This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]On: 31 July 2014, At: 18:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

International Journal ofListeningPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hijl20

How to Listen More Efficiently:Self-monitoring Strategies inListeningDr. Margarete Imhof aa Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University , Frankfurt ,GermanyPublished online: 02 May 2012.

To cite this article: Dr. Margarete Imhof (2001) How to Listen More Efficiently: Self-monitoring Strategies in Listening, International Journal of Listening, 15:1, 2-19, DOI:10.1080/10904018.2001.10499042

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2001.10499042

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

2

How to Listen More Efficiently: Self-monitoring Strategies in Listening

MARGARETE IMHOF Johann Wolfgang Goethe- University, Frankfurt, Germany

The efliciency of cognitive strategies in information processing has been established by a considerable body of research on text comprehension. Caution needs to be used, however, when it comes to generalizing the results to listening. It is argued that, in order to decide i f cognitive strategies meet the processing demands of listening, and if so, which strategies, the specijics of the listening situation must be taken into consideration. An empirical basis is needed to investigate the facilitative andpossibly intefering effects of using metacognitive strategies during listening. Using qualitative methodolom, listening logs collected from 35 undergraduate students were evaluated for the effects - as perceived by listeners - of three t-ypes of cognitive strategies, namely, interest management, asking pre- questions, and elaboration techniques. The results support the hypothesis that these strategies, when appropriately adapted to the listening context, facilitate information processing from aural input.

Listening in oral discourse can be carried out in various ways, since its underlying goals are not clearly defined and depend very much on the actual listening context, such as degree of speaker-listener collaboration (Rost, 1990) and the individual's listening objectives. Typically, a listener can choose how to go about the rather fuzzy task of listening and may, consciously or not, choose an appropriate strategy (Imhof, 1998) for doing so.

The purpose of the study reported in this article was to explore the effects of self-regulation strategies on the individual's perception of a listening situation. There is a considerable body of research on the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

3 efficiency of cognitive strategies in the processing of written information (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Generalization of conclusions from these investigations to the area of listening, however, needs to be backed up by further research because the specific demands of a listening situation have not systematically been taken into account. The transitory character of speech, the problem of following the speaker's rate of information production, and demands on selective and sustained attention all may influence the mental workload and the availability of attentional capacity during listening. It is, therefore, by no means self-evident that metacognitive strategies are equally applicable in reading and in listening.

Strategies for improving knowledge acquisition and information processing have been widely investigated with a focus on evaluating efficiency in terms of performance-oriented criteria, such as measures of retention and problem-solving transfer. There is no doubt, of course, that this kind of evaluation of cognitive processing strategies is a valid approach; we would not use or teach certain strategies unless we had sound reasons to believe that they are worth the effort. Nevertheless, it is unclear what effects using metacognitive strategies would have, i.e., what kind of workload is put on a listener, and how far the listener's attentional resources and self-monitoring competencies would be stretched. For the purpose of the study presented in this article, three different metacognitive strategies were selected for closer investigation: interest management, asking pre-questions, and elaboration techniques.

Interest Management

The relationship between topic interest and learning is illustrated by an experiment (Schiefele & Krapp, 1996) in which university students were presented with expository text on the "psychology of communication", a topic of which they had very little prior knowledge. Before the students read the text, their interest in the topic was assessed by a pre-test. No mention of a subsequent test was made. After the reading phase, process variables, such as arousal level, intensity of attention, elaboration, and highlighting and margin notes, were measured. Finally, the students were administered a free recall test that required them to reproduce the content of what they had read as completely as possible. Their answers were evaluated according to the number of main ideas and number of idea units accurately recalled.

The results showed two interesting points. First, the numbers of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

4 main units and idea units recalled were both significantly related to the ratings of topic interest, whereas neither prior knowledge nor intelligence seemed to systematically influence the results. Second, the effect of topic interest on recall was associated with significant changes in process variables, such as arousal, attention, annotating, and note-taking. Schiefele and Krapp (1 996) also found a mediating effect of arousal on recall, and suggest that the higher general activation induced by greater interest increased the processing capacity available for the task (Kahneman, 1973).

