U Shaw,
1983), which the rcsearchers illustrate as m€ans for lecturen to cstablish group and
social identity. For example, increased usc of inclusive "wc" a14!eals to cr€ate a
stronger bond between lecturers ud their audience.
CT]Ay.D.RON
Ra,e of Speech
Additional research has been dL€ct€d at the rate of spccch urd the pacing of
information in lectures (Blau, 1990; Griffrths, l99la, l99lb, 1992; Grifftths &
Beretta, 1991; Rounds, 1987a; Shaw, 1983; Tauroza & Allison, 1990; cf'
chaudron's, 1988, chap. 3 rwiew of tcacher talk and firt€ fiptors in classroom
studies). Much of this research has aimed at derermining whether t€achers address
learners of lower levels of competcnC€ at a glower rate, Urd whettrer such a slower
rate would affcct comprehensibility of thc contpnt. Rounds (1987a) addresses the
topic of speoch rate with respect to thc amount and use of silence (her categories of
silenco werc dninisffAive, stateglc, ud enpy). She suggests ttlat the appropriate
use of silence may bo an important adjunct to lectutprs' talk. Listcners, of course,
need to be conrcious of the potential mcaning of silence, to rccognizc it as an
intentional or inadvertent signal of a brcak in organization and thus as an
opportunity to summarize the content menally urd prepare for the upcoming
material.
Griffrths (191a, 1991b) argues in fact that overall rate of spcech can be a
misleading aprproach to assessing compretrensibility, as the key facOrs affccting
comprehension of orally delivered information rclatl morc libly to the location udduration of pauses in speoch. He points out that speech ratc varies little among
different lecturers addressing diffcrent audiences, and that the common measurpg of
rate of sp€€ch are inappropriate. In fact, Griffiths and B€rptta (1991) found no
differences in a number of m€asurEs of rate of speech bctween live lectures to NS
and high and low proficiency NNS listgrcrs, while one would anticipate thcre O be
rpductions for the latts groups (noably, they did find evidcnce of othcr sorts of
modiftcations, to be discuss€d in a latcr s€ction). Tauroza and Altson (190) concur
with Griffiths in preferring a syllable.based mealurc to a word-bas€d onc, dthough
they do find that rate of speech distinguishes between lecore style and other spcech
styles (radio monologues, conversation, and intenriews), with lectute style b€ing thc
slowest.' Yet, according to Griffiths' own continuation studies, to be discuss€d in a
lat€r s€ction, something can be said in favor of a certain lcvcl of slow speech.
While second tanguage learnerg may not be ablc directly to influence a
lecturcr's speech rate, the recognition that pause placemant and length is a litclyindicator of semantic or discourse units in a lecturc can bc an aid in leaming to
process fastcr rates of speech in monologucs.
29AQ4DEMIC LISTENING
Non-verbal Facton
In addition to the verbal characteristics of lectures, a few rcsearthers have
noted the significance of non-verbal factors, such as the use of visuals,
paralurguage, and gestures @nglistr, 1985; Kellerman, 1992; King' in press; Shaw,
1983). Visuals can range widely, from the use of slid$, transparencies, writing on
the blackboard, and varieties of writing such as words, diagrams' formulae, and so
on. This research has demonstrated that the second language listener can obtain
valuable secondary information to support tho intcrpreation of 0re lecture materid'
but in some cascs this will only occur if the primary verbal information or kcy
signals (e,g,, deictic referencc to thc propcr visual or part of a diagram, formulae,
or transparency) are comprchended. In addition, however, Shaw (1983) illustrates
how lecturers' use of blackboard information constitutes in significant ways the
primary source of information being conveyed. King (in press) provides a similar
illusration, pointing out that this is likely to be so espeqia[y in science or
engineering l@tures, although he also notes high inrcr-lecture variability'
For these reasons, teachers of listcning comprchension would probably do well
to prepare their L2 learners with as diverse ud authentic samples of visually
assisted lectures as possible, depending on thc disciplinary specializations of their
students.
Cultuml ContenllBackgrounil Knowledge
A final factor involved in lectutts, the semantic contcnt' has most particularly
been studied with reference to differences in prior knowlcdge of content urd their
effects on comprehensibility. In an investigation of the difficulties of Chinese
scientists while following courses in their ficld, Yuan (1982) found that the high
percentage of unfamiliar non-technical vocabulary encountercd in the lecturcs caused
his subjects considerable difficulty, while they generally could understand the
technical vocabulary, unless its pronunciation war highly diveryent from the Chinese
usage. At the same time, U.S. culture-spocifrc terms, such as use of non-metric
measurEment terminology, was a further complication in the subjects' ability to
visualize lecture content. Fahmy and Bilton (190) note similar sortl of problems
likely for their Omani listeners who were not familiar with thcir English-speaking
expatriate lecturers' references !o unknown cultural phenomcna (c'9., freeze-drying
or bubble-gum). It sttould be clear that tcachers of listening necd to assess their
students' understanding of TL pronunciation of technical vocabulary' as well as to
30CTTAUDRON
anticipat€ a certain amount of use of cultutr-specific rcrms and metaphorc inacademic lectur€s (such as the use of cxprusions from bascball, U.S. football, orpoker-"three strikes and you're out," "do an end nm," "het€'s the kicker").
Markham and Latham (1987), Chiang and Dunkel (1992) and Inng (1990) are
among the few 12 researchers who have focussed on prior differences in knowledge
and its effects on listening comprehension. Following similar rcscarch on L2 reading
comprehension, they have proposed and demonstrated that lfutsners would have
greater difficulty understanding lecture material on unfamiliar topics.'As these
researchers af,e aware (they do not in fact refer to "cultur!"), it fu inappropriatc to
attribute a generic notion of "cultur€' to such findings, as opposcd to the less
presumptive notion of "familiar" versus "unfamiliar, " for similar lesults can be
obtained with respoct to any differences in listeners' prior knowledge (cf. Lllistening studies such as I-ambiotte & Dansereau, l99l),
Obviously, teachers of second language listeners cannot possibly prepare their
students for the extremely diverse knowledge which may be needed to understand
lectures. Yet one might safely presume that instructing learne,rs in reaining lecture
cont€nt in its mo$t verbatim, least synthesized form as long as possible would allowfor the best eventual construction of thc intemal schema of the lecture, and
association of key points to prior learner knowledge, or knowlcdge that the learner
could thus seek after listening. This suggestion must, however, 6" 6darc€d ngainst
the leamer'g need to summarize and synthesize whenever possible, in order to avoid
an extra load on memory, The later s€ction on notc-taking will illustrate this
dilemma.
