Special
January
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
The Effective and Ineffective Iranian EFL Learners in Employing Listening
Strategies
Behnam Arabi Zanjani ,
Department of English Language Teaching, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan,
Iran
Siros Izadpanah *
Department of English Language Teaching, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan,
Iran
*Corresponding Author: E- Mail: [email protected]
Abstract
This study was conducted to investigate the performance of effective and ineffective listeners and
the possibility of teaching the listening strategies to the learners. A group of 103 Iranian EFL
learners participated in this study and answered a general proficiency test of Nelson and 81
students responded to the listening section of TOEFL. Students were classified into effective and
ineffective listeners by application of O'Malley et al's subjective criteria and the scores of
students in TOEFL. To elicit the listening strategies of each group, listening strategy
questionnaire was developed. T-test analysis of the questionnaires (P < .05) showed a
meaningful difference between effective and ineffective listeners. The subjects were divided on
the basis of their pre listening scores into experimental and control groups. The experimental
group received the instruction of listening strategies and control group received the placebo
treatment. The treatment included introduction, modelling and practicing the listening strategies.
A posttest of listening section of TOFEL was administered to both groups. The results imply that
listening strategies can be taught and be useful for students. The study’s findings also confirmed
that teaching listening strategies is pedagogically effective, that interactional strategies are more
effectively and extensively used, that communication strategies are conducive to language
learning, and that language teaching materials with listening strategies are more effective than
those without them. Thus, the findings suggest that listening strategies can facilitate the process
of learning.
Keywords: effective listening strategy ;ineffective listening strategy; language proficiency ;
listening proficiency; listening Strategies; metacognitive awareness.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1338
Special
January
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
1-Introduction
In recent years with the shift from an instructional paradigm to a learner-oriented approach
towards language learning/teaching, understanding the way people learn is of crucial importance
and is the key to educational improvement . Xiangli, (2002) stated that learners’ individual
differences, their cognitive styles, learning styles and learning strategies are believed important
in language learning (p. 1).Chiya (2003) stated that teachers should consider students’ learning
styles and enhance students’ learning strategies for their successful learning. When teachers are
aware of the importance of learning styles and learning strategies, they can provide a good map
to their students (p. 27).
Research on what good language learners do has influenced almost all areas of second and
foreign language learning in general and language learning strategies in particular (AlShaboul, Asassfeh, & Al-shaboul, 2010; Purdie & Oliver, 1999). The question of "why is it
that some learners learn a language faster and easier" leads to some relevant factors such as
sex, age, motivation, attitude, aptitude and more importantly learning strategies - (Oxford,
1990). As she states, "It is easy to see how language learning strategies stimulate the growth of
communicative competence in general" (P.8).
The literature on learning strategies in second language acquisition emerged from a
concern for identifying the characteristics of effective learners (O'Malley, Chamot, & Küpper,
1989 ).It demonstrated that language learners apply, consciously or subconsciously, learning
strategies and that these strategies can be described and classified.
The present study focused on identification, description and classification of listening
comprehension strategies. Although listening skill has been taken into account in a number of
instructional approaches such as Total physical Response (TPR), The Natural Approach
(O'Malley et al, 1989), there has been little research about Iranian EFL learners that clarifies
what listeners actually do while listening to language orally.
Another point of interest in the study was the training of the language listening strategies
which is most often called listening strategy training or teachability of listening strategies.
Typically, learners need to learn how to facilitate the process of listening comprehension. Thus,
it is felt that strategy training may influence the degree of second and foreign language learning
and teaching. Thus, students no longer hanger upon their instructors. This study attempted to
find the potential differences in learning strategies in general and listening strategies in particular
between effective and ineffective Iranian EFL learners and also the extent to which these
listening strategies are teachable. The purpose of this article was to find the effective and
ineffective Iranian EFL learners in employing listening strategies.
2-Literature Review
Language learning strategies (LLS) have attracted growing interest in second or foreign
language (L2 or FL) learning for the past thirty years or so. Research into this defined discipline
has yielded a plethora of publications, including Bacon (1992), Goh (2002) ; Oxford (1990),
Macaro (2001), O’Malley et al. (1985), Rubin (1981), ), and Vandergrift (1997; 2003). These
studies have shown that L2 learners employ conscious techniques to enhance using or learning
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1339
Special
January
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
the target language, and to achieve communicative competence. The deployment of the strategy
use implies the optimal goal of self-regulated or autonomous learning in education, whereby
learners make their own choices, set the learning objectives, monitor the learning progress and
evaluate the learning outcomes.