From this type of experiment, it has been concluded that topic interest changes the quality and the quantity of information processing. Krapp (1993) assumes that interest determines a personk motivational orientation and willingness to apply higher-level learning strategies. Topic interest facilitates a person's use of metacognitive skills, sustained attention, richer information-processing capacities, general arousal, and positive emotions.

A listener can do little to change the attractiveness of the material or of the speaker, but he or she can reflect on his or her subjective perception and evaluation ofthe topic. Interest is determined by a set of emotional, evaluative, and cognitive decisions that a person has made on a topic (Krapp, 1992). Active interest building can be initiated by redefining the current person-topic relation on the emotional, evaluative, or cognitive level. The question is how individuals build interest in a topic and what behavioral and cognitive effects ensue.

Asking pre-questions

Knowledge acquisition can be conceptualized as intentional changes in the semantic and propositional network of the learning mind (McCormick & Pressley, 1997). A prerequisite for modification of the learnerk propositional network is the "awareness of knowledge lacks" (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989, p. 375). Intentional and meaningfid learning can take place only when a person has identified a specific learning goal. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1989) report an experiment in which students were asked, prior to the introduction of a new topic, what they knew, did not know, and wanted to know about a particular topic. Summarizing their findings, the authors wrote that "children's responses to text information relevant to their 'Don't know' questions was at a higher level than their average response to other items of text information. Thus, having previously recognized a knowledge lack of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

5 a specific sort appeared to result in deeper processing of information relevant to remedying that lack" (p. 376). This effect may also have been due to the fact that pre-questions not only define the knowledge gap, but also activate prior knowledge so that new information can be tied into the existing semantic network more reliably.

King (1 994) used a similar approach, but tested university students. Two groups of students worked with a set of guiding questions for a lecture. Participants in the experimental group generated their own questions using a set of generic question stems, whereas participants in the control group used the same questions that had been previously generated by students in a similar course. In a subsequent test on the lecture consisting of multiple-choice and short-answer questions, the students who had generated their own questions outperformed those who were provided with others' questions.

Pre-questions asked prior to text presentation serve to filter incoming information, preparing the mind to absorb information that seems relevant in light of previously asked questions (Pichert & Anderson, 1977). Pre-questions define the listener's expectations and thus create a structure for the integration of incoming information. Kintsch (1 988) suggests in his construction-integration model of discourse comprehension that structure is not prestored, but generated in the context of the task for which it is needed (p, 164). It is assumed that this effect is even stronger in listening than in reading, since listeners have to economize mental resources. Building a mental model of the text (i.e., text representation) and creating an adequate situational model (Kintsch, 1989a) impose a high workload on the central executive, which monitors information processing (Baddeley, 1994; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993). Asking pre-questions can structure input and aid people in deciding if a piece of information is relevant or marginal, thus facilitating inference and the integration of new information into the existing semantic or propositional network.

Elaboration strategies

Elaboration strategies can be defined as a class of processing activities that put new information into a wider perspective by relating it to prior knowledge, creating interrelations between individual pieces of information and stimulating inferences. Elaborations are based on a person's prior experiences and knowledge structures (van der Meer, 1996). Meaningful elaborations make new information more memorable

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

6 by enhancing the access codes available for retrieval (Stein, Morris, & Bransford, 1978).

Elaboration strategies take a variety of forms, ranging from mental imagery to adding critical comments and reframing the information in a new context (Mandl, Friedrich, & Hron, 1994). It has been observed that learners instructed to use elaboration strategies are able to process information at a deeper level and are better at transforming and applying information in a problem-solving context (Mayer, 1980). There is also some evidence that different types of elaboration, such as creating personal examples, contrasting the target concepts, and expanding on the target concepts (Hamilton, 1997), and verbal vs. visual elaborations (Willoughby, Wood, Desmarais, Sims, & Kalra, 1997), are related to specific outcome characteristics.