I,EARIIIER, DEXIAVIOR, IN LECTTJRES
A few researchers have b€cn conccrncd with the proccss of lisrcning from the
point of view of the second luguage leamer/stud€nt who is requircd to atterd to the
lecturc in order to learn the relevant coursc rnaterial. Listening behavior in general
has of course been the topic of a certain amount of research (cf. Mangubhai, l99l;O'Mdley & Chamot, 1990), but the mqior focus of rcsearch on academic listeners
has been on their note-taking strat€gic!, which we will describc shortly.
Geneml Leaner Saa/rgies
Rost (1990, p. 122-136) outlincs a broad categorization of ways in which
leamers' comprehension of lecturc$ may be 'accessed" by rescarchers (cf.
ACADEMIC LISTENING 3I
classifrcation in Chaudron et al., 1986, in prus): (a) "on-line" (immediate),"rebospoctive" (delayed) or "prospective," (b) "open" or "closed" tasks, and (c)tasks requiring an original or a verbatim formulation of the contcnt. A gmall numberof studies have investigated gencral listener behavior in locturcs, usually employingone or more of the above approaches (Benson, lggg; clerchan, lgg2; Flowerdew &Miller, 192; Olsen & Huckin, 1990; O'Malley, Chamot, & Kupper, l9g9; yuan,1982). some of the interesting features they have investigatcd are outlined in thefollowing Table 2.
T.bL 2. Fc.trrcr of Lbcocr Bchn'tor h Lctrrce
Feanrg Exemplc rourcc
Traorlatio! irto Ll
Takiaj timo to thid/colccntratDocoditg rcDt [pc by r3nlcmo
Sclf-Eonitoriry, clebontiry, idcrcmiDgPrc-, during- sld po*-rcsdint of t xtAsldng clasmsrs! for hclp
Addng lccturor si.r*rrdrNotc-tatis8
Yuro, 1982
O'l'tsllcy .t el., 1989
Flowrdcw & Millcr, 1992
Flowcrdsw & Millcr, 19911
Yuan, l9&l,Otrn & Huclia, 1990
O'ItddLy ct d., l9t9Flourcrdcw & Millor, 1992
Flouordcw & Milcr, 1992
Flwtrdcw & Mitlcr, 1992
Scc rcfcrclcgl b.low
I
What thesc rescarphers have not been able to determine is the exrcnt to whichany one or combination of such behaviors improves compreh€nsion, this represents
a serious project for research by listening t€achers: to det€rmine what particular
listening bchaviors can be taught, improved on, and lead O improved comprehension
by leamers. Three studies exemplify the direction such rEs€arch may take.
Benson (1989) identifies three asp€cts of one leamer's process of leaming in alecture format, each of which he claims tpflects a "gencrally reprodrrctive learning
conc€ption: " "a) adding to and making new relationships betrveen things he already
knew, b) localizing ideas to [the home country], and c) assimilating and
personalizing the t€achcr's persp€ctive.' (p. 439) Benson acknowledges that this
i.-
32 cIIAuDRoN
learner was probably not strongly involved in lcaming this matcrial, which affected
the leamer's approach. He laments such a learning-free attitudc, utd ventutps the
implication that listening courses should enforcc a stronger contcnt-learning
*tnponrnt, in which listening behaviors would be integrated more fully with other
skills, including productive target usc (pp. 440441).
O'Malley,Chamot,andKupper(1989)describeadetailedexplorationofSpanish-speaking high school students' self-reported sEategi$ in listening !o short
lecturettes and other academic tasks. Subjects were selected for the study following
discrimination betrreen "effective" and "ineffective" listcners, bascd on teache$'
evaluations of them. Tleir self-reports rwealed that "effective" listcners (a) were
more able to self-monitor--notico thsir loss of attention or ov€r-elahration of the
message, and redirect themselves to the task; O) listened for mort globd' larger
"chunls" of the lectures, instead of focusing on word-by-word decoding; (c)
infened word meanings from context; and (d) elaborated on t€xt meanings-related
new information to old-by bringing personal or world knowledge to bear' and by
self-questioning. whether and how thesp behavion can be taught remains to be
seen.
on a more general lwel, olserr urd Huckin (1990) make the important point
that different disciplines and lecturers will tend to adoPt distinct argumentation or
presentational styles. Therefor€, list€neB' strategi$ strould be oriented Oward
discovering the underlying structutE end argument of a lecturc. Specifically, they
illustrate non-native listeners' variable succecs in recognizing thc main poinS of a
lecture as derived from their following either "point{riven" or "information{riven"
strategies in listening,! The former is necessary in the casc of lectures that prcsent a
Problem-Solution structurc of argument, while the latts is more appropriate Perhaps
to descriptive and relational prescntations. A mismatch in stratc.Sy with lecture
structure can lead to serious miscomprehension of main poinb. Most likely' both
sbategies are needed for more complex lecture presenations.
Notc+kingThe topic of note-taking has been addressed widely in Ll literature (see brief
surveys in Chaudron, Cook, & Irschky, 1988, in prus; Dunkel, 1988a' 1988b). 12
studies have followed similar lines, although they have perhaPs bcen morc focussed
on details of the forms and functions of language in 12 lcamers' notes. Notes have
been examined in the literaturc for their valuc either as a form of "cxtemal storagc'
33ACADEMIC LISTENING
of the information in the lecture, for usc in latcr rehieval, or as a way for the
listener to "encode" the information while listening (sec discussion in Chaudrcn et
al., 1988; Dunkel, 1988b). The main,frnding of Ll research was summed up by
Chaudron et al.:The results to date tend to favor the external storage position, but this situation
may be biased by the reliance of rcsearchers on sometimes gross measures oflecture content recall, and their failure to develop more refined measures oflearners' internal encoding and repr€sentation of lecture cont€nt. (1988, p. 5)
The evaluation of note qudity relative to lecture content is therefore a key
research goal of several sMies. While Hull (1988) outlincd a basic set of objcctive
norms for abulating note content, as Clerphan (192) points out, this scheme was
inadequate to evduate note-to'lectur€ relationships. Rost (1990, p. 126) proposes a
general rchematic breakdown for analyzing notes rclative to the lecturc content:
Topic-reWon-topicalizing, translating, copying, hanscribing, schematizing;
Concep-ordering-sequenc€ cuing, hietarchy cuing, relation ordering;
Focruizg-highlighting, de-highlighting; and
Revisizg--inserting, erasing.
