Caterine Feyten The Power of Listening Ability An Overlooked Dimension in Language Acquisition [PDF]

Citation preview

The Power of Listening Ability: An Overlooked Dimension in Language Acquisition Author(s): Carine M. Feyten Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 75, No. 2 (Summer, 1991), pp. 173-180 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/328825 . Accessed: 11/11/2013 15:59 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].



.



Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.



http://www.jstor.org



This content downloaded from 134.153.184.170 on Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:59:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions



The Power ofListeningAbility:An OverlookedDimension in Language Acquisition CARINE M. FEYTEN CollegeofEducation University ofSouthFlorida Tampa,FL 33620-5650 THIS STUDY EXAMINES WHETHER MORE AT-



tention needs to be paid to listening as a necessary skill in the diagnosing and preparation of foreignlanguage studentsand whether listening skill is a good predictor of language achievement.' The followingspecificquestions are addressed: 1) Is there a relationship between listeningabilityand overall foreignlanguage proficiency,betweenlisteningabilityand foreign language listening comprehension skills,and betweenlisteningabilityand foreign language oral proficiencyskills?2) Which linear combination of listening skills, as defined by the componentsof the Watson-Barkertest(38), correlates most highly with foreignlanguage listening comprehension skills, with foreign language oral proficiency, and with overall foreignlanguage proficiency?3) What is the best linear combination of the followingset of independent variables to predict overall FL proficiency: the Watson-Barker test overall score, sex, length of previous language exposure, the language exposed to, last contactwith the language? 4) What is the individual contributionof each separate variable to the predictabilityof FL proficiency? Since the 1970s, emphasis on teaching languages forproficiencyand stresson language as a means of communicationhave given a new dimension to the importanceof receptiveskills in communication. Since then, the foreignlanguage teaching field set aside a responseoriented paradigm and adopted an input, or stimulus-orientedlearning one (26), in which listeningcomprehensionand delayed oral pracTheModernLanguage Journal,75, ii (1991) 0026-7902/91/0002/173 $1.50/0 c1991 TheModernLanguage Journal



tice are the basis of instruction. Foreign language teachers are now taught to have students delay oral practice and listen to the target language before they have students engage in other activities. Evidence now suggests that this way of teaching a language is productive (2; 26; 28; 40). If the field has so moved, ifthelisteningskillis to be drawn upon so heavily during the teaching process, and if listening is essential to language acquisition, then more attention needs to be paid to the skills needed foreffectivelistening and to the nature of listening. We need to learn whether students know how to listen. LISTENING The groundworkforthe recognitionoflistening as a field of inquiry was laid primarilyin the late 1940s by the pioneering works of the "fathers of listening," James Brown, Ralph Nichols, and Carl Weaver, although modern researchers have studied listening for about sixty years (33). Even though, as Roberts points out, Rankin, in 1926, foundlisteningto be the most frequentlyused mode of human communication, it was not until the late 1940s that listeningresearch studies were attempted and study committees established.2 From the mid-1950s to the late 1970s, researchersfocused on the pedagogical aspects of listeningand on its assessment. The listening researchersfocused mainly on comprehensive (listeningforunderstanding)and criticallistening (acceptance or rejection of messages) (30). In 1979 the firstprofessional society, the International Listening Association, was established solely forthe advancement of listening. It brought together researchers from such varied fields as communication, psychology,



This content downloaded from 134.153.184.170 on Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:59:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions



