Developing L2 Listening Fluency through Extended Listening-focused Activities in an Extensive Listening Programme

Introduction

In the teaching of second/foreign language (L2), the receptive skills of reading and listening have traditionally been taught separately. Recently, this tendency has gradually changed, due mainly to the advancement of technology, which has made the learning and teaching of the two skills much easier. Some researchers and language teachers have started to consider using the more developed skill to assist the other less developed one (Chang, 2009; Stephens, 2010). For example, L1 children may use their more advanced listening skills to assist reading development whereas for L2 learners, they may use the more accessible skill, reading, to help them develop their listening skills. With the combination of the two skills, it is more likely that L2 learners are able to develop their competence. Having said that, if a learner intends to improve his/her listening/reading fluency, some effort that focuses solely on one skill may be necessary after relying on the support of the other skill. This study explores the effect of developing listening fluency through doing extended listening-focused activities in an extensive listening programme.

Methodology

Results and Discussion

The first research question examines the degree of students’ improvement in comprehending narrative type of listening texts after reading while listening and doing varying amounts of listening assignments. Three independent variables were used – a pre-test, post-test-a, and post-test-b, and the reliabilities were .82, .89, and .87 respectively. As shown in Table 1 and featured in Figure 1, the three experimental subgroups made varying degrees of improvement. A consistent pattern indicates that the more practise they had, the greater their gains (see Figure 1). Group 5, who did one to five assignments, improved only marginally from the pre-test to post-tests a and b, and their comprehension levels were similar to those in Group 0 (the control group), who did not do EL. The comprehension levels of Group 10, who completed 6 to 10 assignments, were between 47% and 50%, and were 66% to 68% for Group 15, who finished 11 to 15 assignments. Table 2 presents the effect sizes of improvement within each individual group. The effect sizes were very small for Group 5 (0.08 and 0.32), medium for Group 10 (0.51 and 0.8), and very large for Group 15 (1.38 and 1.41).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Listening Comprehension Scores (in Percentages) in the Pre-test, Post-test-a and Post-test-b and the Gain from Pre-test to the Post-tests in Each Subgroup.

	Group 0 (n = 39)	Group 5 ( n =30)	Group 10 (n = 20)	Group 15 (n =26)
Pre-test	33.43 (9.05)	33.27 (10.91)	39.27 (8.33)	43.01 (11.44)
Post-test-a	32.63 (11.31)	34.30 (14.61)	46.82 (19.04)	67.76 (22.54)
Post-test-b	36.67 (12.58)	37.50 (15.12)	50.30 (16.86)	66.35 (20.45)
Gain
Pre-test–Post-test-a	−0.79	+1.03	+7.55	+24.76
Pre-test–Post-test-b	+3.24	+4.23	+11.03	+23.34

Note: The numerical indices in parentheses are the standard deviations.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Mean Scores of Listening in the Pre-test, Post-test-a, and Post-test-b for the Narrative Texts.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Paired-sample t-tests for the Differences between the Pre-test to Post-test-a, and to Post-test b in Each Subgroup.

Subgroup	Post-tests	Mean	SD	SEM	99%CIF	t	df	p	Effect Sizes (Cohen’s d)
0	a	.79	9.59	1.54	−3.37—4.96	.52	38	.61	0.08
	b	3.24	11.56	1.85	−8.26—1.78	−1.75	38	.09	0.30
5	a	1.03	16.11	2.94	−9.14—7.08	−.35	29	.73	0.08
	b	4.23	17.35	3.17	−12.96—4.50	−1.33	29	.19	0.32
10	a	7.55	19.75	4.42	−20.18—5.09	−1.71	19	.10	0.51
	b	11.03	17.76	3.97	−22.38–.33	−2.78	19	.01	0.83
15	a	24.76	25.24	4.95	−38.55– −10.96	−5.00	25	.00	1.38
	b	23.34	23.35	4.58	−36.10– −10.58	−5.10	25	.00	1.41

Note: a – from pre-test to post-test a; b – from pre-test to post-test b.

The above results indicate that low proficiency learners not only have to read and listen to 15 audio graded readers but also have to do more than 10 listening fluency activities to see significant improvement. The answer to the first research question regarding the effect sizes of listening improvement after doing varying amounts of post-extensive-listening activities is that low-level students need to do at least 11 to 15 post-extensive-listening activities to see consistent effects. Doing 6–10 activities may not be sufficient to see a consistent effect. Doing 1–5 assignments is equal to no treatment.

In Chang and Millett’s study (2014), the reading while listening group improved approximately 28% across post-tests, from 46% in the pre-test to around 74%–75% in the post-test. In the present study, Group 15 improved around 24%, from 43% in the pre-test to 66%–68%. Only Group 15 made advancement comparable to the reading-while-listening group in Chang and Millett’s study; however, one important difference between the two studies was that the present study adopted unpractised texts in the post-tests whereas practised texts were used in Chang and Millett’s study. Given this difference, the performance of Group 15 in the present study could be seen as higher than the reading-while-listening group in the study by Chang and Millett.