Dunkel (1988b) outlined the major means of assessing quality quantitatively, 0o
which Chaudron et al. (1988) added one final measur€:
Total words;
Information units;
'Effrciency"-ratio of information units to total words;
"Completcness"-ratio of information units in thc lecture to information units in
notes;
"Test-answerability"-bas€d on the relation of noto cont€nt and latpr tcst content.
lDunkel, 1988b, p. 2651
Amount and proportion of higher order information relative to lower order
information [Chaudron et al,, 1988, p. 6l
Most of the empirical studies of L2 norctalcing have pointed to the failure ofsubjects to record the imporunt ud higher-order information, as 12 learners tend to
focus onl verbatim transcription and individual words. Nonnativcs are often awarc oftheir short-comings, however, as evidenced in Dunkel & Davy (1989). Clerehan
(192), for example, found L2 learners omitting 19% of major hcadings in a
34 cHAwRoN
lecture, and 34% of sub-headings, compared to Ll subjects' near- Ifl)% recording.
one source of such omissions, she suggests, is the students' failure to simplify their
notes, along the lines hypothesized as characteristic of notes in Janda (1985).4 King
(in press) also noted subjects failing to fully abbrwiate in their notcs, urd Fahmy
and Bilton (1990) found about 25% of their subjects keeping very disorganized
notes, making virtually no use of abbreviations. It is likely that lecturer factors,
such as appropriate focussing or emphasis, can improve such behavior, on the other
hand, providing too much aid, such as providing handouts, may negatively influence
listeners: Fahmy and Bilton (1990) also noted that students tcnded to take better
notes on the key vocabulary elaborated by the lecturers whan they had to take their
own independent notes, as oppos€d to when they had a handout with the lecture
outline provided.
It should be evident to the practitioner that the training of non-native speakers
in noto-taking is a complex task, requiring patience in guiding leamers to recognize
main and subordinate points, to take rapid and welFabbreviat€d notes instead of
verbatim tert, and to maintain organization in their notes for later reference. Thus
far, we lack sufficient research in the success of note-taking instruction.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEI{ IJCTT]RE STRUCTT'RE OR LEARNES'
STRATEGIES AND COMPREHENSION
Whether the applied linguist is addrusing the faining needs from lecturers of
non-native leamers, or the direct needS of the learners themselves, it is essential to
detprmine those lecturing and listening strat€gies that arc most effective for
comprehension and reteltion' Several speculations for tcaching of listening
comprehension have been made here, based on primarily descriptive rcsearch. Yet
the preferred source of teaching principles should be the concr€t€ frndings of
correlations or causal relationships between lecture structure Or leamer strategies and
comprehension. This has bcen the focus of several researchers. As a question of
SLA, however, to date, little research has explored the further issue: the exbnt of
learner acquisition of new L2 lexis and rules as a result merely of listenint to
lecture material (though see Toya, 1992, discussed later, and cf. research on general
comprehension-based instruction such ag that of Lightbown' 1992).
I*cture Stntctun and \ffects on Compnhension/Retentbn
Rare effects. A number of studies have been conductcd to investigato the
ACADEMIC LISTENING 35
effectsoncomprehensionofslowingtherateofpresentationoflectures(seereviewof earlier teacher-talk studies in Chaudron, 1988' chap' 6)' As noted above'
Griffittrs (1990a, 191a, 1991b) has been (ustifiably) critical of the manner in
which rate of specch has been mcasured in such rcsearch' Several comparative
shrdies of comprehension of normal versus r€duced speed specch did not fully
conFast rate of speech with other modifications (see review in Parker & Chaudron'
198?, summarized in Larsen-Freeman & Long' 1991)'
Griffiths'viewsareborneoutsomewhatinthreeindependentlyconducted
studies. Derwing (1990) investigated speech rat€ in NS-NNS interactions in pain in
ordertodeterminetheeffectsoncomprehensionofNS'srateadjustments.shefound, against expectations, that while NSs did not makc gubsta$tid adjustments in
rate of speech, they did in pause frcguency and length' and that NNS listenen did
more poorly in comprehending when slower speech was ad&essd o them' The
likely source of this was the fact that the NSs made morc pauses and other
aajustmentsDrgi&ly_wbeotheysensed0rat0reinformationwasnotbeingormightnotbeconveyed.Incontrasttothismorenaturallygeneratcdinteractivetask,intworelatedstudiesBlau(1990)constructedpre-recordedshortlisteningpassagesat
differingratesofpresentation'andwithvaryingdegreesofpausesinserted(afurtherfacor of type of modification will be discussed below)' While she found no
particular effect for comprehension of the material at a slower ratc of presentation
(though the differences were only behveen 1?0 and 145 w'p'm' and benleen 200
urd 185 w.P.m.), passages prescntcd with insertcd 3-second pauscs (rcsulting in a
150 w.p.m. overall rate) were comprehcnded significantly bctter'
Incontrasttohisearlierpresumptions,Griffiths(1990b'1992)didreporttwoexperiments in which relatively slow speech rates (at around 2'0 and 2'5 syllables
pei second, or about 100 urd 125 w.p.m., resp€ctively, for the two studies) resulted
in superior comprehension of lecture material by lower intermediate adult students to
that of listcners to more rapidly spoken t€xts (150 w'p'm' or faster' up to over 200
w.p.m.).The obvious suggestion following from these studies is that lecturers addrcssing
second language leamers should attempt to speak at a slower rate, achieving this
principally by inserting more pauses at appropriate moments'
vocabubrl. There has as yet bcen insufficient research on the apquisition or
rerention of vocabulary based on lecture prercntation. Fahmy and Bilon (190) had
suggested that a slightly higher rate of retcntion in students' notes of one lecturpr's
36 cruIrDRoN
vocabulary elaborations may have been a rpsult of that lecturer's clearer signallingof vocabulary. Thus, following the suggestion of Ll reading findings (canoll &Drum, 1983), Toya (192) manipulated vocabulary elaboration and definition in anexperimental L2 study of retention of aurally presented vocabulary. using twodifferent texts of between 285 and 3o2 words, she constructcd recorded lecturesincorporating explanaory modifications of 12 vocabulary items in each: "explicit"explanations which followed an explicit defrnitional format; "implicit" explanationswhich involved paraphrases or appositions; and both of these contrast€d against"baseline" conditions of no elaboration. Each final text version had a mixture ofthese three types of elaboration. comprehension measures of overall cont€nt andspecific knowledge of the vocabulary were prepared. l09 Japanese universitystudents of English as a second language listened to the two passages three timeseach' responding each time to vocabulary tests (translation or explanation in Ll).For virtually every vocabulary ircm (24 in all), comprehension of its meaningincreased steadily and significantly in thc explicit condition, contrasted with little orno increase for the other two conditions (overall, the implicit condition was slightlybett€r than the baseline), The continual increase over three listenings was likely dueto the priming effect of the test, but as this tended only to be an effect for the
explicitly elaborated vocabulary, it appears certain that the explicit definitional formenhanced awiueness. Unfortunately, a delayed post-test four weeks later showedsubjects retuming to their pre-listening level of knowledge for all items equally,indicating that surprisingly, long-term rctention was not directly affected.