174



The ModernLanguageJournal75 (1991)



counseling,education, politicalscience, philosophy, business,law, and sociology.Rhodes has reportedthatthe focusofthelisteningliterature has recentlyshiftedtoward the identification and assessment of specificlisteningskills. This current focus is related to the publication of various reports on American education in which listening instructionwas viewed as an area needing significantattention.3Rhodes advocates thatlisteningbe studied"as a relational concept within the total context of the communication process" (p. 46) where an interdependent relationship exists between the speaker and the listener- assuredly a sophisticated development. Farra confirmsand illustrates this new focus by defining what he identifiesas the four major turningpoints in the understanding of listening: 1) Plutarch's time, withan emphasis on listeningto lectures; 2) the 1950s, withan emphasis on comprehensive listening and Nichols' ten bad listening habits; 3) the 1960s, with an emphasis on empathic listening,originatingwithCarl Rogers; and 4) more recently,withan emphasis on relational listeningwhere the total environmentis of importance (1; 14; 30; 36). An examination of the literatureon listening reveals it to be central to all learning. More than forty-five percent of our total communication time is spent in listening.Speaking takes thirtypercent; reading takes sixteen percent; and writing,nine percent (25; 29). Listening time increases even more forstudents. Brown points out that, up to about the sixth grade, listening is the most efficientlearning mode, and sixtypercentof elementarystudents'classroom time is spent in listening(6: p. 39). From then on, as studentslearn to make use of other modes, theirlisteningabilitybegins to deteriorate and drops by the time theyentercollegewhichcan createproblemssince thelecturesystem, which draws heavily upon listeningskills, remains the norm in higher education (7). Listening is a primary activityof college-age students(10). As Brown states:"Listeningability lies at the very heart of all growth, from birth through the years of formal education. The betterthose learning skillsare developed, the more productive our learning efforts"(6: p. 10). Yet, most of us have not received any training in listening. Nichols found, in a research study carried out at the University of Minnesota, as quoted by Curtis, that "a student'slisteningindex correlatedmost positively with success or lack of it in college . . . such



thingsas IQ, while related to level of success, were not as crucial a predictoras was the listening efficiencyof the student"(p. 5). As much as listeningis the foundationofformal education, it is also the foundationof language acquisition (7). At birthwe know nothing about language, and yet we will complete much of the firstlanguage acquisition process within our firstfive years, depending almost exclusivelyon listening. This process includes discovering the rules of phonology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Surprisingly enough, what is referredto in the second language acquisitionliteratureand neurolinguistic research(15; 17; 32) as thecritical periodand loss or inabilityto learn a language ofbrainplasticity, withnative-likeproficiency,appears to parallel the deteriorationof listening ability. Despite numerous research studies and effortsto win recognitionforthe field,consensus on a definitionof listening has not yet been reached. Many researchers have resorted to adapting typicaldefinitionsof reading comprehension to the listeningprocess (24). In 1971, Lundsteen definedlisteningas "the process by which spoken language is converted to meaning in the mind"(11: p. 297). Listeningis more than simplyhearingor perceivingaural stimuli and more than mere comprehension, as was assumed in the 1950s. Wolvin and Coakley described fivedifferent kinds of listening: 1) discriminative; 2) comprehensive; 3) critical; 4) therapeutic; and 5) appreciative. Depending on the purpose and audience of the listeningtests, differentcomponents may be appropriate. Discriminative allows a listenerto become sensitiveto listening argumentsand language and to distinguishfact fromopinion (35). Comprehensive helps listening a listener to understand a message. Critical allows a listener to evaluate and then listening to accept or reject a message (35). Therapeutic enables the listenerto serve as a soundlistening without evaluating or judging the board, ing is carried on message (35). Appreciative listening forenjoymentor to gain a sensoryimpression. Wolvin and Coakley definetheprocessoflistening as "the process of receiving, attendingto, and assigningmeaning to aural stimuli"(p. 74). The elements included in their definitioncan be found in most descriptions of listening. Many definitionsalso include anotherprocess: responding. Rhodes points out Steil, Barker, and Watson's argumentthat"theresponsestage of listeningis especially crucial forjudging the



This content downloaded from 134.153.184.170 on Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:59:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions



