Authentic Listening in Spanish: How Learners Adjust Their Strategies to the Difficulty of the Input

University of Cincinnati

Input is considered critical in second-language (L2) comprehension and acquisition⁷⁰. Since Krashen (1981; 1978) popularized the notion of «comprehensible input», the quality and variety of input have been widely studied. Besides sending a message, input provides linguistic evidence that the learner uses to acquire new language (Sharwood Smith). More recently, L2 methodologists are taking another look at the message in input, that is, the need to expose learners to natural and authentic language (Bacon, 1989; 1987; Breen; Dunkel; Lund; Morrison; Rings; Rogers & Medley; Weissenreider)⁷¹. This kind of input provides the learner with both linguistic and cultural information that may not be available in pedagogical texts.

Coincidental to the focus on authentic language, one finds concern with investigating learner strategies in comprehending and communicating in the L2 (Alexander & Judy; Bacon & Finnemann, «A Study», 1990; Chamot & Küpper, 1989; Chamot, O'Malley, Küpper & Impink-Hernandez; Ehrman & Oxford, 1990; Fujita; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford & Crookall; Oxford, Crookall, Cohen, Lavine, & Nyikos; Oxford, Lavine & Crookall). The questions addressed in this paper consider how learners comprehend and learn from authentic aural input: First, what is the relationship between L2 listening-passage difficulty and learner strategies?; and second, how do listening-passage difficulty, strategy variation and individual differences interrelate to predict levels of comprehension and learning? In order to answer these questions, the study examined the strategies students reported in relation to their level of comprehension and learning of new information while listening to two radio broadcasts in Spanish. It was hypothesized, first, that all listeners would employ a significantly greater proportion of bottom-up to top-down strategies on a passage judged to be more difficult; and second, that those who adjusted their strategies between passages would exhibit a higher level of comprehension and learning. The findings have implications for both the use of authentic listening materials in instruction, and also listening-strategy research.

Input. The act of listening involves an interaction of input, task, and individual variables. Krashen (1989) argues that listeners and readers «acquire» language from comprehensible input, which renders formal instruction unnecessary, even counterproductive⁷². He cites several studies to support his hypothesis that learners who are allowed time for free reading, for example, acquire vocabulary more efficiently and with deeper meaning than from formal instruction. Some evidence exists, as well, to suggest that children acquire new vocabulary in L1 by listening to aural text. Studies in L2 by Peterson and Benson both underscore the importance of content-area instruction as the medium for teaching listening skills.

Learners are usually exposed to some form of modified, rather than authentic input. Several studies have examined how teachers and others alter input intended for learners: In a study of native speaker/nonnative speaker (NS/NNS) conversations, Derwing found that NSs increased the amount of background detail they provided to NNSs when there were communication difficulties. Furthermore, in a review of teacher input studies, Chaudron found ample evidence that speakers deliberately slow their rate of speech when they know their audience is NNS. The absolute rate of speech directed toward beginners was slowed to 100 wpm. Whether or not these kinds of modifications have bearing on comprehension and learning is less clear: On the

––––––––   399   ––––––––

one hand, Kelch found a significant effect of reduced rate on comprehension. On the other hand, Dahl found that listener perception of the rate of speech was related to comprehension, not absolute rate of speech. In other words, listeners mistakenly believed that more-comprehensible speech was slower than less-comprehensible speech. By the same token, Jacobs, Chuawanlee, Itoga, Sakumoto, Saka, and Meeham failed to find a significant relationship between speed and comprehension. However, they did find a relationship with pausing, which interacted with level of language proficiency. They concluded that too long a pause or too slow speech may cause boredom or loss of focus, and thus impair comprehension. Chaudron and Richards studied text organization. Subjects listened to a 23-27 minute selection in which micro, macro, or micro and micro markers had been inserted. The researchers found that macro markers were significantly more related to comprehension than either micro, or micro plus macro markers. They concluded that too many micro markers may confound comprehension. These studies suggest that there may be a threshold «normal» rate and organization that are important to comprehension. Although learners may benefit by being able to segment words in slowed input, their short-term memory lacks capacity to hold thoughts long enough for further processing. In addition, slowed speech, or artificially inserted pauses or other discourse markers may cause the hearer to lose other linguistic information, such as intonation, which is important for comprehension.

Findings from studies in which textual modifications interact with levels of proficiency underscore the importance of the listener in the act of comprehension and learning. It seems clear that learners do not benefit either equally or optimally from input. Piennemann (as summarized in Lightbown), in fact, hypothesizes that individual learners adjust input to meet their expectations. In a modification to Krashen's input hypothesis, he suggests that all learners follow a path of acquisition, but overlook input for which they are linguistically not ready. VanPatten and Lee also maintain a distinction between «comprehension» and «input processing», or acquiring new forms. VanPatten's research suggests that listeners process for meaning before they process for form in the input. The more difficult the comprehension task, therefore, the less likely listeners will hear or acquire new forms. In another «input/intake» distinction, Faerch and Kasper discuss a model in which comprehension relates to learning. Learners may be faced with gaps in either input or knowledge; they may or may not take responsibility for these gaps. A gap in input occurs because of noise or an interruption in the message. A gap in knowledge may be due to informational or linguistic inadequacies of the learner. The optimal learning situation is when the learner experiences a gap in knowledge and takes responsibility for resolving it. Successful learners attempt to clarify meaning through interaction or inferencing strategies. Finally, learning is moderated by four additional considerations: affective impact on learner, case with which the new information can be integrated, its communicative value, and the opportunity for rehearsal (270).

