Classroom IdeasFinding one's way in the fog: listening strategies and second-language learners

John Field is a materials w riter, teacher and teacher trainer currently com pleting a PhD on listening at the University o f Cam bridge, and teaching at King’s C ollege London. H e contributed a series o f articles on aspects o f listening to M ET Vols 6 & 7. H ere he explains why it is necessary to help learners with listening strategies, and suggests ways o f approaching listening in class which will foster these strategies.

Let us start with the assumption that the use o f authentic listening materials in the ELT classroom is a good thing. (By ‘authentic materials’, I understand recordings, both formal and informal, which were not specifically made with the second-language learner in mind.) There are two reasons for taking this view, and the two are often confused when writers discuss authenticity. The first is that spontaneous authentic materials manifest the characteristics o f natural everyday speech in a way that read-aloud texts do not. They include phonological features such as hesitations, false starts and stuttering, as well as pauses which the speaker has inserted irregularly in order to plan what comes next rather than systematically to mark punctuation or the end of a clause. Real-life conversation also exhibits its own type o f grammatical patterning, w ith a p reference for coordination ra ther than subordination, in using unscripted materials, we are thus exposing learners to input that is closer to w hat they w ill encounter outside the classroom. Authentic recordings are different in kind from those that are purpose-written by an author (who may or may not have an ear for natural speech) and recorded in a studio by actors (who may or may not be able to avoid the mannerisms o f the stage). For a longer discussion o f conversational features, see Field 1998.

The second reason for using authentic materials is that they are not simplified to reflect what the materials w riter assumes to be the language level o f the learner. This means that they demand a different type o f listening, a type of listening where the learner has to accept that not every word will be recognised and understood. They thus provide practice for real-life situations where L2 listeners w ill have to fend for themselves, with no long-suffering teacher to explain words that have not been understood and no foresighted m aterials w rite r to ed it out complex syntax or low -frequency vocabulary. I t is the implications o f this second aspect o f authenticity that I examine here.

It is good policy to introduce authentic materials from the very beginning of language learning (Field 1997). On the two arguments above, it is essential

MET VOL 9 NO ! 2000

C lassroom Ideas

that Ioann ; <iu in ear foi it.dm d everyd t* }>< < > h md that they If out to deal with ,« liti mmi in which ihey do not und. i i.iml • vmything the, heat I am not. su, * < im y that every listening lesson at beginner, elementary and intenm-diab l< n>l hould feature authentic texts; but certainly some should. Th.-ri' ,-ire two important provisos:

a Learners must be cars toll' hriefed so that they feel comfortable about being exposed to listening p where they may not understand a lot.

b ' ’ ’.hat is set must be achievable. In other words, we should gradeI tv of the task to (it the level o f the learners rather than grading

A different type :eningI f authentic m ateria ls are indeed used at tower levels., both teacher and learners need to recognise tirh tlv- role demanded of the ! j r w will V r-->Hmr different from that which apj t< > .< )■ irnpliiie t i , ,, ,» , i «( i, r is required to make the most >r \,h m er they * a. n ■ ■, i i i ri h r >-: i > be sections of the text where tliey unde t stand evei;/ wot a, and ihei. e may be others where they understand nothing. I use the analogy of a fog - out of which familiar landmarks loom. from, time to time, though perhaps not quite as often as the stranded traveller might like.

This is where listening strategies come in. A competent listener makes use of the following compensatory strategy:

1 Note the words and phrases which you feel you have correctly identified - and possibly attach some degree o f confidence to them. (Are you 100% certain that the word was X or only 60%?)

2 Use those words and phrases to construct an informed guess as to what the text is about. In this process, words that are marked for 100% certainty are leant on more heavily than words about which the listener is less certain.

3 Check your guess as more and more words and phrases become available. Revise it i f necessary.

This reflects the true nature of listening in a second-language context. To be frank, it also re flects the nature o f much lis ten in g to graded lis ten in g materials. The belief that listeners w ill understand everything i f we provide them with material that is within their range o f vocabulary and grammar is a myth. The fact is that many breakdowns o f understanding occur not because listeners do not know a word or phrase but because they do not recognise them when th ey hear them, in connected speech. So the lis ten er s tra teg y o f compensating for gaps in the text is much more widespread than is generally acknowledged..

Tw o important ouestions arise. The first is: To what m...... i > , ■ i , i % •compensate i > > > > * u iver from w 'i . I mm . > In f* .n th u n. < language? I nllms ‘ n>; no num 1 1, .t, the second .p1' » ||l<n 1 bl> t n<i , ipossible Is n lot us to teach listening strategies?