CarineM. Feyten



175



success of the listeningact as a whole" (p. 22). Steil, Barker, and Watson definelisteningin terms of four related activities: 1) sensing; 2) interpreting;3) evaluating; and 4) responding. This definitionis the one accepted forthe present study. Sensingrefersto taking in messages refersto verbally and nonverbally. Interpreting the process of understanding. Evaluatinginvolves sortingfact fromopinion and agreeing or disagreeing with the speaker. Responding refersto the use of verbal and nonverbal cues in reactionto a message (30). Steil, Barker,and Watson foundthislast activityto be particularly importantin determining"whetherthe person in the role of speakerhas been successfulin getting his or her point across" (30: p. 36), since the other three processes/activitiescannot be directly observed. The diversityof theoretical constructsand definitional battles has led to disagreement about the best means for assessing listening. Within the last two decades the conceptualization of listeninghas been broadened. New instruments such as the KentuckyComprehensive ListeningTest(KCLT; 5) and the Watson-Barker Test(WBL T; 38) were developed in the Listening 1980s. These new tests include aspects of criticaland nonverbal listening,e.g., decoding of body language, whereas more traditional listening tests were based on adaptations of typical reading definitions.The main focus of the more traditional tests was on the comprehension aspect of listening. However, the information communicated in a typical exchange involves both verbal and nonverbal aspects of the language. Meaning can be apprehended through the words spoken, which representthe linguisticaspect; throughthe tone of voice, pitch, intonation, stress, and other paralinguisticfeatures;and, finally,via nonverbal aspects such as body language. FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING



In the last two decades, the communicative and proficiency-oriented approachesto language teachinghave placed increasingimportanceon listening comprehension as a methodological concern (2; 16; 27; 28). Language acquisition is based on what we hear and understand (decoding messages). As we acquire a language, our focusis on the meaning ofthe message used forcommunicativepurposes (16). The most innovative methods of language teaching that have emerged in the last decade, such as



Asher's Total Physical Response (TPR), Gattegno'sSilent Way, Curran's Community Language Learning, Lozanov's Suggestopaedia, Terrell's Natural Approach, and others, all share one common goal: communicative competence. For all these methods, the priorityof listeningover speakingor the importancegiven to listening comprehension is a common denominator. Dunkel indicates that: "this goal [the development of communicative competence and oral fluency]is achieved by putting the horse (listeningcomprehension) beforethe cart (oral production). In otherwords, the key to achievingproficiencyin speaking is developing proficiencyin listeningcomprehension"(12:



p. 100).



Even though the fieldhas thus moved from a response-orientedparadigm to one of input, or stimulus-oriented learning(26), listeninghas been viewed not as a skill, but as an activity to be used in foreign language instruction. Some studies (5; 7; 10; 11; 23; 29; 41) seem to imply a listening phenomenon in its own right,quite independent of its functionin second language acquisition processes, one that mighthave a bearing on the language acquisition process. However, no significantinvestigation of that question has been done. Instead, we have assumed thatforeignlanguage learners (and teachers!) know how to listen (in their native language - independently from a particular linguistic system) and that they are ready foran intensivelisteninginvolvementor that this essential skill will develop on its own (22; 27). "We cannot assume thatlisteningskills are keen in the firstlanguage or that students' listeningstrategiesare efficient.Consequently, teachers must attend both to the general process oflisteningcomprehensionand to comprehension in the foreign language" (8: p. 75). Students who enroll in language courses may need skills in listening. Consequently, those responsible for foreign language instruction need to attend to three questions: 1) Are students' listening skills affecting language achievement? 2) What is the relationship between listening and language acquisition? 3) What does listening entail? METHOD



Sample. Students enrolled in the 1987 summer intensivelanguage programofthe Department of Romance Languages at the University of Tennessee were requested to respond to the



This content downloaded from 134.153.184.170 on Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:59:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions



TheModernLanguage Journal75 (1991)