One thing which is crystal-clear is that certain people appear to be more successful than
others. In fact some are endowed with abilities to succeed and others lack those abilities. This
has led to describe "A good language learner" in terms of personal characteristics, styles and
strategies.
Differences between effective and ineffective learners are reflected in the range of strategies
used and the way in which individual strategies are used. Wenden (1991) states that more
effective students use a far greater variety of strategies and they use them in ways that help
students to complete the language tasks successfully, whereas less effective students not only
have fewer strategy types in their repertoires but also frequently use strategies that are
inappropriate to the task or do not lead to successful task completion.
There is no consensus about the classification of the strategies in the field of Language
Learning Strategies (LLS), and each scholar lists certain features for good language learners. For
example, Rubin (1982) as cited in Brown (1987) listed seven characteristics for a good language
learner: willing and accurate guessers, strong drive to communicate, uninhabited, attends to
form, practices-seek out conversations, monitors own speech and the speech of others, attends to
meaning. In other description, O'Malley & Chamot (1990) Say:
Effective students, much more than less effective ones, were purposeful in their
approach to a task, monitored their comprehension and production for overall
meaningfulness rather than only individual components and effectively used their
prior general knowledge as well as their linguistic knowledge while working on a
task. (p.15)
Ellis & Sinclair (1990) have summarized the characteristics of good language learners into
seven categories. They are: self-aware, inquisitive and tolerant, self-critical, realistic, willing to
experiment, actively involved, and organized. Anyhow, it is felt that all language learners use
language strategies of some type in a way or another, but the frequency and variety of the use
varies in different learners, and it is generally agreed that the use of language learning strategies
is
positively associated with the language acquisition (Birjandi, Mirhassani, & Abbasian,
2006; Purdie & Oliver, 1999).
The general approach of the more effective learners is to use the general approach of the
more effective learners is to use "top-down" processing only as needed, whereas ineffective
learners
consistently use "bottom-up" strategy. Learners who are effective listeners infer the meaning
of new words that are important for comprehension of the oral text by using the context of the
sentence (Tsui & Fullilove, 1998).
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1340
Special
January
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Even a good questionnaire was devised and developed by Brownell, 2015 in order to
differentiate the good language learners from not-good language learners. The questionnaire is
based on some general characteristics of effective learners. These features are as follow:
- The good language learner finds a style of learners from not-good language learners. The
questionnaire is based on some general characteristics of effective learners. These features are as
follow: suits him/her.
- The good language learner is actively involved in the language learning process.
- The good language learner tries to figure out how the language works.
- The good language learners know that language is used to communicate.
-The good language learners are like good detectives.
- The good language learners learn to think in the language.
- The good language learners realize that language learning is not easy and to overcome their
feelings of frustration, lack of confidence.
Overall, what one finds out of the characteristics of good language learners introduced by
some scholars can be summarized into some general features, in other words, successful
language learners have insights into their own language learning styles and preferences as well
learning that suits him/her.
They can adapt to various methodologies and materials. Successful learners take an active
approach to the learning task. They select learning objectives for themselves and deliberately
involve themselves in the second language situation. They seek out opportunity to communicate
in the target language. The good language learner is willing to take risks.
The good language learners are willing to appear foolish sometimes in order to
communicate, using any means at their disposal to convey meaning. Good language learners are
good guessers too. They use clues effectively and make legitimate inferences. They are prepared
to attend to form as well as to content. Successful learners actively attempt to develop the target
language into a separate system and to try to think in the target language as soon as possible.
And eventually, good language learners generally have a tolerance towards ambiguity.
There is a close relationship between learners’ strategy use and their cognitive or learning
styles. When a learner sets a goal and carries out a series of actions or strategies to achieve the
intended goal, it is considered an overt behavior. On the contrary, the cognitive style of the
learner is covert or unobservable behavior. So, the cognitive style would be readily accessible
by the conscious strategy deployment (Ehrman, Leaver, and Oxford, 2003).
Early in the 20th century, the sole purpose of English language learning (ELL) was to
understand literary works. Teaching listening was not regarded as an important component of
language teaching and English language researchers and teachers focused primarily on reading
and grammatical skills (Hinkel, 2006).
However, changes in approaches to language teaching led to changes in classroom
applications and breeding a fluctuation in the attention given to listening. In the 1970s, listening
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1341
Special
January
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
became increasingly integrated into English teaching curricula and has preserved its place until
today (Cinemre, 1991). Now, there is a considerable number of researchers and scholars who
give paramount importance to the skill (e.g., Brown, 2008; Jia & Fu, 2011). As Doucet, &
Mauthner, (2008) states, “listening is the first language skill to appear. Chronologically, children
listen before they speak, speak before they read, and read before they write” (p. xi).
