Classroom Ideas

Finding one's way in the fog: listening strategies and second-language learners
John Field is a m aterials w rite r , te a c h e r and te a c h e r tra in e r cu rren tly c o m p le tin g a Ph D on listening a t th e U n ive rs ity o f C a m b rid g e, and tea ch in g a t K in g s C o lle g e Lon d on . H e co n trib u ted a series o f a rticles on aspects o f listening to M E T Vols 6 & 7. H e r e he explains why it is n ecessary to help learners w ith listening strategies, and suggests w ays o f approaching listening in class which w ill foster these strategies.

Let us start with the assumption that the use o f authentic listening m aterials in the E L T classroom is a good thing. (B y authentic m aterials, I understand recordings, both formal and inform al, which w ere not specifically made w ith the second-language learner in m ind.) Th ere are two reasons for tak in g this view , and the two are often confused when w riters discuss authenticity. The first is th at spontaneous authentic m aterials m anifest the characteristics o f natural everyday speech in a w ay that read-aloud texts do not. They include phonological features such as hesitations, false starts and stuttering, as w ell as pauses which the speaker has inserted irregu larly in order to plan w hat comes next rather than system atically to m ark punctuation or the end of a clause. R eal-life conversation also exhibits its own type o f gram m atical pattern ing, w ith a p r e fe r e n c e for c o o rd in a tio n r a th e r th an su b o rd in a tion , in u s in g unscripted m aterials, we are thus exposing learners to input that is closer to w h a t th ey w ill encounter outside the classroom . A u th en tic recordin gs are different in kind from those that are purpose-written by an author (who m ay or m ay not have an ear for natural speech) and recorded in a studio by actors (w ho m ay or m ay not be able to avoid the m annerism s o f the stage). F o r a longer discussion o f conversational features, see Field 1998. Th e second reason for using authentic m aterials is that they are not sim plified to reflect w hat the m aterials w riter assumes to be the language level o f the learner. This m eans that they demand a d ifferent type o f listening, a type o f listen in g where the learner has to accept that not every word w ill be recognised and understood. They thus provide practice for real-life situations w here L2 listen ers w ill have to fend for them selves, w ith no long-suffering teacher to ex plain w ords th at have not been understood and no foresighted m ateria ls w r it e r to e d it out com plex sy n ta x or lo w -fre q u e n c y vo ca b u lary. I t is th e im plications o f this second aspect o f authenticity that I exam ine here. It is good policy to introduce authentic m aterials from the very beginning o f language lea rn in g (F ield 1997). On the tw o argum ents above, it is essential

MET VOL 9 NO ! 2000

C la s s r o o m Id eas 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 vm ything the, heat I am not. su, * < im y that every listen ing lesson at beginner, elem entary and intenm -diab l< n>l hould feature authentic texts; but certainly some should. Th.-ri' ,-ire two im portant provisos: a Learners must be cars toll' hriefed so that they feel comfortable about being exposed to listening p where they m ay not understand a lot. ' .hat is set must be achievable. In other words, we should grade I tv o f the task to (it the level o f the learners rather than grading

A d ifferen t type

:ening

I f a u th en tic m a te ria ls are indeed used a t tow er levels., both tea ch er and learners need to recognise tirh tlv- role demanded o f the ! j r w will V r-->Hmr different from that which apj t< > .<) irnpliiie t i , ,, , , i ( i, r is req u ired to m ake the most > r \,h m er th ey * a. n , i i i ri h r > : i > be sections of the tex t 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 o f which fam iliar landm arks loom. from, time to tim e, 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 follow ing compensatory strategy: 1 N ote the words and phrases which you feel you have correctly identified and possibly attach some degree o f confidence to them. (A re you 100% certain th at the word was X or only 60%?) Use those words and phrases to construct an informed guess as to w hat the text is about. In this process, words that are m arked for 100% certainty are leant on m ore heavily than words about which the listener is less certain. Check your guess as more and more words and phrases become available. Revise it i f necessary.

Th is reflects the true nature o f listening in a second-language context. To be fr a n k , it a lso r e fle c ts th e n a tu re o f m uch lis t e n in g to g ra d ed lis te n in g m aterials. Th e b e lief that listeners w ill understand everyth ing i f w e provide them w ith m aterial that is within their range o f vocabulary and gram m ar is a myth. The fact is that m any breakdowns o f understanding occur not because listeners do not know a word or phrase but because they do not recognise them w h en t h e y h e a r them, in co n n ected sp eech . So th e lis t e n e r s t r a t e g y o f com pensating for gaps in the text is much more widespread than is generally acknowledged..
T w o i m p o r t a n t ouest i ons arise. T h e fi rst is: T o w h a t m...... i > , i , i %

com pensate 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 .p 1 ' ||l< n1 bl> t n<i , i possible Is n lo t us to teach listening strategies?