Krashen's original distinction between so-called natural acquisition and formal learning of language (1981) has been challenged by researchers who have studied a variety of contexts in which learners are exposed to L2. Gass, for example, has pointed out that individual learners may monitor comprehension («learn») in a naturalistic setting, or may «acquire» language in a formal setting. The distinction between natural and formal has been blurred even further with inclusion of authentic input in the L2 curriculum. Many methodologists are beginning to advocate the use of authentic texts as a way of incorporating the advantages of natural acquisition into the formality of classroom learning. These texts do not exhibit the input modifications for NNS audiences described above. Typically, learners do not have an opportunity to interact with the author of the input; they must clarify meaning through inference or other cognitive or metacognitive strategies. Yet these texts provide a model that is more life-like and potentially more interesting than typical pedagogical texts. Learners seem to benefit affectively and cognitively from authentic input (See for example, Allen, Bernhardt, Berry & Demel; Bacon, 1989; Bernhardt & Berkemeyer; Duquette, Dunnett & Papalia; Geltrich-Ludgate & Tovar; Kienbaum, Russell & Welty). However, the learning strategies that were applicable to pedagogical language may not serve adequately with authentic text. One may assume, in addition, that individual affective reactions to authentic input will be even more variable.

Learner Strategies. Individual learner variables such as attitude and motivation, background knowledge, perceptual style, previous language-learning experience, and learning strategies

––––––––   400   ––––––––

all contribute to how a listener will interact with input. Recently, researchers have recognized the important role of learner strategies in comprehension and learning. O'Malley and Chamot's (1990) timely volume on learning strategies in L2 acquisition presents a coherent summary and evaluation of strategy research up to that point. They define strategies as intentional cognitive or affective actions taken by the learner in order to learn both simple and complex material (43). The three categories that have been widely discussed in cognitive psychology literature are metacognitive, or higher-order planning, monitoring, and evaluating comprehension; cognitive, the strategies that manipulate information, such as rehearsal, summarizing, and reorganization; and social/affective strategies, which involve interaction with another person, or self-assurance in order to complete a task (44-45). It stands to reason that individuals will apply different strategies depending on their personality, cognitive style, level of proficiency and the task at hand.

Two cognitive processing strategies that are of interest in comparing passage difficulty are top-down and bottom-up strategies. Top-down strategies emanate from the learners' background knowledge of schemata, discourse, and other real-world knowledge. Listeners meet a task with certain expectations; they test hypotheses and infer from context. Bottom-up strategies are text-based and linear in nature. Listeners attempt to build meaning inductively from the evidence that is presented in the text. Although it is generally recognized that everyone will use both kinds of strategies interactively in order to understand, it is also widely hypothesized that less-proficient learners will depend more heavily on text-based information than on schemata (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990 [35]).

Some recent research has investigated learner strategies in relation to other individual variables. Oxford and her colleagues (Ehrman & Oxford; Oxford & Crookall; Oxford, Crookall, Cohen, Lavine, & Nyikos; Oxford, Lavine & Crookall; Oxford & Nyikos; Oxford, Nyikos & Ehrman) have reported relationships between strategy choice and vocation, motivation, gender, and level of proficiency. Bacon and Finnemann («Comprehension», 1990) identified self-reported learner strategies and attitudes when dealing with authentic input. Subsequent discriminant analysis revealed statistical differences between the responses of men and women («Identification», 1990). In a longitudinal study of strategy use with a variety of tasks, Chamot, O'Malley, Küpper, and Impink-Hernández (reported in Chamot & Küpper) found that learners who were most effective monitored globally and used background knowledge successfully. Their sample targeted upper and lower proficiency students, which is often the case in strategy research.

Only a few studies have examined learner strategies in relation to listening. Murphy (1985; 1987) distinguished twelve broad categories of strategies used by ESL students. He identified differences in the frequencies and sequential patterns of strategies that more proficient versus less proficient listeners used. Fujita combined qualitative and quantitative methods to investigate the listening strategies of adult learners of Japanese. Subjects heard taped segments that were based on the lexicon and structures included in the Japanese curriculum. He divided his sample into the upper third and the lower third based on their level of proficiency in listening. He reported that the predominant strategy for his sample was translation and note-taking, either mentally, in writing or both. Fujita noted, however, that the small sample size for the final analysis forced him to set the level of alpha at.10.

Four additional listening studies are of interest to the present investigation: First, O'Malley, Chamot, and Küpper investigated listening processes in academic settings. Their sample was comprised of 11 high-school ESL students whose native language was Spanish. The researchers selected eight subjects who had been described as «effective» and three who had been dubbed «ineffective». Subjects listened to taped academic lectures with imposed pauses. During each pause, they were asked to relate how they made sense, what was unclear, and what images, if any, occurred to them. Unfortunately, the tasks proved to be too difficult for the ineffective listeners, causing them to withdraw after the first data-collection session. Data collected from the remaining eight subjects suggested that listeners used different strategies depending on the pause of the listening task⁷³. During the perceptual stage, more effective listeners were aware of and tried to deal with attention problems. During the parsing stage, effective listeners used more top-down than bottom-up strategies. In the third stage, utilization, effective listeners related what they heard to both their personal experience and their knowledge of the world. Overall significant statistical differences between effective and ineffective listeners were found in self-monitoring,

––––––––   401   ––––––––

elaboration, and inferencing. Second, Leaver (reported in Oxford and Crookall) compared listening strategies of children and adults. He concluded that children used more global strategies while adults used more analytical. Third, in a longitudinal study of eight effective students of Spanish, Chamot, et al. (1987, mentioned above) found these students to be extremely purposeful in using prelistening strategies, elaboration, inferencing, and monitoring. Finally, Bacon (1991) investigated the strategies and effective reactions of students while listening to radio broadcasts in Spanish. She found that men were significantly more confident of their comprehension, felt better, and relied more on English and bottom-up processing strategies than did women. These were several interactions between gender and passage type and gender and order of presentation. However, men and women did not differ significantly in their level of comprehension. Of all the studies reported here, this was the only one that examined learner strategies in relation to authentic-listening input.