What Doucet, & Mauthner emphasize; that is, listening is the basis for other skills, is true for
second language (L2) as well as first language (L1) acquisition. Learners need to listen to
language input in order to produce in other skill areas; without input at the right level, no
learning will happen (Hayati & Mohmedi, 2009). Therefore, the importance of teaching listening
can well be seen. For being a complex phenomenon, teaching listening has caught the attention
of many researchers
(e.g., Brown, 2007; Hayati & Mohmedi, 2009; Vandergrift, 2007) and teachers in pursuit of
finding ways for classroom instruction. Nunan and Miller (1995) categorize these ways as
follows:
1. Developing cognitive strategies 2. Developing listening with other skills 3. Listening to
authentic material 4. Using technology 5. Listening for academic purposes 6. Listening for fun.
Applying strategies into the listening learning/teaching process has become a mounting concern
for both teachers and learners. However, learners‟ employing strategies alone will not promote
developing listening skills; seeing the need, teachers’ attempt to include various techniques in
their classes. Ableeva, R. (2008) defines learning strategies as “the steps, plans, insights, and
reflections that learners employ to learn more effectively” (p. 13). Learning strategies for
listening comprehension has been an interest of many researchers (e.g. O'Malley, Chamot, &
Küpper, (1989); Murphy, 1985; O ‟Malley & Chamot, 1990). In a similar vein, Vandergrift
(1999) presents listening strategies in three categories as metacognitive strategies, cognitive
strategies, and socioaffective strategies. According to Vandergrift (1997), metacognitive
strategies are defined as “mental activities for directing language learning” (p. 391) which
include planning, monitoring, and evaluating one’s comprehension. These strategies refer to the
thinking about the learning process such as selective attention and comprehension monitoring
(also Goh, 1998). Buck (2001) presents a very similar definition to these strategies as “conscious
or unconscious mental activities such as assessing the situation and self-testing that perform an
executive function in the management of cognitive strategies” (p. 104). Cognitive strategies are
“mental activities for manipulating the language to accomplish a task” (p. 391) that involve
applying specific techniques to the learning task such as elaboration and inference. Also Buck
(2001) defines these strategies similarly as “mental activities related to comprehending and
storing input in working memory or long term memory for later retrieval” (p. 104). Vandergrift
(1997) also adds socioaffective strategies, which involve cooperating with other learners or the
teacher for clarification, and/or employing specific techniques to decrease anxiety. These
strategies include activities involving questioning for clarification, cooperation, lowering
anxiety, self-encouragement, and taking emotional temperature.
Many researchers (Berne, 2004; Goh, 2000; Mendelsohn, 1995; Vandergrift, 2003)
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1342
Special
January
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
encourage EFL learners to identify what strategies they use when listening in their first language
and then to employ these strategies when listening to English.
This process helps EFL learners become aware of the strategies that they have automatized
when listening to their first language. Language learning strategies are commonly described as
behaviours, techinques, steps and actions (Oxford, 1990) which are especially important for
language learning because they are tools for active, self-directed involvement of the language
learners.
A few researchers have attempted to investigate the relationship between the listening
strategy use and listening ability in L2, such as O’Malley et al. (1989), Vandergrift (1997;
2003), and Goh (2002). Those studies primarily focus on the mental processes of listeners during
the three distinctive processing stages (perception, parsing and utilisation). An effective listener
is able to concentrate on what is being heard, to plan what to listen for, and to interact with both
textual cues (bottom-up) and personal prior experience (top-down); whereas an ineffective
listener employs predominately bottom-up processing, listening for single words, and using
strategies at random. Similarly, the research findings by Goh (2002) reveal that a more proficient
listener uses both cognitive and metacognitive strategies to achieve a meaningful interpretation
of a text, and demonstrates the ability to use prior knowledge, linguistic cues, and contextual
information. On the other hand, a less proficient listener is often distracted by unfamiliar lexis or
expressions, and has a limited range of strategies.
In Vandergrift’s (2003) investigation, which aimed to examine the relationship between
listening proficiency and listening strategy use, 36 junior high school students of French in
Canada were recruited for listening strategy elicitations. The study found that the more proficient
listeners employed metacognitive strategies more frequently than did the less proficient listeners,
and the variations in this type of strategy use had a statistically significant relation across the
listening ability. Thus, the study suggests that teaching less proficient listeners to use
metacognitive strategies would enhance their listening performance. This is to say, the
metacognitive process engages a listener in a sequence of conscious actions: analysis of the
listening task requirements, activation of appropriate listening processes, making predictions of
the task, and monitoring and evaluating one’s comprehension.