C l a s s r o o m Id eas

Transferring strategies from the first languageThe kind of model that many commentators favour for second-language reading is based upon w hat is term ed the in teractive-com pensatory hypothesis (Stanovich 1980). When non-native readers encounter a difficult section o f a text, they call upon their knowledge o f what the text has said so far, o f the writer o f the text and of the world, in general. There is thus a trade-off between words and ideas: the less the reader is able to extract from the wording o f the text, the more he/she relies upon co-textual and contextual information. I would suggest that this model is even more relevant to second-language listening than to second-language reading.

But this raises the question of whether the technique needs to be taught. Is it not already familiar to learners in their first language? Consider what happens when you are with a group o f friends in a crowded bar. The ambient noise is such that you cannot hear clearly what everybody is saying. The Stanovich theory would suggest that you automatically compensate for the unreliability of the signal you are receiving by relying more upon general context than .you would do normally. Surely most second-language listeners should have, no problem in carrying over this technique from L I?

The answer is that they do. into two types:

Risk takers, who are happy to base hypotheses upon small amounts o f correctly-recognised text. Their problem: they often fa il to check their hypotheses against what comes next. They may even distort what comes next to make it fit their (incorrect) expectations.

Risk avoiders, who are reluctant to make hypotheses without a great deal of evidence. They feel challenged by their inability to decode large sections of the text, and can develop a sense of failure.

- f r o m the. Journal <rf Silly

-o

X I

om>U©

“ W hen f asked you to ‘ take o o f ’ M r Jenkins, I rather assumed it would be to lunch.’

" VOL 9 N O i 2000

C lassroom Ideas

A strategic v ie w of" l i sten ing envisages a role- for the* E P L f<••.*•)»<*r in redressing these tetuh-ni-ir:- W e need to dev ise a mei budi i ln" ' wli>< h i>ncout risk- a vo id e r s In m t I h a t rea l - l i f e l i s te n in g m a tun uni l an gu age is u,- ua l l v an in c o m p l r i r a f fa ir , and tha t resor t ing to we l l -based hvpo lbeses is a p<*rh>ctW normal pton-sr .md not a mark o f failure. Simi lar ly , v\< n< <■<! m train risl I il > < '

in , hi h Ihi-it enthusiasm by careful ly w e i gh ing the h\ t»>tlir e, (.hey ha\> m id f a . nit i i In' i-wdt'iu'e which later sections o f the l istenhe. p.i a r r provide.

Strategy trainingCan we actually teach the strategies which a learner needs in order to handle

gaps in understanding? Many commentators, particu lar ly in the USA, believe that we can. They argue that we should practise techniques one hv one as part <>f a general strategy tra in ing programme. However the research evidence on

l i s t e n in g is less than conc lus ive . I f s t r a t e g i e s ( m o n i t o r i n g one 's own understanding, id e n t i fy in g key words, predict ing text contents are taught singly, learners mnv well improve in their handling o f the ipdjv id im l sf f - te gy that has been tor • n a 1 nt do not o t ■ > n / improve overs d h >> rn > The reason seems to ' >• in a t owever * >»"d ,m , become at usinf li * i >. . they a.) have difficulty tn combining it with uihets and b) have ciuhenltv in. using it appropriately , to meet the demands o f a particular l istening task.

The approach that I propose is thus a very different one - and one that 1 believe is better attuned to communicative approaches to language teaching. It is broadly a task-based approach, in which., in presenting a particular listening passage, we take the learners through the stages that (see above) seem to characterise real-life listening. It should be combined with a methodology, for which I have often argued, whereby the teacher takes a far less interventionist role than is normal in a listening lesson.

My proposal is that the teacher should handle a. piece of ungraded listening material in the following way:

Step 1 (as usual) Pre-listening. Establish context. Ss predict what they will hear.

Step 2 (as usual) Extensive listening. General questions to establish identity of speaker(s), topic, attitudes, etc.

S tep 3 Intensive listening 1 (probably involving only part of the text).Ss listen and write down any words that they recognise.Ss then form hypotheses as to what the text is about.In pairs, Ss compare what they have written.They also compare (and argue for) the hypotheses they have chosen. L I canbe used.

S tep 4 Intensive listening 2. Replay.Ss write down more words.Jn jioivp fhp.F r-rmipare / revise what they have written.Hie ■ i > t1 >' • fi hypo i T does not intervene.

Step ̂ T/e,/ / \ rung h j ay.Sj * In cl, end if vise their hypotheses, i f necessary.Class, discussion oi hypotheses.Finally T assists i f necessary.

MET VOL ? NO I 2000t i ' Zs

Step 6 F in a l play, Ss with tapescript.