Toya's (1992) study confirms the hypo0eses posed by eadier work onvocabulary elaboration urd definition, that clarity of elaboration can impact learners,
comprehension. In view of the long-term reversion to earlier levels in her study,however, it may be necessary to follow up on leamcrs' initial comprehension ofdifficult vocabulary with some other active trsks incorporating the vocabulary
productively.
Complexity and intemctlve discoune ,rra*ers/rhetodcal stracture. In light ofthe less impressive findings relating speech rat€ to comprehension, greater attention
has been turning to research on the effects of discourse signals and other forms ofmodification in lecture presentation. Again, Parker and Chaudron (1987), and other
research reviewed in larsen-Freeman and Long (191), illustrate that a variety ofdiscourse modifications of speech to non-natives can enhance comprehension, to the
point that other complexities of text are overridden. Of special interest recently have
ACADEMIC LISTENING 37
been modifrcations at a high letrel of discourse structuro' as in Chaudron and
Richards' (1986) study contrasting the comprehension of texts with inserted macro
andmicro-markers.TheirwidelydiscussedresultsparallelthoscofanLlstudybyHron, Kurbjuhn, Mandl, A Schnotz (1985): high-level signalling of the contcnt of
the lecture resulted in superior comprchension of high-level tcxt content on
immediately following t€sts' lul well as on dclayed written t€'sB' Sev€ral rec€nt
studies have now added subshntially to our undcrstanding of the power of these and
other syntactic and discourse modifrcations'
In addition to assessing the effect of differential speech rate' Blau (190)
attempted !o confirm trer.irtier frnding (1g&2) for reading comprehension by using
the same p.ulsages with adjustments in syntactic complexity' She could not find uy
signifrcanteffect,however,foreithersyntacticallysimplifiedpassagesorpassageswith the underlying structure of complex syntax left opque' Given other findings
for listening comprehension, it is possible that Blau's syntactic modifications
(simplifying or elaborating) werc not ap'propriate in a listcning mode for the short
passages employed. A contrast to Blau's finding' which adoptcd a similar design'
wascewarrtesandGainer's(192)@ofstudies.Theyfacoredinbotha)synaxwith quite low urd high degrees of complexity (comparing between 1'2 and 2'5 S-
nodes per T-unit, and between l'33 urd 3 S'nodes per T-unit)' urd b) the effect of
repeating the presentation. They found a signifrcant effect on clozc comprehension
measutres, favoring the less complcx Passages' But they also found that the repetition
effect in their second experiment resultcd in the morp complex passage having
equivalent results to those of the less complex Pa$age'
cervantesandGainer'sstudyisafurthcrsupportforthenotionthatdiscourscmodificationsofatcxtcatrcounteractothcrpotentiallyncgativeeffects.Afindstudy of this issue is that of Chiang urd Dunkel (192)' They incorporated a
number of elaborative modifications in both the familiar urd unfamiliar tExts of their
lecture passages (see description above ag well as comment in the following section)'
Thesewereprincipallyredundancies-rt'phrasingsurdrcpetitionsofinformation'occasionallydefinitionalelaborations.Ashasb€entnicatlythccaseinsuchexperiments,themodifiedpassagestendedobelongetandmorecomplex-theywere presented, however, at the same rate of delivery (around lfl) w'p'm" quite
slow by previous sandards). chiang and Dunkel found a signifrcant pffcct for the
modified passages, apparently entirely the result of an interaction effect with the
profrciencylevelofthesubjects:ahigherproficiencygroupshowedamuchmore
38 cHAwRoN
marked advantage for the modified vcrsions than a lower proficiency group. Theyrefer to this as a "language competence ceiling, " not unlike effects observed inreading comprehension and in previous listening comprehension comparisons (cf.Parker & chaudron, 1987), where learners of only a certain level app€ar to enjoythe enhanced effects of such modifications.
kcturers to non-native listenen should cerrainly be aware of the value ofdiscourse markers to make their orgurization and elaboration of meanings clearer.But teachers of listening should also consider the likelihood of there being such a"ceiling' " as grounds for helping espccially the weakest listeners o recognize andprocess elaborations such as paraphrase, definitions, and repetitions. In light ofNattinger and Decarrico's (1992) cail for a more elaborated analysis of macro-markers in lectures, and the on-going interest in other modifications of lecturespeech which may enhance comprehensibility, it seems that further research isgreatly needed in this specific area.
visuals/kinesics. unfortunately, despite the general interest in the impact ofnon-verbal aspects of speech and visual information presented in lectures, therc hasbeen insufficient study of their effects on listener comprehension. There areindications (in Benson, 1989; Clerehan, 1992; King, in press) that visuals areobserved and recorded, but the use made of general non-verbal behavior is notwidely reported. when English (1985) attempted an experiment to instruct one groupof chinese rcientists in observing non-verbal behavior and its significance forcomprehending the lecture material, no significant differences werc found betweentheir measures of comprehension and those of either a control group or a grouptrained in "guessing, predicting, and daa collecting for hypothesis-formation." yet,as English's study focussed primarily on lecturers' gesturcs, rather than on, sily,audio'visuals, the recommendation earlier in this paper to train learners in visualprocessing of lecture information is not refuted.
Backgmuul knowleilge. The previously presented ruults of Markham andIatham's (1987) study of ESL leamen' background knowledge of religiouspractices, Iong's (1990) study of Spalrish L2 subjects' comprehension ofdifferentially available (current versus past history) knowledge, and Chiang and
Dunkel's (1992) study of Chinese L2 leamers of English, all converge on rhe not-
too surprising finding that people comprehcnd more if they know more about thc
topic beforehand (O'Malley et al., 1989, had also found evidence of this result).
Nonetheless, in Chiang and Dunkel's study, when comprehension items were
39ACADEMIC USTENING
differentiated with respect to the ability !o respond to them independently ofexposure to the passage, it was the passage-independent items which were betterrecalled on the familiar lecture test. This interesting finding suggests that futureresearch, as well as teachers of listening strategies (!), will need to be more carefulin evaluating the contribution to listeners' performance of their general knowledgeand inferential capacity, as opposed to their ability to recall specific lecture content.