In addition to listening strategy use, learning style refers to information processed in a
preferred way according to one’s habitual style or characteristics. Some individuals may prefer
learning aurally by using cassettes or videotapes, while others may have visual preferences for
learning through reading books or graphics. However, it is believed that successful learning is
attributable to an individual’s inherent characteristics. In the L2 language learning field,
cognitive style has been extensively researched in Hsueh-Jui, (2008), Wintergerst, DeCapua, &
Verna, 2003).
For example, Hsueh-Jui, (2008) proposes four distinct types of learning style, including
communicative (e.g., watching TV in English or using English in shops), authority-oriented (e.g.,
studying grammar, or through a teacher leading to learning), concrete (e.g. learning through
games, or using cassettes), and analytical (i.e., studying alone). In Willing’s (ibid.) project, the
learning styles of 517 multi-national adult immigrants studying at an English language
programme in Sydney, Australia, were empirically assessed. His research findings indicate that
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1343
Special
January
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
authority-oriented and analytical styles are highly valued by Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabic, South
American, and Polish students. The mostly preferred items are ‘practising sounds and
pronunciation in English’ and ‘everything explained by their teacher’, and the least preferred
ways of learning are ‘playing games’ and ‘watching films’.
In Reid’s (1998) investigation, 1300 ESL students with varied cultural backgrounds (e.g.,
Japanese, Malay, and Korean) reported their preferred learning styles. The majority of students
demonstrated strong preferences for kinaesthetic (e.g., actively participating in activities, and
role-play) and tactile (i.e., writing notes) learning, and showed the least preference for group
learning. Reid concludes that the inherent differences in cultural or language backgrounds and
disciplines (e.g., engineering, computer sciences) often play a crucial role in determining types
of cognitive style. He also points out in his study that the longer ESL learners stay in the United
States, the more their learning style preferences resemble the preferences of native speakers.
Despite the limited number of investigations in L2/FL, research on listening strategy use and
learning styles demonstrates a strong belief that the techniques a learner consciously employs to
tackle an aural task are intricately related to the learner’s characteristics. As Braxton (1999 cited
Macaro, E., Graham, S. and Vanderplank, R., 2007) states, learners have visual and auditory
preferences that might influence their listening strategy use.
Furthermore, good language learners are probably those who take as much responsibility as
possible for their own learning. Contrary to this point, our educational system promotes student's
dependence on the teachers, leaving almost no room for their autonomous learning activities. So
training and learning the strategies will definitely culminate in not only effective learning , but
also an autonomous one.
.
3-Methodology
Design of the study
It was decided that the best method to adopt for this investigation was to use Ex post Facto
design. Due simply to the fact that there was no causal relationship between the variables under
investigation rather it was attempted to find the degree of difference between them. As Hatch &
Farhady (1994) say: When there is no possibility of random selection of students, instead of
abandoning the research, we simply have to limit the domain of our claims. We have to avoid
making cause-and-effect statement.
Here, language learning strategy was the independent variable and listening comprehension
was dependent. Sex, Motivation, linguistic background were our control variables. To get the
homogeneity of the students, Nelson test was used with the reliability index of .90 and also
students' scores in the achievement tests in different terms of schooling in Iran Language
Institutions were taken into account. Then, the listening section of Longman TOFEL test was
administered with the reliability index of.68. Application of subjective criteria proposed by
O'Malley et al. (1989) and the listening test's scores resulted in the selection of 32 effective and
35 ineffective listeners.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1344
Special
January
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
To elicit the potential strategies, a listening strategy questionnaire was developed and it was
mainly based on the literature of learning strategies in general and listening strategies in
particular and also on the available strategy questionnaires such as SILL. The items were
carefully translated into Persian. The questionnaire was modified and revised on the base of
feedback from some experienced Persian language teachers of senior and junior high school to
check the level of grammar, vocabulary and comprehensibility.
Participants:
103 students took part in this study. They were in the eighth semester of Simin
Educational Association, accredited by the ministry of Education. The mean age of the students
of the study was about 15, ranging from 13 to 17, and all were male, and enjoyed almost the
same level of language proficiency. Based on the syllabus of the English Institute and also
according to the statements of its managers, this group of subjects was roughly considered as
pre-intermediate.