C l a s s r o o m Id eas

Transferring strategies from the first language

T h e kind o f model that many commentators favour for second-language reading is based upon w h a t is term ed th e in te r a c tiv e -c o m p e n s a to ry h y p o th e s is (Stanovich 1980). When non-native readers encounter a difficult section o f a text, they call upon their knowledge o f w h at the text has said so far, o f the w riter o f the text and o f the world, in general. There is thus a trade-off between words and ideas: the less the reader is able to extract from the w ording o f the text, the m ore he/she relies upon co-textu al and contextual in form ation . I w ould su ggest th at th is m odel is even m ore re le v a n t to secon d-lan gu age listening than to second-language reading. But this raises the question o f whether the technique needs to be taught. Is it not already fam iliar to learners in their first language? Consider w hat happens when you are with a group o f friends in a crowded bar. The ambient noise is such that you cannot hear clearly w hat everybody is saying. Th e Stanovich theory would suggest that you autom atically compensate for the u nreliability of the signal you are receiving by relyin g more upon general context than .you would do norm ally. S u rely m ost second-language listen ers should have, no problem in carrying over this technique from L I? Th e answer is that they do. into two types: R isk takers, who are happy to base hypotheses upon small am ounts o f correctly-recognised text. T h e ir problem : th ey often fa il to check th eir hypotheses against what comes next. T h ey may even distort w hat comes next to m ake it fit their (incorrect) expectations. Risk avoiders, who are reluctant to m ake hypotheses without a grea t deal o f evidence. They feel challenged by th eir inability to decode large sections of the text, and can develop a sense o f failure.
- f r o m the. Jour n a l <rf Silly

-o
XI

o m >
U

W h e n f asked you to take o o f M r J en kin s, I ra th e r assumed it w ou ld be to lunch.

" VOL 9 N O i 2000

C la s s ro o m Id ea s
A s t r a t e g i c v i e w of" l i s t e n i n g e n v i s a g e s a role- for the* E P L f<.*)<*r in r e d r e s s i n g t h e s e tetuh-ni-ir:W e n e e d to d e v i s e a m e i b u d i i l n" ' wli>< h i>ncout ri ska v o i d e r s In m t I h a t r e a l - l i f e l i s t e n i n g m a tun uni l a n g u a g e is u,- u a l l v an i n c o m p l r i r a f f a i r , a n d t h a t r e s o r t i n g to w e l l - b a s e d h v p o l b e s e s is a p<*rh>ctW n o r ma l p t o n - s r . md no t a m a r k o f f ai lure. S i m i l a r l y , v\< n< < < ! m t r a i n risl
i n , hi h Ihi-it e n t h u s i a s m b y c a r e f u l l y w e i g h i n g t he h\ t>tlir e, I il > < '

(.hey ha\> m i d f

a . nit i i In' i-wdt'iu'e w h i c h l at er sect i ons o f the l i s t e n h e . p.i

a r r pro v i de.

Strategy training
Can we act ual l y teach the strategies w h ich a l ea r ner needs in order to h a ndle gaps in underst andi ng? Ma n y c o m m entators , p a r t i c u l a r ly in the U S A , believe that we can. They argue that we sh o u ld practise te ch n iq u e s one hv one as part <> f a general strateg y t r a in in g pr ogramme. However the research evi dence on l i s t e n i n g is l e s s t h a n c o n c l u s i v e . I f s t r a t e g i e s ( m o n i t o r i n g o n e 's o w n u nd e r s t a n d i n g , i d e n t i f y i n g key wor ds, p r e d i c t i n g t e x t contents are t au g h t singly, l earners mn v well improve in their handl i ng o f the ip d jv id im l s f f - t e g y t hat has been tor n a 1 n t do not o t >n / i mpr o ve overs d h > > rn > The reason seems to ' > in a t owever * >"d ,m , become at usinf li * i > . . they a.) have difficulty tn c o m b in in g it with u ih e ts and b) h av e ciuhenltv in. using it appropriately , to me et t he demands o f a particular l i st eni ng task.