In summary, the investigation of learner strategies has been recognized as a vital area of L2 research. Differences have been discovered between men and women, and effective versus ineffective learners. In extended listening, most studies have dealt with academic, rather than authentic listening. Nevertheless, the promotion of authentic input in the L2 curriculum necessitates continued empirical research into the interaction between learner, strategies and text.

The present study was guided by the following research questions:

1) Will learners alter their comprehension strategies between less difficult and more difficult authentic-listening passages?

2) Will any combination of background knowledge, gender, metacognitive, cognitive, or effective strategies predict comprehension or learning from authentic input?

Subjects were 50 students in the first course beyond the Arts and Sciences foreign-language requirement at a large midwestern university. This population was selected because it was expected that they were motivated, though not yet highly proficient listeners of Spanish⁷⁴. These intact classes taught by two native speakers (one Spanish, the other Cuban) were recruited. The location of the institution precluded students from having a great deal of exposure to authentic input outside of class. Of the initial group, 19 men and 31 women completed all aspects of the study.⁷⁵

Two short expository passages were selected from 1988 Voice of America broadcasts in Spanish (Appendix I). These broadcasts are directed to Latin America and often reflect themes that are typical of the American way of life. Culturally, therefore, they should be fairly accessible to American students. The first passage discussed the history and evolution of mobile homes in the United States. It was 321 words in length and was delivered at the approximate rate of 129 words per minute over 2 minutes, 30 seconds. The speaker was judged by two NS instructors of Spanish to most likely be Argentine, but without any strong regional pronunciation. The other passage dealt with electric converters for use with appliances when one travels. It was 248 words in length and delivered at a rate of 142 words per minute over 1 minute 45 seconds. The speaker was judged to be Mexican, but again without a strong regional accent. The two NS teachers of the participating classes listened to the tapes and judged them to be accessible, though challenging to their students.

The passage dealing with the electric converters (EC) was prejudged by the two instructors and the researcher to be more difficult than the one dealing with mobile homes for several reasons. First, the rate of speech was greater than for the Mobile Home (MH) passage. Second, the topic would be less likely familiar to American students unless they had travelled to a another country and had difficulty using their electric appliances. Third, the information was of a technical nature, such that a person who was not well-versed in electricity would more likely listen for the intent of the passage rather than the details. The MH passage was prejudged to be more accessible to students because of the slower speed, more familiar vocabulary, and supporting detail that was potentially relevant to most listeners. Although both passages were expository, the MH passage had some elements of narrative, which would make it more memorable than the EC passage. In fact, when the two NS instructors were asked to recall the content of the passages, they each recalled a greater proportion of the idea

––––––––   402   ––––––––

units contained in the MH passage than in the EC passage.

The study consisted of three phases. First, the three classes were pretested for their level of listening comprehension of a short (less than 2 minute) authentic text. Comprehension was measured by the number of idea units students recorded in writing immediately following the listening test. As a result of the pretest, the data from two outliers (one very weak and the other from a Spanish-speaking household) were eliminated from further analysis.

Second, all students were asked to respond to a questionnaire regarding their attitudes and strategies for learning Spanish and dealing with authentic input (Bacon & Finnemann, «A Study», 1990). These data will serve at a later time to triangulate the data collected in the individual interviews.

Finally, students met with the researcher to listen to the two radio texts and to report on their listening strategies and comprehension. The listening test took place three weeks after administration of the questionnaire and pretest. All interviews took place within a two-week period⁷⁶. In order to control for practice effects and topic bias, the passages were counterbalanced so that an equal number of men and women heard Passage 1 first; the other half heard Passage 2 first. Subjects were randomly assigned to each experimental group.

Prelistening Procedures. Subjects met individually with the researcher for one hour. They were read a prepared script reminding them that their participation was anonymous and voluntary. The researcher explained that she was interested primarily in how students made sense when they listened to the radio broadcasts, and secondarily, what they understood as they listened. In order to help them focus on strategies as well as comprehension, they were instructed to nod or raise their finger whenever they caught themselves thinking about what they heard, then to focus on what they were doing in order to understand. Afterwards, they would be asked first, to report on their strategies and thought processes, and second, to report their comprehension.⁷⁷

This procedure was adopted as a compromise between a pure think-aloud introspection that would forcibly interrupt comprehension, and natural listening in a non-research context⁷⁸. Since the passages were short, it was expected that subjects would retain their strategies and be able to report on them afterward. Also, in order to avoid biasing student responses, subjects were not told what strategies they might be employing. Clearly, by asking subjects to concentrate on their thought processes and strategies, their level of comprehension was expected to be less than if they were only asked to understood. All subjects practiced the procedures by listening to a short warm-up tape on women and smoking.

After the warm-up, listeners were told that they had just turned on the radio and were to hear a report about either «something common to the American way of life» (Mobile Home), or «a new product» (Electric Converter). They would be asked to report on how they had made sense and what they had understood afterward.

Listening Procedures. The listening test took place in a soundproof room. Each passage had been copied onto two audiotapes, one with the Mobile home passage first, the other with the Converter passage first. Two tape decks were used for the listening test and interview. One played the tape; the other simultaneously recorded the passage and the subjects' responses to the interview.

Postlistening procedures. Immediately following each passage the researcher asked subjects a series of questions designed to elicit their strategies and comprehension. The interview consisted of both open and closed-ended questions. Since the major focus of the study was strategy use, the first questions dealt specifically with what they did in order to comprehend what they heard. Then they were probed to tell as much as they understood about the passage and whether they had learned anything from what they heard. Finally, they were asked a series of questions to probe for their perceived level of background knowledge regarding the topic, their level of confidence that they had understood, and their affective response. At the end of the two interviews, subjects were asked specifically how much experience they had with the topics of the listening passages, mobile or travel homes and electric converters for foreign travel. All subjects were thanked for their participation and requested not to share details of the study with any of their classmates.