Leamer Strrteg Wects on Comprehension/Retention
Geneml strategies. As in the case of non-verbal components of lectures, theextent to which listeners' strategies have affected their comprehension and retentionof lecture material has not been investigated to any degree. o'Malley et al.'s (19g9)findings reported earlier are among the only studies attempting to relate specihcstrategies to listening outcomes, though their inferences are based primarily on prioridentification of effective and ineffective listeners. The major source of informationabout such effects, aside from an occasional mention of retrospective listenersubjective assessments (as in Benson, 1989; yuan, 1982), has come from studies ofthe effects of listeners' notetaking on their retention of lecture information.
Quality of notes/Presence or absence of notetaking. Dunkel, Mishra, andBerliner (1989) studied 136 native English speakers and 123 nonnatives listening toa nearly 23-minute lecture on the evolution of the Egyptian pyramid structure. Botha notetaking and a no-notetaking condition were employed, though the subjects werenot allowed to keep their notes (this tested thus for "encoding" effects). Dunkel etal. found no effect for note-taking on comprehension test scores in either the NS orNNS groups, though NSs were superior overall ro NNSs, and subjects with highershort-term memory ability recalled more concept and detail information than subjectswith weaker memory abilities. This was a further support for a " storage' effect ofnotes, under the assumption that there was adequate note quality.
As a follow-up to this study, however, Dunkel (1988b) evaluated therelationship between the measures of note quality listed above and the subjects'comprehension scores for concepts and details in the lectures. L2 subjects showed a
significant relationship between number of information units recorded in notes andtheir correct responses to concept information, as well as a significant negativeeffect of total words in notes (i.e., the more in notes, the less ability to recall theprincipal content, pointing again to the problem of non-natives recOrding too muchinformation verbatim). Likewise, there was a positive relationship between amount
40CHAUDRON
of information units and detail recall, while "completeness," or the ratio of the
target lecture units to subjects' information units, was the second best predictor ofdetail recall.
A final study which looked closely at the relationship between note presence
and quality and test performance was that of Chaudron, Cook, and Loschky (1988),
They allowed some groups of their subjects to keep their own notes, while other
groups had the not€s removed, after they listened to three different lectures.
Chaudron et al. also applied several detailed, objective measures of note quality to
determine any likely relationships between quality of notes kept and comprehension
test scores. The result was that there was a more positive relationship between some
note qualities (especially abbreviations) and success on lerture comprehension
measures. Lacking more complete relationships, the authors in a later paper
(Chaudron, Loschky, & Cook, in press) have conceded that there are still
insufficient grounds to consider any particular measures of note quality as a direct
measure of lecture comprehension. If the "encoding' value of note-taking proves to
be weak, then clearly, the adequacy of the notes as storage, and the relevance ofspecific information taken down in such notes, will depend heavily on the task-
specific demands on listeners following listening (i.e., test-specificity, opportunity to
review, etc.).
It is perhaps premature to try to point to clear recommendations for teaching
listening comprehension derived from the current research on learner behavior. A
considerable amount of research is needed in order to determine the best strategies
in listening and note-taking, and to demonstrate the "teachability' of such strategies.
To the extent that well-organized and abbreviated notes (avoiding the tendency to
take notes verbatim) provide a good source for later recall and study, it is surely
incumbent on listening teachers to provide practice in producing and using these--
not, however, to the exclusion of encouraging learners to apply other on{inelistening strategies.
CONCLUSION
The target second language that learners encountrer in academic settings is
highly variable, making it difficult to predict for a given leamer what he or she
should be specifically prepared for in listening tasks. Many factors lead to possibly
greater problems for second language learners than the specific difficulties
encountered in academic lectures: cultural adaptation, adjustment to the typically
4tACADEMIC USTENING
different study skills required in the TL academic environment, and the slowleaming of TL forms that are common to general spoken language (e,g., reducedforms). These areas arc also vital to a comprehensive training program for secondlanguage learners. To take one example, SLA research has shown that L2 learnerscan enhance their comprehension by learning to interact and negotiate with TLspeakers (e.9., Rost & Ross, 1991), and presumably by learning appropriateinteractive pattems in TL classrooms and lectures, they can improve overallacademic functioning.
Research on this area of second language usc will continue, due in part to theconvenience of conducting res€arch on and with academic lecturu, and in part tothe recognized need of s€cond language leamers to cope with real academic input inthe TL. We should constantly be striving to understand b€tt€r what it takes tocomprehend a lecture well, to isolate the factors that enhance retention of the
information for later application, and to point to which features of either the lecture
or the learners' behavior in response, if any, can lead to learner acquisition of the
TI- from input in such an exposure. By increasing our understanding of these issues,
practitioners in applied linguistics will b€ much better able to serve their colleagues
in the academic community than hereofore.
A NOTE ON APPLICATIONS OF ACAI)EIT,IIC LISIENING RESEARCIIAlthough we lack a great deal of information about academic listening behavior
and the effects of it on general 12 acquisition, there has been rapid development ina number of areas of research directly dcrived from the investigations reviewed inthe preceding pagcs. These include the gencral mcasurement literature on listcning
comprehension, and continuing studies of the effecs of differcntial speech
adjustments to non-native listeners. Due to lack of space, only brief reference to this
literaturc is provided here for follow-up.
Measurement of Compnhension
As mini-lectures have been used for a long time in global listening tests such
as the TOEFL, it is not at all surprising o find them used in continuing listening
research. Chaudron (1985) employed videos of lectures in order to determine thc
most reliable measurre of lecture recall, comparing unong multiple-choice, fxed-
ratio, and rational cloze measurres (thc latrcr proved the most rcliable). Shohamy and
Inbar (191) evaluated the differential effects of lecturettes, dialogucs' and news
42 1HAUDRzN
broadcast formats on listening comprehension scores, finding lecturettes to fall in the
middle of a range of diffrculty. Most recently, Dunkel, Henning, and chaudron
(1993) provide a global overview and a model of listening comprchension
measurement, including academic lectures as a text type'
Tmining of ITA'sA highly active area of investigation has resulted from the increased need to
assess urd train international teaching assishnts at universities in which the tafget
language is the TA's second language (Bailey, 1982; Davies, 1989)' Topics of
research range from the pedagogical problems of selecting key areas for instruction-
as in Anderson-Hsieh's (1990) proposal to t€ach suprasegmentals, Rounds' (1987a)
citing of pronouns, discourse markers, and vocabulary clarification as problem areas,
to general identification of sources of non-comprehensibility in non-native speech-
Anderson-Hsieh and Koehler (1988), HoeHe and Williams (1992)' a series of
studies by Tyler and her associates (Iyler, 192; Tyler & Bro, 1992, 193; Tyler,
Jeffries, & Davies, 1988), and Williams, 192. The principal finding of these
studies is that non-natives can overcome difficulties in comprehensibility of o|eir
segmental productions by means of morc global sbategies of signalling and proper
stress and pacing of information.
