L2 listening pedagogy is often described as lacking (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012) or limited (Kaur, 2017; Siegel & Siegel, 2015; Swan & Walter, 2017). Developing appropriate listening pedagogy is hindered by a range of difficulties. First, listening processes are invisible and not easily recorded. Second, comprehension measurements and related factors are often measured as discrete, static phenomenon; for example, quizzes/tests (Gallien et al., 2000), survey (Siegel, 2020), and transcript marking (Littlemore, 2001). Third, these static comprehension measurements cannot not link specific factors to ongoing changes in a learners' comprehension. Fourth, much listening research is founded on group-based data, obscuring the dynamic, individual nature of learners' listening processes.
In response, this presentation describes qualitative and quantitative data from an idiodynamic study in an EMI-presentation class.
Quantitative ratings of perceived L2 comprehension provided a dynamic account of L2 comprehension across a classroom-situated listening activity, showing previously unreported (1) within-learner dynamism across a single text, (2) idiosyncratic reactions to the same texts, and (3) differentiation in levels of perceived comprehension across different texts.
Triangulation of idiodynamic ratings with qualitative descriptions of learners' experiences further revealed:
- Nuanced, qualitative descriptions of comprehension rather than binary 'I do (not) understand' reports;
- situated accounts of learners concurrently and/or consecutively managing top-down, bottom-up, lexical, affective, and interactive listening difficulties;
- use of the above stated factors to giving a unique analysis of aural text difficulties;
- dynamic, situated accounts of learners' listening strategy use.
The presentation discusses the pedagogical implications derived from applying idiodynamic methodology to L2 listening comprehension, as well as challenges in making the methodology more widely accepted in listening research, namely:
- Confirming recall accuracy across various time-lags;
- examining the role differing affective constructs may have on recall;
- calibration of ratings;
- understanding how momentary episodes of (non)comprehension relate to overall comprehension;
- studying how learners with differing L2 listening proficiencies respond to various listening difficulties.
The presentation concludes by proposing future listening-focused, CDST grounded studies, including variations across other listening domains (e.g., notetaking, lectures, following teacher instructions, etc.).
References
Gallien, C., Hotho, S., & Staines, H. (2000). The impact of input modifications on listening comprehension: A study of learner perceptions. JALT Journal, 22(2), 271-295. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTJJ22.2-3
Kaur, K. (2017). Teaching listening or testing listening? Teaching and Learning English in Multicultural Contexts, 1(1), 42-48. https://doi.org/10.37058/tlemc.v1i1.396
Littlemore, J. (2001). The use of metaphor in university lectures and the problems that it causes for overseas students. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(3), 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510120061205
Siegel, J. (2020). Comprehension in English Medium Instruction (EMI) lectures: On the impact of lecturer L2 English use. Language Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 73-91. https://doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2020-2005
Siegel, J., & Siegel, A. (2015). Getting to the bottom of L2 listening instruction: Making a case for bottom-up activities. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 637-662. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2015.5.4.6
Swan, M., & Walter, C. (2017). Misunderstanding comprehension. ELT Journal, 71(2), 228-236. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw094
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. Routledge