Prior to listening:

1. Set self up for the task; know what helps, make sure conditions are right.

2. Focus attention: Concentrate; Clear mind.

3. Apply an advance organizer. «You told me it was a product, so ...»

4. Go in with a plan: «I listen for words I know, key words, cognates...»

5. Vow to think/listen in Spanish «I learned a long time ago to make myself think only in Spanish».

While listening:

6. Self-management: Get used to speed; Keep up with speed. «Then I said to myself, Well, I've got to listen to this. Try to keep up».

7. Self-Evaluation: Assess knowledge of topic. «What do I know about electricity?»

8. Monitor: «Am I getting this? No, that's too small to be a regular house»,

9. Express interest, motivation. «This is interesting».

10. Express lack of interest, loss of focus. «So, once I figured it out, I turned out».

11. Aware of loss of attention. Refocus. «Well, I said, I've got to concentrate».

Post-listening:

12. Know what helped understanding. «Once I heard 'adapter' I was o.k.»

13. Evaluate comprehension. «This one was easier. I made a story out of it».

1. Bottom-up Processing

Details Picture; Linear Processing. Concentrate on text-based aspects.

Hear a word and repeat it. «I'll hear a word... and I repeat it over and over».

Relate to known words. «I try to think of any vocabulary I've learned».

Listen for structure: «I listened for verbs, then tried to fit them with nouns».

Use intonation, pausing to segment words and phrases. «I listened for an entire phrase until there was a pause, then tried to understood that before it went en to the next phrase».

Listen for all the words. «I try to hear every word».

Piece things together from the details. «Numbers, voltages, travel. He must be talking about a device to allow you to use your hairdryer, radio...».

Listen to each word one at a time. «Wait for the first word I know, then another one. See if I can put them together».

Listen to sounds, rather than meaning. «I kept hearing the 'r' word, remarkable? The accent is throwing me».

2. Top-down Processing

Picture Details; Global processing

Listen for topic, then details. «I started thinking about what could be electric».

Have expectations; Hypothesize «I listened for things that would help me decide for sure if it was a motor home».

Use schemata: «I just tried to figure out what the product was».

Infer; Guess from context, intonation «It sounds like a commercial with the music».

Bypass English: «I try to think only in Spanish».

Visualize: «I've got a picture of it in my mind, as if I were really in it».

3. Summarize: Restate in own words. «A battery or recharger that you only need when you go places that have a different system of electricity. How much it was; how it was durable».

4. Reference to English, translate. «Basically I tried to translate as much Spanish into English». «I have a dictionary in my head. When I hear a word, I leaf through my head really fast to see if I can find out what it means in English».

5. Elaborate: Relate to personal experience «I went to Mexico so I knew about the different voltage...»

6. Elaborate: Relate to world knowledge «I know other countries have different electrical systems».

7. Transfer: Use previous linguistic or discourse knowledge. «I went for the topic sentence».

1. Appeal for help. «What does jubilados mean?»

2. Ask for confirmation. «Can you tell me if I'm right?»

Reassure self: «I'm o.k.» «I'm right; I know it».

0: «I have no notion of electricity». «I've never travelled out of state».

1: «My family rented a camper-trailer once».

2: «My parents live in a trailer home». «I went to Mexico once and burned up my hairdryer».

«I understood the name of the product, a converter kit (1), to take to other countries (2) because of the different voltage (3)».

«I learned how to say trailer, casa remolque».

«I didn't know that trailers were used to house soldiers».

«I didn't know you could buy a converter for electricity. That's a good idea.»

All interviews were fully transcribed. Two blind copies were coded: one for idea units and the other for strategies. The dependent variable, Comprehension was established by an independent rater and the researcher by counting the number of idea units based on an adaptation of Spencer's system (reported in Meyer) in which idea units are identified as what happened: who did it (subject), to what (object), what was done (verb), what kind (modifier), where, when, how, why, and for whom. The dependent variable Learn was based on subjects' response to the question whether or not they had learned anything from what they had heard. One point was given for each single idea unit or new word. Inter and intrarater reliability were established by the random recoding of a 15% sample of the tapescripts by the researcher and an independent rater.

The coding of the strategy use was based both on what listeners said they were doing, and evidenced doing by their behavior. A «strategy», as defined by O'Malley and Chamot, was considered an intentional cognitive or affective action taken by the learner in order to learn both simple and complex material. Strategies were coded according to one of the three major categories, metacognitive, cognitive, and affective/social as they have been defined in previous strategy research (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990, 120). Subcategories of each were established since it was believed useful to distinguish different kinds of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Sample transcripts were coded by the researcher and a graduate student trained in the identification of the categories. The two raters discussed discrepancies in the coding until they reached a consensus. All transcripts were then coded by the researcher. A random sample of 15% of the transcripts were recoded by the researcher and the outside rater. The intrarater reliability was established at .93. Interrater reliability was established at .88. Occasionally strategies were double coded when it seemed clear that they belonged to more than one category. For example, some subjects stated that they began listening with a plan, such as to listen for words they recognized as cognates. To have a prelistening plan has been described previously as a metacognitive strategy (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). However, the strategy also suggests a reliance on English in order to make sense. Therefore, it was double coded as both a metacognitive, and a cognitive strategy.

Finally, two figures were coded for learners' background knowledge of the topics. The first was the number from one to ten (1-10) that subjects reported after they heard the passages the first time. The second score was based on a direct probe of the subjects' knowledge subsequent to hearing both passages when the topic was disclosed. A score of zero to two (0-2) was given depending on the degree of familiarity with the topic. See Figure 1 for the categories that were used in the coding.