Most investigations of elaboration strategies have focused on reading rather than listening to text. The question posed in this paper is: Do elaboration strategies help or hinder information processing in listening situations? Considering the thought-speech differential (Brownell, 1996, p. 85f.), it might, on the one hand, seem plausible that listeners elaborate on what they have just heard, thus keeping their attention focused on the speaker and topic. On the other hand, it might well be that elaboration strategies interfere with the listening process and distract the listener from what the speaker says. It is not clear if, how, and when elaboration strategies can be efficiently used during listening.

METHOD

Participants

All participants were regular attendants of a general listening class. Completing self-observation tasks and keeping a listening log were part of the course requirements. All students were enrolled in either a teacher-training program or a general education program. Papers were handed in anonymously using a personal code. A total of 35 students participated in the study, but not all of them submitted papers on all topics.

Instructions

During class sessions, participants were informed about listening strategies and asked to apply them in several situations. They were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

7 then asked to make self-observations in an open format, in order to obtain an empirically grounded picture of how strategies were used in listening and what effects could be observed. After being asked to prepare for strategy use by actively exploring a specific strategy and developing individual ways to realize it, participants were required to describe how they adapted each strategy to the listening situation and how they thought this strategy affected their listening attitude and process. The participants were led to believe that the study was not an assessment of listening or information-processing ability in order to obtain data unaffected by extrinsic motivation (e.g., the desire to perform well; Roberts & Vinson, 1998). Participants were encouraged to report both advantages and disadvantages of the strategies.

Preparation

The three strategies under investigation were presented individually during consecutive weeks to prevent mental overload and interference between strategies. The instructions for self-observation of three different strategies were introduced in the following manner:

Interest monitoring. A class session was prepared on the interrelation between interest and knowledge. Using a number of exploratory exercises, the class discussed the idea that personal interest in a topic depends on the amount of domain-related prior knowledge (Brownell, 1996). Research findings on the relations between topic interest and recall were presented (Schiefele, 1996; Schiefele & Krapp, 1996). Working in small groups, participants then shared personal experiences regarding topics and listening situations in which they were uninterested and how this posed problems for them. Each subject picked one situation in which to explore the effects of interest on knowledge acquisition in the course of the following week. All other aspects of the self-observation task were unconstrained (e.g., whether it was conducted in a private vs. professional situation, personal vs. medial communication).

Generating pre-questions. Participants attended a class session on pre-questions during which the results of empirical work on student- generated questions were presented and discussed (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1989; King, 1994; Kintsch, 1989a, 1996). Small groups explored and discussed exemplary realizations of pre-questions on a variety of topics. Participants were then asked to prepare pre-questions for a self-selected listening situation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

8 Elaboration techniques. A number of possible elaboration

techniques were presented in class (Ballstaedt, Mandl, Schnotz, & Tergan, 1981; Mandl, Friedrich, & Hron, 1994; van der Meer, 1996). Using a piece of instructional text, students tried out several of these techniques and discussed their value. They were then instructed to use any of these strategies in a real listening situation and to report the effects on the listening process.

Qualitative data processing

The raw data consisted of handwritten self-observation logs, 24 for interest management, 30 for generating pre-questions, and 16 for using elaboration techniques. The differences in numbers are due to the fact that not all students participated in all exercises. The texts varied markedly in length and averaged roughly two pages for each strategy. All entries were partitioned into elementary information units. An information unit was defined as a sentence or a phrase containing one specific idea. These information units were rewritten on a separate page and then coded by two independent raters (one being the author) using categories defined on the basis of an earlier study. Multiple codes were used for individual entries when the participants had mentioned more that one instantiation of the strategy under consideration. In case one form of a strategy was mentioned several times, a single code was applied. Inter-rater agreement was not calculated because it appeared to be well over 95%. Full agreement among the raters was achieved after independent coding procedures. The descriptions of the categories in the following sections were selected to echo the participants' original wording.