176 video version of the WBL T at the beginning of the language program. Only data from students who responded to the WBLT completed the language program, and took the departmental foreignlanguage test at the end of the programwere used. Data were analyzed from ninety students: thirty-sixstudents of French and fifty-fourstudents of Spanish, representing85.7 percent of the participating sample. Instrumentation. Listening was defined as a complex process consistingof at least fourconnected activities: 1) sensing; 2) interpreting;3) evaluating; and 4) responding(34). Among the factors examined were the listening skills related to these activities,as conceptualized in the WBL T The 1987 WBLT video version, which was used in this study, is composed of fivesubtestsdesigned to measure listeningskills in differentsituations(38). The fiveparts are: 1) evaluating message content; 2) understanding meaning in conversations;3) understanding and remembering informationin lectures; 4) evaluating emotional meaning in messages; and 5) following instructionsand directions. Parts one, two, and four are designed to measure listening skills used in short-term listening situations. Parts three and five are designed to measure listening skills used in long-term listening situations. The test is designed to provide a measurementof interpersonal listening abilities for adults and mature college level students.The instrumentconsists of fiftytest items, ten items per subtest, and requires a standardized administration. The video versionofthe WBL T was chosen because listeninginvolves not only the ears, but also an analysis of the paralinguistic and verbal messages. Gaining knowledge from other aspects of nonverbal transmission is also involved (31). The videotape was based on the original audio version of the WBL T The authors of the testreportedsignificantpositive correlations between Form A and Form B of the audio version of the test (r = .42, p < .05). Barker is investigating the reliability of the video version. Preliminaryresultsshow a testretestreliabilityof r = .68 witha waitingperiod hours to twelveweeks rangingfromtwenty-four between the two formsof the test (3). The language course in which the students were enrolled lasted nine and one-halfweeks. The course involved six hours a day, fivedays a week, which amounts to a total of 285 hours of instruction.The program included aspects



of proficiency-orientedinstructionin that the communicationskills,includinglisteningcomprehension and oral proficiency, were emphasized, and an attemptwas made to contextualize instructionin each language. The term "language proficiency"in this study is used in a global sense to mean measurable levels of competence in each ofthe fourcommunication skills in a foreignlanguage. At the end of the summer intensive language program the studentswere requestedto respondto theirrespective foreign language (FL) test--French or Spanish--developed by the Department of Romance Languages at the Universityof Tennessee, Knoxville. The FL testsconsistedof an oral interview,a listeningcomprehensioncomponent, and a writtengrammar, reading, and vocabulary component. To make comparisons across tests, raw scores were converted to Tscores, providinga common scale. The overall score for the foreign language measure was computed by givingequal weightto the speaking scores, the listening scores, and the combined grammar-reading-vocabulary scores. The rationale behind this division is based on the divisionof skillsused in thetests.The grammar, reading,and vocabulary scoreswere combined because theywere all tested with paperand-pencil tests,as opposed to an oral testand a pure listening examination. ANALYSES AND RESULTS



To determinethe relationshipbetweenlistening ability and foreignlanguage proficiency, simple bivariate correlation and multiple regression correlation coefficientswere computed.4 To determinethe strengthof the relationship between five identified predictor variables (WBLT; sex; length of previous language exposure; language exposed to; and last contact with the language) and FL proficiency, the data were subjected to stepwise multiple regression analyses. The individual studentwas the unit of analysis of the data. All statistical analyses were performed for the French and Spanish groups separately, since they differed from each other in terms of homogeneity of groups and in demographic variables (composition of the groups, exposure to otherlanguages, interestin language study, etc.). Pearson Product-MomentCorrelationCoefficientswere used to determinewhetherstatisticallysignificantrelationshipsexistedbetween



This content downloaded from 134.153.184.170 on Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:59:02 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions



177



CarineM. Feyten overall listening ability, as measured by the WBL T, and foreignlanguage variables (overall FL proficiency,proficiencyin listening, and proficiencyin speaking). The observed relationships between the variables of interestare reported in Table I. Significant correlations were observed for each group betweenlisteningabilityand overall FL proficiency (French, r = .41; Spanish, r = .39; p