Sample. Table 1 reports the descriptive data that were tabulated from the transcripts. It is notable that everyone comprehended at least some of the Mobile Home passage and all but one person understood something from the Electric Converter passage. Some 60% of the listeners learned new information from the MH passage, though only 25% learned from the EC passage.

After the first listening, subjects rated their knowledge 1 of the MH somewhat higher than the EC topic. Only two subjects believed they had no knowledge whatsoever about the MH topic, whereas seven rated their knowledge of the EC topic as zero. The direct probe of their experience with the topics (knowledge 2), however, revealed that fewer (60%) had direct experience with mobile homes/campers than with the electric converters (80%). The apparent contradiction between what subjects believed they knew and really knew is also related to their level of comprehension, which was higher for the MH topic. The structure of the interview precluded more than meager use of affective or social strategies. Nevertheless, subjects displayed a wide range of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Of the cognitive strategies, they were more apt to use bottom-up than top-down processing, though a considerable percentage (MH: 92%; EC: 74%) used some sort of schemata or inferencing while listening. More listeners mentioned using English in order to understood the EC passage (32%) than the MH passage (26%). Three-fourths of all subjects were able to summarize and restate in their own words portions of both passages. In terms of elaboration and transfer, more listeners (45%) made connections to their knowledge of the world than to their personal knowledge (20%) during the MH passage. Some 40% connected with their personal and their world knowledge during the EC passage. During the MH passage,

––––––––   406   ––––––––

only one person referred to grammar or discourse; during the EC passage, 25% transferred their knowledge of grammar or discourse to what they were hearing.

The most prevalent metacognitive strategy before listening was to have a plan, such as to think only in Spanish, or to listen for key words. While listening, subjects most often mentioned monitoring their comprehension. After listening, two-thirds of the subjects were willing to evaluate their success (or lack thereof) of both passages. Whereas 32% could state what helped them understand the MH passage, only 25% of the listeners could state what had helped with the EC passage.

Hypotheses. The data were submitted to two types of analyses: First, a series of MANOVA (gender by order) were performed to determine whether or not there were main effects or interactions between the passage type, gender, and order variables. Then, multiple-regression analysis was used to test whether or not any of the independent variables, including order, gender, background knowledge, and strategies or any interaction between order and the other independent variables could account for the variance in comprehension and learning⁷⁹. The following null hypotheses were tested:

HO1 There is no statistical difference between the levels of comprehension or learning of the two passages.

The null hypothesis was rejected. The MANOVA revealed that the number of idea units recalled from the Mobile Home (MH) passage was considerably higher (p<.06) than the Electric Converter (EC) passage. In addition, the amount of information listeners reported learning from the MH passage was significantly higher (p<.01) than from the EC passage. There two results support the original assertion that the Converter passage was more difficult than the Mobile Home passage.

H02 There is no statistical difference between the proportion of top-down to bottom-up strategies employed in the two passages.

The null hypothesis was rejected. Listeners were significantly more likely (p<.05) to use a greater proportion of top-down strategies with the MH passage than with the EC passage.

H03 There is no combination of background knowledge, strategies, or gender that can predict the level of comprehension of either passage.

This hypothesis was tested using multiple-regression forward selection. The null hypothesis was rejected for both the MH and the EC passages. However, to initially test for passage Order, this variable was entered first, then as an interaction term with each of the other variables. Order had no significant relationship with the Comprehension variable of either passage. The combination of two cognitive strategies (Summarize and Top-Down) and the metacognitive strategies employed While Listening (negative) accounted for 53% of the variance of the MH passage. For the EC passage, the cognitive strategies Summarize and Elaboration: World Knowledge accounted for 26% of the variance of the comprehension variable. There were no significant contributions to the models by either Gender or Background Knowledge.

H04 There is no combination of background

––––––––   408   ––––––––

knowledge, strategies, or gender that can predict the level of learning connected to either passage.

The null hypothesis was rejected for both passages. As with the Comprehension variable, Order was entered first, then as an interaction term with the other independent variables. Passage order had no significant relationship with Learning.

The cognitive strategies, Summarize and Elaboration: Personal Knowledge together accounted for 39% of the variance for the MH Learn variable. For the EC Learn variable, the combination of cognitive strategies Elaboration: World Knowledge, reliance on English, and Elaboration: Personal Knowledge accounted for 59% of the variance. There were no significant contributions to the models by either Gender or Background Knowledge.

The analyses revealed several significant findings. First, the initial assertion that one passage was more difficult than the other was upheld. Listeners understood and learned less from the Electric Converter than from the Mobile Home passage. Second, it was affirmed that comprehension and learning were not related to the order in which the passages were presented, which ruled out either a practice or fatigue effect.

The descriptive data indicate that although this input was beyond what Krashen would consider I+1, the majority of students understood enough of it in order to get the main idea and some details after only one listening⁸⁰. This finding suggests that most students have already developed some workable comprehension strategies and can handle challenging input. The use of authentic input in the L2 curriculum, however, presumes not only teaching listening strategies, but also flexibility in strategy use to meet the level of difficulty of the task. Listeners who stubbornly followed the same plan of attack for each task were less successful in comprehending and learning.

In terms of strategy variation, the hypothesis that listeners would employ more text-based (bottom-up) strategies on more difficult input was upheld. When faced with faster speech and a less salient topic, they responded by retreating into much less cognitively demanding processing strategies. Moreover, the top-down strategies that contributed to the comprehension model of the MH passage were conspicuously absent from the EC regression model.