RESULTS

Effects of Interest Management Strategies on the Listening Process

To begin with, the logs were analyzed in order to describe the specific cause for their lack of interest in the selected listening situation. Why is it that some listening situations are perceived as uninteresting or hard to take? Individual students reported a maximum of six different types of listening barriers causing problems with processing uninteresting topics pertaining to the situation they selected (Mdn = 2).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

9 Listening barriers included motivational problems (n = 18), lack of prior knowledge (n = 18), emotional objections to the topic (n = 12), aspects of the external situation (n = 9), current physical condition (e.g., feeling tired; n = 5), and characteristics of the speaker (n = 1). Participants chose a variety of listening situations for self-observation, ranging from face-to-face listening situations (n = 4) to listening situations with optional interaction (as in class; n = 9) and to one-way listening situations (as in listening to media or to lecturing and preaching; n = 11).

Individual participants reported up to six measures they had taken

14

-7-

Attitudes

13

-

9

- Knowledge base External situation

Listening process Social motivation

Variables changed for interest management

to influence topic interest (Mdn = 3). The activities in which participants engaged for interest building fall into five major categories (see figure 1, above).

1. Modification of attitudes. The first mode of increasing topic interest aimed at changing personal attitudes, at least temporarily, so as to override the habitual lack of interest. A total of 14 students engaged in activities in this category. Typical examples are reframing current negative attitudes by thinking about possible positive aspects of the topic and actively recalling interesting personal encounters with the topic;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

10 identifying events in one's own life in which aspects of the topic played an important role; visualizing possible influences and effects of knowing more and thinking critically about the topic; rationalizing why one should seriously consider the topic; thinking of possible applications of the provided information; recognizing the relevance of the topic in one's immediate personal context; exploring the causes of negative feelings toward the topic; setting aside negative emotions temporarily; and listing reasons why the topic might be worth listening to offset the habitual negative list.

2. Monitoring of the listening process. Thirteen students reported instances of self-monitoring related to the information processing during listening. This mode of enhancing topic interest in a listening situation included activities such as setting listening objectives for themselves, taking notes more critically by explicitly writing down points that they had not fully understood, actively relating prior knowledge to new information, actively focusing on the listening process, structuring the information during listening, actively participating in the ongoing discussion (if applicable), mentally rehearsing the information, and reviewing notes and filling gaps. Elaboration strategies were used to enhance the attractiveness of the oral presentation, such as listening from an unusual perspective (listening as if to a satirical performance) and elaborating on a message that was perceived as boring. Students controlled negative emotions related to the topic and tried to separate them from the process of information intake.

3 . Modification of knowledge base. Enhancing prior domain- specific knowledge was also designed to increase topic interest and nine students used various sources of information to prepare for the listening situation. They sought opportunities to discuss the topic before going into the listening situation, thus preparing themselves for more complex processing of the new information. They actively tied aspects of the "uninteresting" topic to their prior domain-specific knowledge and world knowledge.

4. Creating social motivation. The listening logs of seven students include examples of how they attempted to increase topic interest by asking significant others (e.g., close friends, family members) for information on the topic and for the source of their interest in the topic. The listeners expressed the hope of enhancing their own interest by making an intentional effort to share it with others.

5 . Change of relevant aspects of the external situation. In order to increase interest before a listening opportunity, two students attempted

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

11 to make situational variables more conducive to effective listening, for instance, by coming early to a lecture in order to find a good seat close to the speaker or eating less in order to avoid "digestive drowsiness.''

Individual students mentioned up to seven different variables affected by the strategies they had applied (Mdn = 1.5). The perceived effects of these measures, as described in participants' logs, fall into six major categories (see figure 2).

Figure 2. Effects of interest management strategies on the listening process.

13

8

-

7

-

6

- -7

Motivation Social perception Interferences

Mode of processing Cognitive structure Emotions

Variables affected by interest management

1. Impact on motivation. Nineteen students found that active interest building actually affected their level of curiosity and readiness to collect more information on the previously uninteresting topic. It was easier for them to think of possible applications of the new information in their own lives, private or professional. They also felt positively surprised by what they heard and noticed that a sense of boredom did not occur. Some also reported long-term effects, such as following up on the topic after the listening situation had ended. The students found that defining an interest in the listening situation beforehand helped to make the new information sound familiar and to make them approach it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

12 more willingly. Actively increasing interest resulted in appreciating the importance and utility of certain topics and in feeling a certain fascination.