1 am not suggesting that every listening lesson should follow this format; only that it is worthwhile to adopt it from time to time. The justification lies in the fact that it models the kind of listening that takes place in real life - and in so doing, shows learners that partial understanding and the formation of hypotheses are not marks of failure but very much part of the process of L2 listening. One hopes that one is encouraging those who would not normally make guesses to do so, and restraining those who make such guesses but do not check them adequately.

Of course, there are also a number of what might be termed micro-strategies which can ce rta in ly be practised in d iv id u a lly . These are the kind o f compensatory strategies which can be applied on their own. without needing to be combined with utbtri- Examples are: predicting what fh<- passage will say, lea rn in g to recognise stressed w ords, lis ten ing fo r m arla-rs. fo rm ing expectations of what the text will say next. All o f them., like the lesson format, above, equip learners to anticipate or overcome the difficulties caused by pa rt. i a 1 u n d e rsta n d i ng.

Communication vs learning strategiesAll the strategies discussed so far fall into the category of com m unication strateaics. They are strategies which enable the learner to overoms* p *ps in undt-ndonding and thus to achieve communication. As such, they are di, toe t from what have been termed learning strategies. They may or may not lead to learning. A non-native, speaker who is asked by a native speaker Could you tell me the way to the S T A T IO N ? might be sufficiently strategically competent to identify station as the topic o f the enquiry and to make some kind of reply (or perhaps to point). But this does not necessarily imply that they have identified the other words in. the question, or recognised the value of’ the formula Could you tell me the way to...? for asking directions. I f they have not, then their own repertoire o f language will not have expanded in any way as a result of the encounter (unless, of course, one takes the view that language learning can be achieved subliminally).

Repair strategiesThe example I have just given should remind us that the kind o f listening practice we offer in the classroom is relatively untypical, even when we employ authentic materials. Most listening in real life is interactive. The listener is required to process a short utterance of perhaps only 5-10 seconds and then to respond. W e should not lose sight o f this fact - and we certainly need more materials that model this kind of listening situation.

So far as strategy use is concerned, interactive listening gives the learner scope for employing a further type of communication strategy alongside compensatory ones. Th is is a rep a ir strategy - a way o f s igna llin g to the speaker that understanding has broken down. Again, it might seem, evident that learners have such resources available to them without help from the teacher. Again, the fact is that they often do not: they may lack the appropriate form of words or may be unsure i f a particular technique is appropriate. Many repair strategies, it is worth bearing in mind, are specific to the culture whose language is being learnt.

Classroom Ideas

MET VOL 9 t JO I 2000 ‘n 'rie ) e.)

C la s s r o o m ideas

Time should there fore be made, w i th in the listening lesson, to pract ise repair strategies. These might include:

• Formulae. Sorry? What ivas that? I didn't quite, catch that.Sorry: could you say that again?

• Techniques. Repeat up to the point where the breakdown occurred. Use a riwinF intonation: She didn't like the ....?I,', plii , ant i i 11 |it iLi i 1 1 >D*1 1 1 .is:

,Spi J * i Siti r r} ‘i i 1 i '// / / i1,' '• i/ C...' anything.

Speaker: Yes.

• S ta llin g tactics. Use a formula which w ill encourage the speaker to continue, in tlie hope that enlightenment, will come in what he/she says next: So...

• Abandonment. Ways of g w i th o u t losing face: I see... Yes, o f course. Really?

ConclusionTo summarise. A strategic approach to second-language listen ing skills recognises that, in real life encounters, understanding is likely to he less than complete. Inability to recognise every word in a text is not a mark of failure; and our learners need to be reassured on. this score. They need to be trained to fo rm and check hypotheses in o rder to com pensate for gaps in th e ir comprehension. They also need to he introduced to formulae which enable them to repair breakdowns of understanding when they occur.

When a listening passage contains only words and grammar that fall within the class’s knowledge, it is tempting for the teacher to assume that no problems of understanding will arise. This is the comfortable illusion that one develops when planning a lis ten ing lesson w ith a tapescript in one's hand. But a listening passage is not a reading passage and just because a word or structure is known, it does not mean that it w ill be recognised when it is heard. We must abandon the myth that second-language listening is just like first-language listening apart from a few limitations on vocabulary. The fact is that (for all but the most advanced learners) it is different in kind because it involves a much greater degree of strategy use. We have to come to terms with this reality and to adapt our methodology accordingly.

ReferencesField, J. (1997) ‘Notes on listening: authenticity’. M odern English Teacher 6/3. Field. J. (1998) ‘Notes on listening: conversational features’ Modern English

Teacher 7/1Stanovic toward an interactive-com pensatory m odel o f

!o n the developm ent o f reading fluency'. ReadingI / r ‘ <0

111 John Field

MET VOL 9 NO I 2000