The higher-level cognitive strategy, Summarizing was first in importance in predicting the comprehension of not only the MH passage, but also the EC passage. This cognitively demanding activity in which listeners rearrange information and restate it in their own words distinguishes between those who hear shreds and details and those who hear ideas and concepts. The MH passage, especially, appears to have been more salient for the use of Top-down strategies and synthesis of information. Listeners were more able to hypothesize, predict, and use schemata. Curiously, the one metacognitive cluster (While Listening) that enters the model does so with a negative effect. What may have happened is that listeners were more willing to express their monitoring strategies with a more comprehensible passage. By concentrating on those metacognitive strategies, however, listeners may have lost some precious capacity to remember what they heard.

As mentioned above, Summarizing was of primary importance in comprehending not only the MH passage, but also the the Electric Converter passage. It is notable, however, that before other variables are entered, this variable accounts for 40% of the variance of the MH comprehension, but only 19% of the EC comprehension. Clearly, listeners were less able to synthesize and restate the information they heard in the EC passage. What did seem to help, however, was their ability to relate their world knowledge with what they were hearing. When listeners made a connection with background knowledge, it tended to be with their knowledge that other

––––––––   409   ––––––––

countries have different systems of electricity and that, therefore, an electric converter would be a useful item to purchase.

Listeners varied not only in their level of comprehension, but also in whether or not they processed the input beyond the comprehension stage. Minimally, some listeners reported hearing only the words; others comprehended the message. Conspicuously, some proceeded independently a step further to incorporate either new information or lexis into their cognitive structure. Since listeners were not explicitly instructed to try to learn new information or expressions, this occurrence was entirely learner-directed. As with the Comprehension variable, the cognitive strategy Summarizing was primary in predicting the amount of information listeners would report they had learned from the Mobile-Home passage. This variable together with Elaboration: Personal Experience accounted for 39% of the variance. Listeners overall expressed little personal experience with mobile or travel homes. In fact, 40% stated that they had no experience whatsoever. The topic, however, is indeed quite common to the American way of life; listeners who could make some connection with their personal experience were more successful in remembering new information. Consistent with Faerch and Kasper's position on learning, listeners tended to remember information that could easily connect to their cognitive structure, such as the cost, or their utility after the Second World War. Many focussed on the word for trailer (remolque).

The model that best explains the Learn variable for the Converter passage differs from the MH passage in two notable ways. First, Summarizing does not enter at all. Rather, Elaboration: World Knowledge has the greatest predictive power, followed by Use of English and Elaboration: Personal Knowledge. Clearly, being able to connect what they heard to either category of background knowledge was a very powerful aid in remembering new information. The greater use of English, a lower-level processing strategy, suggests a finding similar to the tendency to use bottom-up strategies over top-down strategies with this passage. When listeners were faced with highly challenging text, they retreated to tried-and-true techniques that had helped them in the past. Interestingly, these three variables account for a hefty 59% of the total variance for the Learn variable!

It is important to be reminded that neither measure of background knowledge in and of itself related to comprehension. The first measure, before topic disclosure, may reflect the listeners' erroneous evaluation of what they had understood. Although the second probe probably resulted in a more objective measure, it did not enter into the model either. Rather, background knowledge was significantly related to comprehension only when listeners could connect what they knew with what they were hearing. This was especially important in understanding and learning new information from the more difficult (EC) passage. This finding is consistent with previous research (O' Malley, Chamot & Küpper) in which effective listeners were better able to connect what they heard with their background knowledge.

There was a conspicuous absence or counterproductive impact of metacognitive strategies in the regression models. This finding is consonant with other studies where learners were found to be less aware of metacognitive strategies than of cognitive ones (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990, 127). And, in fact, the reporting of monitoring and other strategies while listening seems to have confounded the comprehension of the MH passage. Some 80% of these listeners reported monitoring their comprehension while listening. Nevertheless, it may be simply asking learners to do too much to report metacognitive strategies while performing a comprehension task.

Pre and post-metacognitive strategy use was less evident than that during listening. Although some sixty percent of the listeners reported they started listening with a plan, only 14-18% of the listeners reported they tried to use the advance organizer to help them understand. After listening, fewer than a third indicated they had evaluated their listening comprehension or strategies. For many, the task seemed to be over once the tape had ended. In terms of listening strategy instruction, this would suggest that learners should be made more aware of how to prepare themselves for listening and how to evaluate what and how they have heard.

Compatible with VanPatten's findings that listeners must process for meaning before they can acquire new forms, this study suggests that the learning of new information is indeed a substantial step beyond simple comprehension. For many listeners, the task was simply to understand what they heard. They had great difficulty conceptualizing the thesis of the passages, let alone any important information, form or expression. With authentic listening, it is critical that learners practice the elaboration strategies that

––––––––   410   ––––––––

help them incorporate new information into their cognitive structure. In contrast with pedagogical input, however, this phase is even more likely to come after a second or subsequent listening.

This paper reported on a study into how learners of Spanish used learning strategies in order to comprehend and learn from authentic input. Not only did subjects report a wide range of strategies, the majority also enjoyed considerable success in comprehending. Moreover, a few reported learning new information or lexis. The findings argue against teaching learners to employ a generic routine of strategies with every listening task. Rather, instruction in listening must help learners take control of their strategies so that they can plan their method, monitor, and evaluate both their comprehension and the effectiveness of their strategies.

An important measure of learning is retention. The next logical step would be to test students at a later time to ascertain whether or not they had retained any of the information they had learned. Future research should also compare different levels of proficiency.

In using interview data, there is always the danger that subjects will respond in the manner that they think the researcher expects. Although the present study used a large enough sample to dispel some of that concern, it would be extremely useful to triangulate these data with a repeated measure at a later time.

Anderson, John R. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. New York: Freeman, 1985.

Alexander, Patricia A., and Judith E. Judy. «The Interaction of Domain-Specific and Strategic Knowledge in Academic Performance». Review of Educational Research 58 (1988): 375-404.