2. Change of mode of processing. Increasing interest in a listening situation helped eight students to sustain attention and allocate it more efficiently by focusing on relevant aspects of the spoken message and neglecting formerly interfering aspects, such as the irritating voice of the speaker.

3. Change of social perception. For seven students, becoming interested in a topic meant feeling included in a social group. The ability to interact actively with others with the same interests was perceived as being fun and rewarding, resulting in a more deeply-felt relationship.

4. Modification of cognitive structure. Creating an interest in a listening situation helped six students to refine their prior knowledge, which, in turn, facilitated integration of new information into the existing knowledge structure. Concepts used in the listening situation were more readily understood. Participants found it easier to grasp the structure of the presentation and to see the relationships between arguments.

5. Types of interference. Interest building also led to some interfering effects, so that five students perceived both the expectations formed prior to the listening situation and the self-observation task as conducive to "mind-wandering" and to switching back and forth between different streams of thought.

6. Impact on emotions related to the situation. For two students, entering into a listening situation with an established interest meant feeling more comfortable with the entire situation. They enjoyed the listening situation, found that time went by rather quickly, and did not feel bored.

Effect of Asking Pre-questions on the Listening Process

In this part of the study, participants were instructed to enter a selected listening situation with a set of pre-questions describing their goals for listening. Out of the 30 logs pertaining to this question, 18 were from a listening situation without personal interaction, nine from a listening situation with possible interaction (as in a class), and three from face-to-face interactions. Students were asked to assess the effects that pre-questions had on their listening. The median number of effects reported in the logs was three, with a minimum of one and a maximum of seven. Overall, eight categories of effects were identified (see figure

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

3): 13

Figure 3. Effects of pre-questions on the listening process.

30

20

10 x u S a, S 0-

: o

Variables affected by pre-questions

1. Change of mode of processing. 26 students found that with the pre-questions in mind, it was easier to establish and sustain selective attention. They felt more competent in focusing on relevant aspects of the presentation (e.g., its content) and ignoring possible distractions, such as the voice of the speaker.

2. Integration of new information. For 12 students, relating the pre-questions to the incoming information provided a better sense of what was learned and how this was related to prior knowledge. Students were more aware of the amount and kind of information they were lacking, were able to identify misunderstandings more clearly, and felt in a better position to ask for clarification.

3. Level of processing. Pre-questions allowed information processing at a deeper level. Ten students thought that they reflected on the material more critically and comprehensively because the stage of information intake went more smoothly than usual. They were better able to participate actively in discussions. In addition, students noticed that they processed the entire listening situation more comprehensively

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

14 by becoming aware ofhow they take in aspects of the presentation

other than the verbal message. 4. Impact on motivation. Nine students experienced a change in

their motivational orientation after preparing pre-questions for a listening situation. They felt more curious about the topic, developed more specific expectations toward the message to be delivered, and felt that the topic’s relevance for their own lives had increased.

5. Activation of prior knowledge. For seven students, asking pre- questions meant triggered more systematic activation of prior knowledge. They researched related literature and drew on various sources of information to define knowledge gaps that they expected to be filled by the upcoming message.

6. Types of interference. Another seven students reported that pre-questions led to unwelcome interference between their expectations and the speaker’s message. They thought that their listening was overly selective, causing them to miss parts of the message that were not related to the set of pre-questions.

7. Structuring of the messages. Having a set of pre-questions facilitated the process of structuring new information. In this line, five students found that the quality of their note-taking was enhanced because they could follow the line of argument more easily.

8. Self-evaluation. In addition, four students perceived pre- questions as less helpful because they thought the pre-questions distracted them from the presentation. Mismatches between the message and the prefabricated frame defined by the questions created confbion and impeded efficient information processing. They felt that their focus of attention had shifted from the message to sorting out the discrepancies between their expectations and the actual message.