SLA: Learner Struegies and Differcnttal Speech n Non'notives
Finally, as indicated in the preceding, continuing studies of leamer strategies in
listening and interactive processing, and on the effects of modifications in speech O -1
non-natives in academic contexts, are of critical significance in the study of the
overall effects of instruction on acquisition (e.g., Carroll & Swain, 193; Lightbovrn rr
et al., 1993; Robinson & Ha, 1993; Rost & Roth, 191)' As second language
research pursues the current questions concerning the degree of formal instruction
and input, and the ertent to which learners' interaction with formal insEuction can
influence rapid urd successful attainment of TL competedcc, the study of the
intentional and incidental impact of t€achers' lecture urd interactional styles on
learners' comprehension wilt be of increasing value to both theoreticians and
practitioners.
43ACADEMIC USTENING
Notes
' It is interesting to note that Griffiths' (l99la) common speoch rate obtained
(around 3,3 syllables per second = 198 s,p.m., with a range between 2.5 and 4.5
s.p.s. = l5O-270 s.p.m.) corresponds almost exactly !o Tauroza and Allison's
(1990) syllables per minute range and mean found for lecture style (157-273, mean
194.5 s.p.m.). Similarly, shaw's (1983) finding of a range of 107.1 to 174.2 (meatr
: 136.5) words per minute rates for 9 different professors' lectures in the u.s.
(each with 3 lectures of 50 minutes duration) comparcs very closely to Tauroza and
Allison's finding of lv2-L99 w.p.m (mean = 14L.7' for British lecture style. while
these norms are imporant, most researchers will recognize Griffiths' caveat, that the
rate of speoch alone is likely not the most critical factor in affecting comprehension'
?In Markham & Iatham (1987), ESL subjects of differing religious backgrounds
listened to passages on either Islamic or christian prayer rituals. In chiang &
Dunkel (1992), Chinese students listened to a passage about the Amish in contfiuit to
a passage about confucius. In Long (1990), U.S. students' listened to 12 Spanish
passages about the Califomia gold rush-unfamiliar, and the music group
U2-familiar.
! Such a distinction in difficulty was noted as well in Yuan (1982). The two lecture
types correspond to Shaw,s two transaction types, shown in Table I (cf. also Bonnie
Meyer's work on schema for content structure analysis of written texts-Meyer 1985'
Meyer & Rice 1984-with Problem-Solution as one type, and several other t€xt types
following a more information-driven structurc).
. Janda was clearly not anticipating the evidence that would arise from nonnative
not€-takers.
44CHAUDRON
REFERENCESAnderson-Hsieh, J. (1990). Teaching suprasegmentals to international teaching
assistants using field-specific materials. English for specific purposes, 9(3),195-214.
Anderson-Hsieh, J., & Koehler, K. (l9gg). The effect of foreign accent andspeaking rate on native speaker comprehension. Language Leaming, 3g(4),561-613.
Bailey, K. M. (1982). Teaching in a second language: The communicativecompetence of wn-native speaking teaching assisraws. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of California at Los Angeles,
Barasch, R. M., & James, C. V. (Eds.). (1994). Beyond the monitor model: -\comments on cu,ew theory and practice in secotur ranguage acquisition. BostoniNewbury House/Heinle & Heinle.
BardovlHarlig, K., & Hartford, B. s. (1990). congruence in native and nonnativeconversations: Status barance in the academic advising session. LanguageLearning, 40(3),467-50l. -
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. s. (1993). r-earning the rules of academic tark:A longitudinal study of pragmatic change, Studies in Secorul LanguageAcquisition, I 5(3), 279-3M.
Benson, M. J. (1989). The academic listening task: A case study. TESOL euanerly, \23(3),421-445.
Blau, E. K. (1982). The effect of syntax on readability for ESL students in puerto _\Rico. TESOL Quanerly, I 6(3), 517-529.
Blau, E. K. (1990). The effect of syntax, speed, and pauses on listeningcomprehension. TESOL euanerly, 24(4),746-753. -\
canoll' B. A., & Drum, p. A. (r9g3). Definitional gains for explicit and implicitcues. In J. A. Niles & L. A. Hanis (E<ts.) Searches for meaning inreading/language processing and instruction (pp. 15g-162). Rochester, Ny: TheNational Reading Conference.
Canoll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negarive feedback: Anempirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. studies in secondLanguage Acquisition, /5(3), 357-386.
Cervantes, R., & Gainer, G. (1992). The effects of syntactic simplification andrepetition on listening comprehension. TESOL euanerty, 26(4), j67-770.
ACADEMIC LISTENING 45
chafe, w., & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written luguage. In
R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.) comprelending oral a$ witten langruge
(pp. 83-ll3). San Diego: Academic Press.
chaudron, c. (1982). Vocabulary elaboration in teachers' speoch to 12 learners.
Sndia in Secotd Language AcquMtion, 4Q), lTl:-.l8/J.
chaudron, c. (1985). A method for examining the input/intake distinction. In S. M.
Gass&C.G.Madden(Hs.)lnpuinsecondlanguageacquisition(pp.285_300).Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classroons: Researxh on rcaching at'd
leaming. New York: Cambridge Univenity Prus.
chaudron, c., & Richards, I. c. (1986). The effect of discourse marken on the
comprehension of lectur€s. Appliet Linguisttcs, 7Qr, llylz7Chaudron, C., Lubin, I., Sasaki, Y., & Grigg, T. (1986)' An investiguion of
procedures for evahuting lecnre listening comprelwttsion. (technical Report No.
5, Center for second llrlguage classroom Research). Honolulu: university of
Hawai'i.
chaudron, c., cook, J., & lnschky, L. (1988). Qulity of lecnre ntes and second.
languge listening comprehension. (technical Repoft No. 7, Center for Second
Ianrguage Classroom Research). Honolulu: Univenity of Hawai'i'
Chaudron,C.,Inschky,L.,&Cook,I.(inpress)'Secondlanguagelisteningcomprehension and lecture note-taking. In I. Flowerdew ff,j..) Acadenic listening.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Pr€ss.