Although the students in this study were in the same class and had passed different
achievement tests to get to this level and could be taken as linguistically homogeneous, in order
to have a more homogeneous sample, the Nelson proficiency test was administered. This resulted
in the selection of 81 students for the study. In order to have a homogeneous sample, not only
did we take into consideration the students' scores in achievement tests in different terms, but
also Nelson Test 150 was administered. Then, a listening strategy questionnaire was developed
to elicit the potential listening strategies inherent in the students. The model for devising such a
questionnaire was the works of O'Malley & Chamot (1990) proven by Rubin (1994) and also
Strategy Inventory for Language Learners (SILL) developed and validated by Oxford (1990) and
also on a learning strategy questionnaire developed and validated by Mazlum (2015).
Although it was felt that there is no reason to go through factor analysis to get the
construct validity of the questionnaire, since the questionnaire was based on the works of some
scholars, a factor analysis was also used in order to have a better interpretation of the underlying
construct of the questionnaire. Furthermore, a verbal protocol analysis was utilized as Alderson
(1991) says, to get the validity of the questionnaire.
The listening strategy questionnaire was developed based on the works of Brown
(1987), Chastain (1988), Mazlum (2000), O'Malley & Charnor (1990), Oxford (1990) , Richards
(1995), and Wenden (1991). Based on the inventory of listening strategies driven out of their
works that could meet the requirement of the study, the needed questionnaire was developed.
Syntactically and lexically speaking, all the items of listening strategy questionnaire were
directly taken out of the works of the specialized scholars of this field. Proved to be valid
(Oxford, 1990; Wenden, 1991), verbal protocol analysis or think-aloud procedure was used to
examine the validity of the questionnaire as Alderson (1991) mentions.
The subjective analysis of the subjects' think-aloud transcripts indicated that they
understood the items of the questionnaire and the answers chosen by the Richards (1995),) were
nearly what they really wanted to say. And also, they were asked to write their understanding of
different scales. For example, they were asked to write, "What do you mean by never, seldom,
etc. Alongside it, a background questionnaire introduced by Oxford (1990) was administered, in
order to get the subjects' motivation, cultural and linguistic back-ground. To test our null
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1345
Special
January
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
hypothesis, those students whose scores in listening test were one standard deviation above and
below the mean index were selected. Having selected 63 students, they were randomly assigned
into experimental and control groups. For our hypothesis, a pre- test and post-test control group
design was used: G1 (random) T1 x T2 G2 (random) T1 T2.
Procedures
Having administered the Nelson Test number 150c (X=30.6) and SD=6.6), 81 students whose
scores were between one standard deviation above and below the mean, were selected. To
distinguish effective listeners from ineffective ones, which was the main aim of our hypothesis,
the subjective criteria employed by O'Malley, Kupper and Chamot (1989) consisting of 1)
Attentiveness in class 2) Ability to follow directions without asking for clarification 3) Ability
and willingness to comprehend the general meaning of a difficult listening passage 4) Ability to
respond appropriately in a conversation 5). Ability and willingness to guess at the meaning of
unfamiliar words and phrases, and the listening section of Longman TOFEL which was also the
pre-test of listening were utilized. The students whose scores were two standard deviations above
the mean were called "effective" and those whose scores were two standard deviations below the
mean, were labelled "ineffective". This criterion was on the basis of the critical comments of
some scholars. Thus, application of subjective criteria as well as objective measurement resulted
in the selection of 32 effective and 35 ineffective listeners. Then, the students responded to a 40
item_ Likert scale listening strategy questionnaire. The listening strategy questionnaire was
developed based on the works of O'Malley & Charnor (1990), Wenden (1991), Oxford (1990)
and Mazlum (2000). Based on the inventory of listening strategies driven out of their works that
could meet the requirement of the study, the needed questionnaire was developed. Syntactically
and lexically speaking, all the items of listening strategy questionnaire were directly taken out of
the works of the specialized scholars of this field. Proved to be valid (Oxford, 1990; Wenden,
1991), verbal protocol analysis or think-aloud procedure was used to examine the validity of the
questionnaire as Alderson (1991) mentions.
Although it was felt that there is no reason to go through factor analysis to get the construct
validity of the questionnaire, since the questionnaire was based on the works of some scholars, a
factor analysis was also used in order to have a better interpretation of the underlying construct
of the questionnaire. Furthermore, a verbal protocol analysis was utilized as Alderson (1991)
says, to get the validity of the questionnaire.