Effects of Elaboration Strategies on the Listening Process

Out of the 16 logs returned for elaboration strategies, six were from listening situations without interaction, six from situations with possible interaction, and four from interactive listening situations. The specific techniques reported in the logs (see figure 4) were mental imagery (n = 15), getting emotionally involved with the material (n = 6), summarizing content along a story line (n = 4), finding applications (n = 3 ) , rephrasing and restructuring the material (n = 3 ) , mental “highlighting” of relevant information (n = 2), building associations between the new information and existing knowledge (n = l), associating elements of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

15 situation with the content (n = l), and adding critical comments (n = 1). Individuals described up to 4 different measures which they had been using (Mdn = 2).

Figure 4. Elaboration techniques.

Elaboration techniques

The effects of using elaboration techniques on listening were coded using the same categories that were used for the effects of pre-questions. Due to the considerably smaller number of logs returned, the results here are less informative. The logs contain a maximum of three perceived effects (Mdn = 1). The effects of using elaboration techniques fall into five different categories (see figure 5) , namely, integration of new information (n = S), change of mode of processing (n = 4), interference (n = 4), impact on motivation (n = 3), and levels of processing (n = 2).

Discussion and Conclusions

The use of metacognitive strategies in listening situations was studied in the context of three specific strategies, namely, interest

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

16 management, asking pre-questions, and elaboration strategies. Using a qualitative methodology, the author explored in what forms these strategies are adopted by listeners and what kinds of effects listeners reported. Results of the present study support the conclusion that these metacognitive strategies are applicable in listening situations if appropriately adapted. Participants consistently reported more comprehensive understanding, deeper level of processing, more reflective assessment of the new material, facilitated integration of new information into existing knowledge structures, and improved processing characteristics (e.g., sustaining attention and selective focus, better retention).

The results also show that using metacognitive strategies in listening causes, in some cases, interference and distraction. Based on the present findings, it cannot be determined if this is due to a lack of experience with these specific strategies or if some instantiations of these strategies are in fact counterproductive in listening tasks. Overall, it seems reasonable to conclude that the suggested strategies can serve as a means to generate a knowledge- and context-based framework into which new propositions can be integrated (Kintsch, 1988, 1989a, 1989b).

The extent to which the present results may have been influenced by intervening variables and methodological issues not controlled in this study is open to discussion. In particular, it would be interesting to see if there was a novelty effect in the reactions to the strategy instructions. It cannot be concluded from the data whether students continue to improve their strategic flexibility or fall back into old listening habits. It is also debatable whether the sequence of the self-observation tasks influenced reports of the perceived effects, because, although participants might have taken the self-observation instructions seriously, the interesting aspects of the task might have worn off gradually, causing students to avoid repetition of observations in their logs or to become unclear in their self-observations over time.

From these results, some important conclusions may be drawn for the teaching of listening skills and strategies. First, a learner in the area of listening needs to be provided with opportunities to explore a variety of different listening strategies and the specific forms they can take. Second, it would be helpful to ask for feedback from and to provide feedback to the learner to allow him or her to assess listening strategies and their effects. These effects should be related to listening goals that vary across listening situations. Third, it is important for each individual

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

17 Figure 5. Variables affected by alaboration techniques.

a

4

Motivation Structuring Mode of processing Interfeiences

Integration Level of processing Self-evaluation

Variables affected by elaboration techniques

learner to experiment with a variety of strategies in order to learn viable self-regulation strategies and to avoid their dysfunctional side effects (e.g., distraction). Finally, it would be useful to discuss with the learner what individual, and perhaps context-specific, strategies might be.

References

Baddeley, A. D. (1 994). Human memory: Theory andpractice.

Ballstaedt, S. P., Mandl, H., Schnotz, W., & Tergan, S. 0. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.

(1981). Texte verstehen, Texte gestalten [Text understanding and text production]. Miinchen: Urban & Schwarzenberg.

Brownell, J. (1 996). Listening: Attitudes, principles, and skills. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Friedrich, H. F., & Mandl, H. (1992). Lern- und Denktrategienein Problemaufi$l [Zssues in learning and thinking strategies]. Gottingen: Hogrefe

Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1 993). Working memory and language. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hamilton, R. J. (1 997). Effects of three types of elaboration on learning concepts from text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 299-3 18.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

18 Imhof, M. (1998). What makes a good listener? Listening behavior in

instructional settings. International Journal of Listening, 12, 8 1 - 105.