Chiang, C. S., & Dunkel, P. (1992). The effect of speech modifrcation, prior
knowledge, and listening proficiency on EFL lecture learning. TESOL Quanerty,
26Q),345-314.clerehan, R. (1992). Taking it down: Noteeking practices of Ll and 12 students.
unpublished M.A. in Applied Linguistics research project, Monash university.
Cook, I. R. S. (19?5). A contnnicuile approrch to tlu uatysts of utetded
monologtu discoune and its relevance to tlr. devclopt tcnt of terching noterials
for ESP. Unpublished master's thesis, university of Edinburgh, Scotland. As citcd
in Murphy & Candlin (1979).
Courch€ne, R. J., Glidden, J. I., St. Iohn, I., & Thdrien, C. (Eds.). (192)'
Comprehcruion-based Second Inngwge Teaching / L'hseigrcmerx des langues
secondcs ox( sur Ia compr(hension. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
46 ,HAUDR,N
Davies, C. (1989). Face+o-face with English speakers: An advanced training class
for international teaching assistants. Englishfor Specific purposes, S(2), l3g-153. _DeCarrico, J., & Nattinger, J, R. (1988). Irxical phrases for the comprehension of
academic lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 7(2), 9l-102.Derwing, T. M. (1990). Speech rate is no simple maner: Rate adjustment and NS-
NNS communicative success. Studies in Second language Acquisition, I2(3),303-313.
Dirven, R., & Oakeshott-Taylor, J. (1984). State of the art article: Listeningcomprehension (Part 1). Language Teaching, I7(4), 326-343.
Dirven, R., & Oakeshott-Taylor, I. (1985). State of the art article: Listeningcomprehension (Part 2). Language Teoching, 17(5),2-20.
Dudley-Evans, A., & Johns, T. F, (1981). A team teaching approach to lecturecomprehension for overseas students. ln The teaching of listening comprehcnsion,l-ondon: The British Council.
Dunkel, P. (1988a). Academic listening and lecture notetaking for Ll/L2 students:
The need 3o investigate the utility of the axioms of good notetaking. ZESOZ
Canada JoumallRevue TESL due Canada, 6(L), ll-26.Dunkel, P. (1988b). The content of Ll and L2 students' lecture notes and its
relation to test performance. TESOL Qwnerly, 22Q),259-281.Dunkel, P. (1991). Listening in the native and second/foreign language: Toward an
integration of research and practice. TESOL Quanerg, 25(3), 431-457.Dunkel, P., & Davy, S. (1989). The heuristic of lecture notetaking: perceptions of
American & intemational students regarding the value & practice of notetaking. 1English for Speci,fic Purposes, 8(l), 33-50.
Dunkel, P., Mishra, S,, & Berliner, D. (1989). Effects of notetaking, memory, and rrlanguage proficiency on lecture leaming for native and nonnative speakers ofEnglish. TESOL Quaner$, 23(3), 543-549.
Dunkel, P., Henning, G., & Chaudron, C. (1993). The assessment of anI,,2listening comprehension construct: A tentative model for test specification and
development. The Modern Longuage Journal, 77(2), l8Fl9l.English, S. L. (1985). Kinesics in academic lectures. The ESP Journal 4Q),
l6l-170.Fahmy, J. J., & Bilton, L. (1990). Listening and note-taking in higher education. In
S. Anivan (il.) Language teaching methotlology for the nfuicties. Awhology seies
No. 24. (pp. 106-126). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional language Centre.
ACADEMIC L$TENING 47
Flowerdew, t. (199). Definitions in science lectures' Applied linguisda' l3Q\'
2V2421.Flowerdew, t. (Ed.)' (in press)' Acdemic Lisrenlng' Cambridge: Cambridge
UniversitY Prcss. -a-.^-:-- .
Flowerdew, I', & Millcr, L' (1992)' SMent perccptions' problems and stratcgies in
second language lecture comprchcnsion' RELC Jounal' 23Q'' V79'Griffrttrs, n. tfS90al. Faciliating listening comprehension through rate'control'
RELC lotrtul, 2-l(1), 55-65'
Griffrths, R. (1990b). Speech rate and NNS comprehension: A prcliminary study'
I$rywge Lcaning 4O(3), 311436'
Griffrths, R. (1991a). knguage classroom speech rates: A descriptive study' TEIOL
Qwner$ 25(l), 189-194' r -^,---t^ ^-r -Griffrths,R.(1991b)'PausologicalresearchinurL2cont€xt:Arationale'anda
review of selected sotdies' ipplied Lingutstics' 12(4)' 3/llF3(/.'
Griffrths, R. (1992). Speech rat€ urd listcning comprehansion: Further evidence of
the rclationstrip. TESOL Qwnerty, 26(2)' 385-3n'
Griffittrs, R., & Berctta, l,ltfSgU' A controtl€d study of amporal variables in NS'
NNS lectures. RELC Journal, 22(Lr, l-lg'Hoekje, B., & Williams, I' (1992)' Communicative compeEnce urd the ditemma of
international teaching assisunt education' TESOL Qratterly' 26(2)' 243-269'
Hron, A', Kurbjuhn, I', Mandl, H', & Schnotr' W' (1985)' Structural inferences in
reading urd listening. In G' Rickheit & II' Stlohncr $As'l lrfererces in tapr*riing GD. 22L445). Amstcrdam: North-Ilolland'
Hull, J. (1988). /f coding nanrut fot the atutlsis of rcn-natlvc spe&enoo+aking
from lecura. Appenrtix A in C' Chaudron et d' (1988)'
Iurda, R. D. (1985). Note-aking English as a simplified rcgist€r' Dbcourse
Prccesses, 8(4), 437-454'
Kellermu,S.(192).'Iseewhatyoumean'lTheroleofkincsicbelraviourintistening urd implications for foreign and sccond language leaming' Applled
Linguistics, I 3Q), 23Y258.King, P. (in p!e$). Visual and ve'rbal messages in thc enginccring l€cturc:
Notetaking by posgraduate 12 studens' In I' Flowcrdew (Ed,') Acodcnic
listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press'
48 nTAUDRIN
Lambiottc, I. G., & Dansereau, D. F. (1991). Effects of knowledge maps urd priorknowledge on rpcall of science lecture content. Jounul of &pcfunewal<tcuion, 6A(3), L8*20L.
I:rsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An htrodtction tu second langwgeacquisitbn research. London: Longman.
[.€bauer, R. (1984). using lecture transcripts in EAp lecturc comprchension courses,TESOL Qrutterly, /8(1), 4144.
Lebauer, R. (1985). A syli,},ru for or advanced EsL tccture comprerwsion udnote+aking course. occasiotul paper #6. Department of ESL. Honolulu, Hawai,i.