Th e approach th at I propose is thus a v e ry d iffe re n t 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 th a t (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. M y proposal is th at the teacher should handle a. piece of ungraded listening m aterial in the follow ing way: S te p 1 (as usual) Pre-listening. Establish context. Ss predict what they will hear. S te p 2 (as usual) Extensive listening. G eneral questions to establish identity of speaker(s), topic, attitudes, etc. S te p 3 Intensive listening 1 (probably involving only part of the text). Ss listen and w rite down any words that they recognise. Ss then form hypotheses as to w hat the text is about. In pairs, Ss compare what they have written. Th ey also compare (and argue for) the hypotheses they have chosen. L I can be used. S te p 4 Intensive listenin g 2. Replay. Ss w rite down more words. Jn jioivp fhp.F r-rmipare / revise what they have written. H ie i > t1 > ' fi hypo i T does not intervene. S tep ^ T/e,/ / \ rung h j ay. S j * In cl, end if vise their hypotheses, i f necessary. Class, discussion oi hypotheses. F in a lly T assists i f necessary.

t i ' Zs

MET VOL ? NO I 2000

C lassroo m Ideas
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.

O f course, there are also a number of w hat m ight be termed m icro-strategies w h ich can c e r t a in ly be p r a c tis e d in d iv id u a lly . T h e s e a re th e k in d o f compensatory strategies which can be applied on th eir own. without needing to be combined with utbtri- Examples are: predicting what fh<- passage will say, le a r n in g to reco gn ise s tre s s e d w o rd s , lis te n in g fo r m a rla -rs. fo r m in g expectations o f what the text will say next. A ll o f them., like the lesson format, above, eq u ip lea rn ers to anticipate or overcom e the difficu lties caused by pa rt.i a 1 u n de rsta nd i ng.

Communication

vs learning strategies

All the stra teg ie s discussed so fa r fa ll into the category of c o m m u n ica tio n
strateaics. They are strategies which enable the learn er 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 o f 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, o f course, one takes the view that language learning can be achieved subliminally).

Repair strategies
The exam ple I have ju st given should rem ind us th at the kind o f listen in g practice we offer in the classroom is rela tively untypical, even when w e employ authentic m aterials. M ost listening in real life is interactive. The listen er is required to process a short utterance o f perhaps only 5-10 seconds and then to respond. W e should not lose sight o f this fact - and w e certainly need more m aterials th at model this kind o f listening situation. So far as strategy use is concerned, interactive listening gives the learner scope

for em ploying a further type of communication strategy alongside compensatory

ones. T h is is a re p a ir stra te g y - a w a y o f s ig n a llin g to th e sp ea k e r th a t 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. M any repair strategies, it is worth bearing in mind, are specific to the culture whose language is being learnt.

MET VOL 9 t JO I

2000

e ) e.)

n 'ri

C la s s r o o m id ea s

Time s h o u l d t h e r e f o r e be ma de , w i t h i n the listening l esson, to p r a c t i s e repair s t r a t e g i e s . These m i g h t i nclude:

F orm u lae. S orry? What ivas that? Sorry: could you say that again?

I didn't quite, catch that.

T ech n iq u es. Repeat up to the p o i n t w h e r e the breakdown occurred. Use a riwinF intonation: She didn't like the ....?
I,', plii , ant ii ,Spi J * i Sit i r Speaker: Yes.
11

| it iLi i 1 1 >D *1 1 1 .is: r} i i 1i '/ / //i 1 ,' ' i/ C... ' anything.

S t a llin g ta c tic s . U se a form ula which w ill en cou rage the speaker to continue, in tlie hope that enlightenment, w ill come in what he/she says next: So... Aban don m en t. W ays of g
Yes, o f course. R eally?
w i t h o u t losing face: I see...

Conclusion
To sum m arise. A strategic approach to second-language lis te n in g skills recognises that, in real life encounters, understanding is likely to he less than complete. In ability to recognise every word in a text is not a m ark o f failure; and our learners need to be reassured on. this score. T h ey need to be trained to fo r m a n d c h eck h y p o th e s e s in o r d e r to c o m p e n s a te for g a p s in t h e ir comprehension. Th ey also need to he introduced to form ulae which enable them
to repair breakdowns o f understanding when they occur.

When a listen ing passage contains only words and grammar that fa ll w ithin the classs knowledge, it is tem pting for the teacher to assume that no problems o f understanding will arise. This is the comfortable illusion that one develops w h en p la n n in g a lis te n in g lesson w ith a tapescript in one's hand. B ut 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. W e must abandon the m yth that second-language listen in g is ju st like first-language listening apart from a few lim itations on vocabulary. The fact is that (for all but the m ost advanced learners) it is different in kind because it involves a much greater degree o f strategy use. W e have to come to terms with this reality and to adapt our m ethodology accordingly.
R eferences Field, J. (1997) Notes on listening: authenticity. M od ern E nglish Teacher 6/3. Field. J. (1998) N otes on listening: conversational features M od ern E nglish Teacher 7/1 S ta n o vic toward an in te ra c tiv e -co m p en s a to ry m od el o f !o n the d evelop m en t o f rea d in g fluency'. R e a d in g
I

<0

1 1 1John Field

MET VO L 9 NO

I 2000