Allen, E. D., E. Bernhardt, M. Berry, and M. Demel. «Comprehension and Text Genre: An Analysis of Secondary School Foreign Language Readers». Modern Language Journal 72 (1988): 163-72.

Bacon, Susan M. «Listening for Real in the Foreign-Language Classroom». Foreign Language Annals 22 (1989): 543-51.

_____. «The Relationship Between Gender, Comprehension, Processing Strategies, Cognitive and Affective Response in Foreign-Language Listening». Paper, AATSP, Chicago, 1991.

Bacon, Susan M., and Michael D. Finnemann. «The Identification of Gender Differences in University Foreign Language Students in Relation to General Language-Learning Beliefs and Beliefs Dealing with Authentic Input». Paper, Second-Language Acquisition/Foreign-Language Learning, University of Illinois, 1990.

_____. «A Study of The Attitudes, Motives, and Strategies of University Foreign-Language Students In Relation to Authentic Oral and Written Input». Modern Language Journal 74 (1990): 459-73.

Bacon, S. M. C. «Mediating Cultural Bias With Authentic Target-Language Texts For Beginning Students of Spanish». Foreign Language Annals 20 (1987): 557-63.

Benson, Malcolm J. «The Academic Listening Task: A Case Study». TESOL Quarterly 23.3 (1989): 421-46.

Bernhardt, E. B., and V. C. Berkemeyer. «Authentic Texts and The High School German Learner». Die Unterrichtspraxis 21 (1988): 6-28.

Breen, Michael P. «Authenticity in the Language Classroom». Applied Linguistics 6 (1985): 60-70.

Chamot, Anna Uhl, and Lisa Küpper. «Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction». Foreign Language Annals 22 (1989): 13-24.

Chamot, Anna Uhl, J. Michael O'Malley, Lisa Küpper, and Maria V. Impink-Hernandez. A Study of Learning Strategies

––––––––   411   ––––––––

in Foreign Language Instruction: First Year Report. InterAmerica Research Associates, 1987.

Chaudron, Craig, and Jack C. Richards. «The Effect of Discourse Markers on the Comprehension of Lectures». Applied Linguistics 7 (1986): 113-27.

Dahl, D. A. «The Role of Speech Modifications for the Second Language Learner». Minnesota Papers in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language 7 (1981): 79-93.

Derwing, Tracey M. «Information Type and Its Relation to Nonnative Speaker Comprehension». Language Learning 39.2 (1989): 157-72.

Dunkel, Patricia. «Developing Listening Fluency in L2: Theoretical Principles and Pedagogical Considerations». Modern Language Journal 70.2 (1986): 99-106.

Duquette, G., S. Dunnett, and A. Papalia. «The Effect Of Authentic Materials In Acquiring A Second Language». Canadian Modern Language Review 43 (1987): 479-92.

Ehrman, Madeleine, and Rebecca Oxford. «Adult Language Learning Styles and Strategies in an Intensive Training Setting». Modern Language Journal 74 (1990): 311-27.

_____ . «Effects of Sex Differences, Career Choice, and Psychological Type on Adult Language Learning Strategies». Modern Language Journal 72 (1988): 253-65.

Faerch, Claus, and Gabriele Kasper. «The Role of Comprehension in Second-language Learning». Applied Linguistics 7 (1986): 257-74.

Fujita, James. «A Preliminary Inquiry into the Successful and Unsuccessful Listening Strategies of Beginning College Japanese Students». Diss., Ohio State Univ, 1984.

Gass, Susan M. «Second and Foreign Language Learning: Same, Different or None of the Above?» Second Language Acquisition/Foreign Language Learning. Ed. Bill VanPatten and James F. Lee. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, Inc., 1990. 34-44.

Geltrich-Ludgate, B., and D. Tovar. «Authentic Texts and Corresponding Activities: A List For The Foreign Language Instructor». Die Unterrichtspraxis 20 (1987): 80-90.

Jacobs, George, Wiladlak Chuawanlee, Bert K. Itoga, Jr., Diane Sakumoto, Susan Saka & Kenneth Mehan. «The Effect of Pausing on Listening Comprehension». Paper, Second Language Research Forum, Honolulu, HI, March, 1988.

Kelch, Ken. «Modified Input as an Aid to Comprehension». Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7.l (1985): 81-89.

Kienbaum, B. E., A. J. Russell, and S. Welty. Communicative Competence In Foreign Language Learning With Authentic Materials. Final Project Report. 1986.

Krashen, Stephen. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon, 1981.

_____ . «We Acquire Vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: Additional Evidence for the Input Hypothesis». Modern Language Journal 73 (1989): 440-64.

_____ . «Individual Variation in the Use of Monitor». Second Language Acquisition Research: Issues and Implications. Ed. W. Ritchie. New York: Academic Press, 1978. 175-83.

Lightbown, Patsy. «Input and Acquisition for Second Language Learners In and Out of Classrooms». Applied Linguistics 7 (1986): 263-73.

Lund, Robert J. «A Taxonomy for Teaching Second Language Listening». Foreign Language Annals 23 (1990): 105-15.

Meyer, Bonnie, J. F. The Organization of Prose and Its Effect on Memory. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1975.

Morrison, Bruce. «Using News Broadcasts for Authentic Listening Comprehension». ELT. Journal 43.1 (1989): 14-18.

Murphy, John Merton. «An Investigation Into the Listening Strategies of ESL College Students School». Diss., Columbia Univ. Teacher's College, 1985.

_____ . «The Listening Strategies of English as a Second Language College Students». Research & Teaching in Developmental Education 4.1 (1987): 27-46.

O'Malley, J. Michael, Anna Uhl Chamot, and Lisa Küpper. «Listening Comprehension in Second language Acquisition». Applied Linguistics 10 (1989): 418-37.