Lightbown, P. M. (1992). can they do it themselves? A comprchension-based ESLcourse for young children. In R. courch€ne et al. (Bls.) comprehcwion-bosedsecotd' langruge teaching / L'erceigunuw des langues secondcs st sur lacompr€lercion (pp. 353-370). Othwa: University of Ottawa press.
Lightbown, P. M., Spada, N. & Whitc, L. (Eds.). (1993). Ttre role of instructionin second language acguisition. Spocial Issue of Studies in Second LangwgeAcquisition lSQ),
long, D. R. (1990). What you don't know can't help you: An study ofbackground knowledge and second language listening comprehension. studia inSecond Language Acquisition, /2(l), 65-80.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teachingmethodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, urd C. Iftamsch (Hs.) Foreignlangwge research in uoss-culural penpective (pp. 3H2). philadelphia: JolrnBenjamins. -1
Iong, M. H. (in press). The rolc of thc linguistic environment in second language
ac4uisition. In W. C. Rirchic & T. K. Bhatia (Hs.) Ha.ndbook of lutguagercquisition. Vol, 2: Second langwge rcEisition. New York: Academic press.
Mangdbhai, F. (1991). The processing behaviors of adult second language learners
and their relationship to second language proficiency. Applted Linguistics, I2(3),268498.
Markharn, P., & latham, M. (1987). The influence of religion-specific bac$roundknowledge on the listening comprehension of adult sccond-language studenb.
Innguage l*arning, 37Q), 157-170Mendelsohn, D. J. (1994). Izaming to listen: A struegy-based approach tor tlu
second-lutguagc karner, San Diego, CA: Dominie Prpss,
ACADEMIC L$TENING 49
Meyer, B. J. F. (1985). Prose analysis: Purposes, procedures, and problems. In B.
K. Britton & J. B. Black (Fis.) Ilnderstanding expository text: A theoretical and
practical handbookfor analyzing explanatory text (W. ll-64' and pp' 269-30$.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates' Publishers.
Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, G. E. (1984). The structure of text' In P. D. Pearson
(H) Handbook of reading research (pp. 319-351). New York: Ilngman'
Morley, J. (1991). Listening comprehension in second/foreign language instruction.
In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd
ed.) (pp. 8l-105). New York: Newbury House.
Murphy, D. F., & Candlin, C. N. (1979)' Engineering lecture discourse and
listening comprehension. ln Practical Papers in English Language Ftlucation,
Volume 2, l.ancaster: University of Lancaster.
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In T. Giv6n (Ed-) Discource
and Syntox (pp. 51-80). New York: Academic Press.
Olsen, L. A., & Huckin, T. N. (1990). Point-driven understanding in engineering
lecture comprehension. Erglisl, for Specific Purposes, X\, 33-47.O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., & Kupper, L. (1989). Listening comprehension
strategies in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 10<4),418-437.
O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquis ition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parker, K., & Chaudron, C. (1987). The effects of linguistic simplification and
elaborative modifications on L2 comprehension. Univers ity of Hawai'i Working
Papers on ESL, 6(2), 107-133.
Robinson, P. J., & Ha, M. A. (1993). Instance theory and second language rule
learning under explicit conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, I5(4),413-438.
Rost, M. (1990), Listening in language learning. london: I-ongnran.
Rost, M., & Ross, S. (1991). Learner use of strategies in interaction: Typology and
teachability. Language Learning, 4 I (2), 235-273.Rounds, P. L. (1987a). Characterizing successful classroom discourse for NNS
teaching assistant training. TESOL Quanerg, 2l(4), 643-671.Rounds, P. L. (1987b). Multifunctional personal pronoun use in an educational
setting. English for Specific Purposes, 6(l), 13-29.
50 ,HAITDR,N
Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research.Modem Language Joumal, 7g(2), lgg_221.
Shaw, P. A. (1933). The language of engineering professors: A discourse andregistral analysis ofa speech evezr. Unpublished doctoral di ssertation, Universityof Southern California.
shohamy, E., & Inbar, o. (lggr). varidation of ristening comprehension tesrs: Theeffect of text and question tyrf'. Language Testing, E(l), 23_40.
sinclair, J' McH., coulthard, M. et al. (1975). Towards an anarysis of discourse.Oxford: Oxford University press.
Strodt-Lopez, B. (1991). Tying it all in: Asides in university lectures. AppliedLinguistics, I 2(l), Lt7-140.
Tauroza, S., & Allison, D. (1990). Speech rates in British English. AppliedLinguistics, /1(l), 9G-105.
Toya, M. (1992). Form of explunation in motlificatirn rl tistening input in L2vocabulary learning. Unpubrishecr master's thesis, Departrnent of ESL, Universityof Hawai'i, Honolulu.
Tyler' A. (1992). Discourse structure and the perception of incoherence ininternational teaching assisrants' spoken discours e. TESOL euanerly, 26(4),7t3-727.
Tyler, A. E., Jeffries, A. A., & Davies, C. E. (l9gg). The effect of discoursestructuring devices on listener perceptions of coherence in non-native universityteacher's [sic] spoken discourse. World Englishes, 7(2), l0l_ll}.
Tyler, A., & Bro, J. (1992). Discourse structure in nonnative English discourse:The effect of ordering and interpretive cues on perceptions of comprehensibility.Stwlies in Second Language Acquisirion, l4(l), l.l-g6.
Tyler, A., & Bro, J. (1993). Discourse processing effort and perceptions ofcomprehensibility in nonnative discourse: The effect of ordering and interpretivecutes revisited. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1S(4),507_522.
wesche, M. B. (1994). Input, interaction and acquisition: The linguistic environmentof the language learner. In B. Richards & C. Gallaway (Hs.) Input andinteraction in language acquisition (pp. 219-249). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
AATDEIL]IC LISTEMNG 5l
wijasuriya, B. s. (1971). The occunence of discource rrcr*en atd inter-setercc
cotuccdves in wtlvcrsity ledures and tlvir ptoce in tlu testing and tercNng of
listening conpreluttsion in EFL, Unpublished mast€r's thesis, university of
Manchester, Englutd.
Williams,l.(lw2),Planning,discoursemarking,andthecomprehensibilityofinternational teaching assistants. TESOL Qwner$ 2qq, 693411'
Yuan,D..Z'(|982).Chincsescientis.s,dificultiesinconpre}uttdinghglishsciencekcures. unpublished master's thesis, university of cdifornia at l.os Angeles'
Craig Chaudron
D€partment of English as a Second language
University of llawai'i1890 East-West Road
Honolulu, HI 96n2
e-mail t34 [email protected]