Therefore, after two weeks and for the second time, students were asked to verbalize their
thoughts while they were doing the questionnaire. The session was conducted chorally and
instead of tape-recording, the subjects were asked to write down whatever comes to their minds,
while they were completing the questionnaire. Whenever it was felt that the students stopped
writing, they were asked some probe questions to give them some hints to stimulate their
thinking-aloud. The questions were typically as: "what is your idea about the item?", "what do
you mean by that?", "what is it meant to you?", "do you have any example?", "why do you
choose this answer?” Before the actual session of think-aloud, the students were briefly trained
on thinking aloud through introducing the concept and modelling by the teacher.
4- Results
The entire attempt was made to answer the following question : Is there any significant
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1346
Special
January
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Issue
2016
difference between effective and ineffective Iranian EFL learners in employing listening
strategies? To get the homogeneity of the students , Nelson test was used with the reliability
index of .90 and also students' scores in the achievement tests in different terms of schooling in
Iran Language Institutions were taken into account.
Then, the listening section of Longman TOFEL test was administered with the reliability
index of.68. Application of subjective criteria proposed by O'Malley et al. (1989) and the
listening test's scores resulted in the selection of 32 effective and 35 ineffective listeners.
Findings show that when a questionnaire is driven out of the literature, its construct validity can
be guaranteed and there would be no need to utilize some other statistical techniques to measure
the validity of the questionnaire (O'Malley et. al, 1989; Mazlum, 2000). But "Think-aloud"
procedure was used to check whether students have truly understood the items and the intention
of the researcher and also whether they have answered what they wanted to answer and whether
the scales in the answer sheet were meaningful to them and could serve their intention in
answering the items of questionnaire.
Applying the logical analysis as Hatch & Farhady (1994) mention and overall judgment and
critical comments of some colleagues on the verbal protocol of students , the questionnaire was
considered as a valid test to elicit the listening strategies. There were five ordinal scales in the
questionnaire, never, seldom, usually, often and always. Based on the statements of Oxford
(1990) and Remmers, Gage, & Rummel, (1965), the ordinal scales were inverted into interval
scales by assigning 1 to "never", 2 to "seldom", 3 to "usually", 4 to "often" and 5 to "always".
Our null hypothesis claimed that there would be no statistically meaningful difference in
listening strategies use between effective and ineffective listeners. Having applied t-test, it was
proven that this null hypothesis could be rejected at .05 level of significance to find support for
the hypothesis of difference.
The results are displayed in the following table.
Table 1 Results of the t-test for
Effective and Ineffective Listeners
x
SD
df
t- observed t-critical
Effective
155
3
65
23
Ineffective
125
7.6
2.000
p<.05
Our t value is enough above t critical that we are quite safe in rejecting the null hypothesis that
is, the difference in listening strategy use between effective and ineffective listeners is
statistically significant. And also, there existed a meaningful correlation between pre-listening
scores of all students and the scores of questionnaire which showed these two variables are
highly correlated (r = .88) at .01 level of significance. This indicates that there are some
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1347
Special
January
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
common traits in those two variables. Results showed a statistically significant difference in
strategy use across the groups at the p< .05 level.
5-Discussion
The present study was designed to determine the effective and ineffective Iranian EFL learners
in employing listening strategies. Our findings of this study show that language learning
strategies in general and listening strategies in particular can account for some of the differences
among students regarding their performance in the listening comprehension skill. The result of
our research question supported the findings of Coskun (2010), and Selamat & Sidhu (2013.
Coskun (2010) in his study found that the benefit of metacognitive strategy use could change the
learners into more proficiency listeners. Selamat & Sidhu (2013) reported that learners
frequently employed metacognitive strategies in the listening tests. And the metacogntive
strategies assisted them to get the listening comprehension to acquire the knowledge.
Sheshgelani, Sadeghli and Aidinlon (2013) claimed that the students who received listening
comprehension strategy training performed well over than those who did not receive the strategy
training. By comparing the results of these three studies and that of the present study, it can be
concluded that metacogntive strategies not only help the listeners to plan and evaluate their own
listening learning, but also aid their listening comprehension. Those studies showed that the
desire of learning strengthened the learners’ mind to want to acquire the knowledge and the
motivation of achieving success fostered the learners’ abilities to take action to get proficiency
level of learning.
Other similar studies also report the same statements. We can talk of O'Malley et. al (1989)
who indicated that the effective listeners make use of a particular set of listening strategies which
differentiate them from ineffective ones or Hosenfeld, (2003 )who found significant difference
between good readers and not-good readers, or Wenden (1998) who reported that meta-cognitive
awareness can result in the better performance in the listening skill.