O'Malley, Michael, and Anna Uhl Chamot. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Oxford, Rebecca, and David Crookall. «Research on Language Learning Strategies: Methods, Findings, and Instructional Issues». Modern Language Journal 73 (1989): 404-19.

Oxford, Rebecca, David Crookall, Andrew Cohen, Roberta Lavine, Martha Nyikos. «Strategy Training for Language Learners: Six Situational Case Studies and a Training Model». Foreign Language Annals 23 (1990): 197-216.

Oxford, Rebecca, Roberta Z. Lavine, and David Crookall. «Language Learning Strategies, the Communicative Approach, and their Classroom Application». Foreign Language Annals 22 (1989): 29-39.

Oxford, Rebecca, and Martha Nyikos. «Variables Affecting Choice of Language Learning Strategies by University Students». Modern Language Journal 73 (1989): 291-300.

Oxford, Rebecca, Martha Nyikos, and Madeline Ehrman. «Vive la Différance? Reflections on Sex Differences in Use of Language Learning Strategies». Foreign Language Annals 21 (1988): 321-29.

Peterson, Patricia Wilcox. «A Comparison of the Propositional Structures and Amount of Inferencing in Written Lecture Summaries of Native and Non-native Speakers of English». Diss., Univ. of Minnesota, 1989.

Rings, Lana. «Authentic Language and Authentic Conversational Texts». Foreign Language Annals 19.3 (1986): 203-08.

Rogers, Carmen Villegas, and Frank W. Medley Jr. «Language With a Purpose: Using Authentic Materials in the Foreign Language Classroom». Foreign Language Annals 21 (1988): 467-78.

Sharwood Smith, Michael. «Comprehension Versus Acquisition: Two Ways of Processing Input». Applied Linguistics 7 (1986): 239-56.

Spencer, Nancy J. «Changes in Representation and Memory of Prose». Diss., Penn State Univ., 1973.

VanPatten, Bill. «Can Learners Attend to Form and Content While Processing Input?» Hispania 72 (1989): 409-17.

VanPatten, Bill, and James F. Lee. «Contexts, Processes and Products in Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Learning». Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Learning. Ed. Bill VanPatten and James F. Lee. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, 1990. 240-45.

Weissenreider, Maureen. «Listening to the News in Spanish». Modern Language Journal 71 (1987): 18-27.

Existen casas rodantes más pequeñas que las citadas anteriormente. Las que son remolcadas por un automóvil y son llamadas casas remolque. Después están las casas móviles, las que están remolcadas por un camión, pero que habitualmente permanecen en un lugar como casas permanentes. Sin lugar a dudas, de todas, la casa más popular es la casa motorizada. Su aspecto exterior se parece a un ómnibus grande, mide de seis a ocho metros de largo, y por dentro tiene unos dos metros y medio de alto. Tiene dormitorio, cocina, y baño. Posee su propio sistema eléctrico y esta clase de casa motorizada cuesta en los Estados Unidos entre los veintitrés y cincuenta mil dólares.

La casa motorizada ha evolucionado de lo que antes parecía una gran caja sobre dos ruedas llamada casa remolque. Era remolcada por un automóvil y en la década de los años treinta, las familias habitualmente las usaban para transportar sus pertenencias cuando viajaban o se mudaban. Durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, muchos norteamericanos vivían en casas rodantes. Oportunidades de nuevos trabajos existían en las grandes ciudades en esos momentos: Las viviendas se escaseaban debido a la gran afluencia de trabajadores de otros lugares. Por lo tanto, el gobierno compró casas remolque para que los soldados y los trabajadores pudieran vivir con sus familias. En la década de los 50, muchas familias comenzaron a usar casas remolques para su viaje de vacaciones. Era una forma fácil de viajar. La familia no necesitaba hospedarse en un hotel, ni tampoco tener que tratar de conseguir boletos ni cargar con las maletas. Pero en la actualidad, las casas motorizadas son utilizadas tanto para viajar como para vivir. La mayoría son usadas por los retirados o jubilados. Para aquellos que desean vivir en ellas, éstas cuestan menos que la mayoría de las casas permanentes. Y para aquellas personas que desean viajar solamente, las casas motorizadas representan una manera muy cómoda de conocer el país.

Estoy seguro que muchos de ustedes ya se habrán encontrado con el problema de no poder usar sus aparatos eléctricos en otro país en razón del uso de voltajes diferentes. Algunos objetos ya se fabrican con un convertidor incorporado, de manera que usted sólo gira una perilla y el aparato ya está listo a operar con una u otra corriente cuando la variación está entre los ciento diez y los doscientos veinte voltios. Pero si no viene con este convertidor, no se puede usar la plancha, la rasuradora eléctrica, el radio, el televisor, y cualquier otro objeto que cargue con usted en su viaje. En la ciudad de Santa Rosa, California, se fabrica un valioso adaptador múltiple que tiene una cómoda presentación que parece un ataché. Se llama Foreign Electricity Converter Kit, es decir, Equipo convertidor para electricidad de otros países. Si sus aparatos operan con cien voltios o ciento diez, o con ciento veinte, digamos, usted con este convertidor puede enchufarlos en toma corriente de los ciento veinte o doscientos cuarenta voltios. Este producto no tiene fusibles internos y entre otras de sus características, pueden citarse el hecho de tener espigas aisladas y receptáculos polarizados. Y su precio está al alcance de todos. Pues, sólo cuesta entre dieciocho y veinte dólares. Todo el equipo convertidor, como les señalé al principio, viene en un bonito y resistente ataché de vinilo con ribetes metálicos en los filos. Sus fabricantes desean distribuirlo en toda América Latina, así que puede escribírseles...

Hispania [Publicaciones periódicas]. Volume 75, Number 2, May 1992