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

King, A. (1994). Autonomy and question asking: The role of personal control in guided student-generated questioning. Learning and Individual Differences, 6,163-185.

& W. Kintsch (Eds.), Enzyklopadie der Psychologie: Themenbereich C Theorie und Forschung, Series II Kognition, Band 7 Lernen (pp. 503-528). Gottingen: Hogrefe.

Kintsch, W. (1989a). Learning from text. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 25-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum. Kintsch, W. (1989b). The representation of knowledge and the use of knowledge in discourse comprehension. In R. Dietrich, & C. F. Graumann (Eds.), Language processing in social context (pp. 185- 209). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Kintsch, W. (1 988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. PsychologicalReview, 95, 163-182.

Krapp, A. (1 993). Die Psychologie der Lernmotivation: Perspektiven der Forschung und Probleme ihrer padagogischen Rezeption [The psychology of learning motivation]. Zeitschriftfur Padagogik, 39,

Kintsch, W. (1996). Lernen aus Texten [Learning from text]. In J. H o h a n n ,

187-206. Krapp, A. (1 992). Das Interessenkonstrukt: Bestimmungsmerkmale der

Interessenhandlung und des individuellen Interesses aus der Sicht einer Person-Gegenstands-Konzeption [Characteristics of individual interests and interest-related actions from the perspective of a person- object theory]. In A. Krapp, & M. Prenzel (Eds.), Interesse, Lernen, Leistung (pp. 297-329). Munster: Aschendorff.

Wissensenverbs [Psychology of knowledge acquisition]. In B. Weidenmann, & A. Krapp (Eds.), Padagogische Psychologie (pp. 145-218). Weinheim: Beltz.

Mayer, R. E. (1980). Elaboration techniques that increase meaningfulness of technical text: An experimental test of the learning strategy hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psycholoa, 72,770-784.

McCormick, C. B., & Pressley, M. (1997). Educational psychology: Learning, instruction, assessment. New York: Longman. Pichert, J. W., &Anderson, R. C. (1977). Taking different perspectives in a story. Journal ofEducationa1 Psycholoa, 69,309-3 15.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbalprotocols of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mandl, H., Friedrich, H. F., & Hron, A. (1 994). Psychologie des

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4

19 Roberts, C. V., & Vinson, L. (1998). Relationship among willingness to listen,

receiver apprehension, communication apprehension, communication competence and dogmatism. International Journal oflistening 12, 40-56.

Rost, M. (1 990). Listening in language learning. New York: Longman. Schiefele, U. (1996). Motivation und Lernen mit Texten [Motivation and learning from text]. Gottingen: Hogrefe.

Schiefele, U., & Krapp, A. (1996). Topic interest and free recall of expository text. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 14 1 - 160.

Stein, B. S., Morris, C. D., & Bransford, J. D. (1978). Constraints on effective elaboration. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 707-714.

van der Meer, E. (1996). Gesetzmafiigkeiten und Steuerungsmoglichkeiten des Wissensenverbs [Laws and control in knowledge acquisition]. In F. E. Weinert (Ed.), Enzyklopadie der Psychologie: Thernenbereich D. Praxisgebiete, Serie I Padagogische Psychologie, Band 2 Psychologie des Lernens und der Instruktion (pp. 209-248). Gottingen: Hogrefe.

Willoughby, T., Wood, E., Desmarais, S., Sims, S., & Kalra, M. (1997). Mechanisms that facilitate the effectiveness of elaboration strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,682-685.

Author Note Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Dr. Margarete Imhof Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universitat Frankfurt Department of Educational Psychology P.O. Box 11 19 32 D-60054 Frankfurt / Main, Germany e-mail: m.imhof@paed.psych.uni-frankhrt.de

This research was supported by a grant from the German Science Foundation (DFG, IM 30 / 1-1).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

8:09

31

July

201

4