Oxford & Crookall (1989) mention that Language Learning Strategies (LLS) research is a
double edged sword. It has provided us with many informative insights into how learners struggle
with learning (Worst case) or help themselves learn (Best case). Besides, a critical point is that
little is known about how to help learners become more self-reliant.
One other major point or problem O'Malley & Charnot (1990) call our attention to is that
strategy use varies with the type of language activity. Thus, language learning strategies
including listening ones are more task-dependent not learner-dependent. In fact, it is quite
possible a listener who is labeled ineffective can be named effective in other type of task.
The question we must ask is how one can help students learn to listen to a foreign
language and maximize what they take away from a listening task. Vogely (1995) supported the
notion that specific listening strategies for specific tasks can be taught to learners of all
proficiency levels
One other major point or problem O'Malley & Charnot (1990) call our attention to is that
strategy use varies with the type of language activity. Thus, language learning strategies
including listening ones are more task-dependent not learner-dependent. In fact, it is quite
possible a listener who is labelled ineffective can be named effective in other type of task.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1348
Special
January
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Even though we believe that our research has provided some new insights into Iranian EFL
learners in employing listening, it also has some limitations. First, the purpose of the research
was to examine listening strategy use of Iranian EFL learners .Further research needs to be
conducted to determine if the findings of this research can be applied to EFL listeners in other
similar contexts. Second, we conducted our research at only one site in Iran. Further research
should be conducted at other sites in Iran to determine the extent to which the findings of our
research can be applied to other Iranian EFL learners. Third, our purpose in conducting this
research was not only to answer our research question, but also to begin a process whereby
listening comprehension teaching of EFL learners in Iran can be improved. Additional teachercantered research still needs to be done. More research also should be conducted in identifying
new pedagogical approaches that can help learners employ in their ability to understand texts in
English.
6--Conclusion
The findings indicate that both listening strategy deployment and learning styles could be a
predictor for listening ability since there were statistically significant relationships among these
variables. In order to facilitate effective comprehension of a spoken text, more proficient listeners
of L2 use more flexible strategic processes combining linguistic knowledge and prior experience,
and are in control of their emotions.
What can be concluded out of the findings of this study is that language learning strategies in
general and listening strategies in particular can account for some of the differences among
students regarding their performance in the listening comprehension skill. The difference
between effective and ineffective listeners is not just the number of hours they allocate for
practicing listening skill nor can it be due solely to age, sex, motivation, cultural and linguistic
background or even level of IQ. It is felt that a part of difference lies not in the above-mentioned
factors but in the type of listening strategy they employ in an appropriate situation in order to
tackle a particular task consciously.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1349
Special
January
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
References
Ableeva, R. (2008). The effects of dynamic assessment on L2 listening comprehension.
Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages, 57-86.
Al-Shaboul, Y., Asassfeh, S., & Al-shaboul, S. (2010). Strategy use by English-major
Jordanian undergraduates. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 27(1),
31-40.
Alderson (1991) "Validating a Questionnarie". Language Department, Lancaster
University, Lancaster, UK.
Anderson, N, J. (1991) "Individual differences in stratgey use in second language reading
and testing". Modern Language Journal, 75(4), pp.460-472.
Anderson, J.R. (1985). The Architecture of Cognition, Cam Bridge, Nass, Harvard
University Press.
Anderson, J., 2005. Cognitive psychology and its implications. 6th ed. NY: W.H. Freeman
and Company.
Berne, J. E. (2004). Listening comprehension strategies: A review of the literature. Foreign
Language Annals, 37(4), 521-531.
Birjandi, P., Mirhassani, A., & Abbasian, G. (2006). Setting- based metacognitive strategy
use. The revised two factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2Fb. Journal of Faculty of
Letters and Humanities psychology, 49(198), 39-87.
Brown, D. (1987) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Prentice Hall.
Brown, G. (2008). Selective listening. System, 36(1), 10-21.
Brownell, J. (2015). Listening: Attitudes, principles, and skills. Routledge.
Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge University Press.
Chiya, S. (2003). The importance of learning styles and learning strategies in EFL teaching
in Japan. Japan: Susaki Technical High School, Kochi Prefecture.
Cinemre, Y. (1991). An investigation of listening comprehension strategies in intermediate
level Turkish EFL students.
Coskun, A. (2010). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on the listening
performance of beginner students. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 4(1),
35-50.
Doucet, A., & Mauthner, N. S. (2008). What can be known and how? Narrated subjects and
the Listening Guide. Qualitative Research, 8(3), 399-409.
Ehrman, M., Leaver, B.L. and Oxford, R.L., 2003. A brief overview of individual
differences in second language learning. System, 31 (3), 313-330.
Ehrman & Oxford (1989) "Effects of sex differences, career choice and psychological type
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1350
Special
January
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
on adult language learning strategies". Modern Language Journal, 73, PP.1-12.
Goh, C. (1997) "Metacognitive Awareness and second language listerns". BLT Journal,
51/4, PP.361-369.
Hatch & Farhady (1994) Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Tehran.
Hayati, A., & Mohmedi, F. (2011). The effect of films with and without subtitles on
listening comprehension of EFL learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1),
181-192.
Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. Tesol Quarterly, 40(1),
109-131.
Hosenfeld, C. (2003). Evidence of emergent beliefs of a second language learner: A diary
study. Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches, 37-55.
Hsueh-Jui, L. (2008). A study of the interrelationship between listening strategy use and
listening proficiency levels, and learning style. Articles, 5, 84-104.
Jia, X., & Fu, G. (2011). Strategies to Overcome Listening Obstacles and Improve the
Listening Abilities. US-China Foreign Language, 9(5), 315-323.
Mazlum, F.(2000) On the Reading Comprehension Strategies of Iranian EFL Learners.
Unpublished MA Tesis, Tarbiat Modares.
Macaro, E., Graham, S. and Vanderplank, R., 2007. A review of listening strategies: focus
on sources of knowledge and on success. In: Cohen, A.D. and Macaro, E., eds. Language
learner strategies: 30 years of research and practice. England: Oxford University Press, 165185.
Mendelson, D. (1984) "There are strategies for listening comprehesion". TESL Occasional
Papers, 8, PP.63-76.
Murphy, J. M. (1985). An Investigation into the Listening Strategies of ESL College
Students.
Nunan, D., & Miller, L. (1995). New Ways in Teaching Listening. New Ways in TESOL
Series: Innovative Classroom Techniques. TESOL, 1600 Cameron Street, Suite 300,
Alexandria, VA 22314.
O' Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., & Küpper, L. (1989). Listening comprehension strategies
in second language acquisition. Applied linguistics, 10(4), 418-437.
O'Malley, J.& Charnot, A (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge University Press.
O'Malley, J. et. al (1989) "Listening Comprehension Strategies in Second Language
acquisition". Applied Linguistics , 10/4, PP.418-437.
Oxford, R.L. (1990)Language Learning Strategies, Newbury House Publishers.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1351
Special
January
Issue
2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND
CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926
Purdie, N. & Oliver, R. (1999) "Language Learning Strategies Used by bilingual schoolaged children", System 2, PP.375-388.
Reid, J., 1998. Teachers as perceptual learning styles researchers. In: Reid, J.M., ed.
Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc,
15-26.
Remmers, H. H., Gage, N. L., & Rummel, J. F. (1965). A practical introduction to
measurement and evaluation. New York: Harper & Row.
Richards, J. (1995) The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Rubin, J. (1994) "A Review of second language listening Comprehension Research".
Modern Language Journal, 78, PP.199-217.
Sheshgelani, A. P., Sadeghli, H., & Aidinlon, N. A. (2013). The effect of explicit listening
comprehension strategy instruction on listening comprehension strategy use of Iranian EFL
learners. Internation J. Soc. Sci & Education, 2(4), 1113-1121.
Selamat, S., & Sidhu, G. K. (2013). Enhancing listening comprehension: The role of
Metacognitive Strategy Instruction (MetSI). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 421430.
Tsui, A. & Fulliove, I. (1989) "Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of Li
listening performance". Applied Linguistics, 19/4, PP.432-451.
Vandergrift, L. (2003). From Prediction Through Reflection: Guiding Students: Through the
Process of L2 Listening. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3), 425-440.
Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening
comprehension research. Language teaching, 40(03), 191-210
Vogely,A. (1995) "Perceived strategy use during performance on three authentic listening
comprehension tasks". The Modern Language Journal, 79, PP.41-55.
Willing, K., 1988. Learning styles in adult migrant education. Sydney: Macquarie
University
Wintergerst, A. C., DeCapua, A., & Verna, M. A. (2003). Conceptualizing learning style
modalities for ESL/EFL students. System, 31(1), 85-106.
Xiangli, Z. (2002). Schemata Theory and Its Aplication in English Listening Comprehension
Courses [J]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 10, 005.
.
http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index
Page 1352