Group 10 made much less improvement than Group 15. The effect size for the improvement from the pre-test to post-test-a was medium (d = 0.51), only reaching the benchmark of being strong (d = 0.83, + 11.03) from the pre-test to post-test-b. Despite there being some improvement the results were not consistent. With regard to Group 5, their improvement was marginal. There were no significant differences from the pre-test to post-tests-a and -b. The same was true of the control group (Group 0). There is one important factor that may explain the unsuccessful outcome of Group 5. That is low level students may learn little in the beginning. They may be struggling in the beginning trying to become used to this kind of input. A previous study by Webb and Chang (2015) shows that low level students may need to read more than 10 books before they move on to a higher level. In this study, according to the report of the students interviewed, they learned little and comprehended nearly nothing for the first few books. This explains why if students just read or listen to four or five books, they are not yet ready to learn or acquire linguistic knowledge from the input. They are still at the warm-up stage. That was why in the present study no effect was found for Group 5, and only students who did more than 10 assignments showed salient improvement.

The second research question examined students’ listening improvement through a standardized test – TOEIC. The results for each subgroup are presented in Table 3. As shown, Group 0 regressed 4.41 points, and Group 5 improved only 1.77 points. The effect sizes for the changes in the two groups between pre-TOEIC and post-TOEIC (see Table 3) were very small. Group 10 gained 9.05 points, whereas Group 15 gained 15.73 points. The effect sizes for both groups were very large. To estimate the actual score on the TOEIC test, one correct item was worth about five points. That meant that Group 10 might have improved 45 points and 80 points for Group 15. The answer to the second research question, therefore, is that only Group 10 and Group 15 made significant advancements on the TOEIC test, with estimated converted marks of 45 and 80 for Groups 10 and 15 respectively.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Means, Standard Deviations, and the Differences Between the pre-TOEIC and the Post-TOEIC Listening Test Across the Subgroups*.

Group	Pre-test	Post-test	Difference	p	Cohen’s d
0 (n = 39)	35.46 (8.51)	31.05 (6.25)	−4.41 (7.70)	.00	0.59
5 (n = 30)	34.00 (5.95)	35.77 (3.26)	+1.77 (7.05)	.18	0.37
10 (n = 20)	36.85 (6.68)	45.90 (5.55)	+9.05 (6.78)	.00	1.47
15 (n = 26)	44.58 (12.20)	60.31 (10.92)	+15.73 (11.33)	.00	1.36

*

Note that in raw scores the maximum = 100.

When the TOEIC results of the present study are compared to the previous study by Chang (2012), whose university students also read and listened to 15 graded readers (8 level-1 and 7 level-2), the gains for Group 15 were much larger than that for the previous study. There are two major possibilities that may explain the difference between the results of the two studies. First, the study by Chang in 2012 did not involve doing listening-focused practise. Second, reading while listening to eight level-one graded readers might not be sufficient for them to move to level-2 texts. This is an important point because if the students have never had the kind of input (EL in this study), it may take them some time to become used to the input. Some students may need to study four or five books before they feel comfortable with the input type. The higher gain in Group 15 of the present study suggests the importance of quantity and quality. Quality here refers to doing post- extensive listening activities, which provides an opportunity for learners to practise what has been learned and focus on listening only.

One of the three approaches suggested by Nation and Newton (2009) on developing fluency is ‘repetition’ or ‘the well-beaten path approach’. This approach mainly involves ‘repeated practice on the same materials so that it can be performed fluently’ (2009: 157). Another approach for developing fluency is using the linking of skills. In this study, the students read while listening to the graded readers first, followed by a listening-focused activity. Before doing the listening-activities, the students had gained background knowledge of the input, so they could listen more carefully and focus on the details. These two reasons above may explain why Group 15 improved more than the students who did not do post-listening-focused activities in Chang’s study (2012).

The score gains of Group 5 were marginal, only 1.77. This result implies that reading and listening to graded readers alone without doing listening-focused activities was not sufficient to see improvement in listening competence; however, it may maintain students’ competence without further decay. Whether EL is effective seems to be closely linked with how much and how frequently the students do listening-focused practise. More practise leads to higher gains.

The third research question explores whether the competence gained from listening to audio graded readers can be transferred to TOEIC test scores. To answer this question, paired-sample t-tests were conducted within each group in order to determine whether there were any significant differences between the post-tests and post-TOEIC test scores. As shown in Table 4, no significant differences were found across subgroups. This meant that students performed comparably across post-tests, but this does not mean that all participants’ scores in the post-tests were transferrable to the post-TOEIC because the comprehension levels of Group 0 and Group 5 were not significant (lower than 40%). Furthermore, the two groups’ advancement from pre-test to post-tests was limited. This implied there was no transfer effect for the two groups. There were no significant changes in their performance. Figure 2 shows the score variations in each subgroup.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Paired-sample t-tests Comparing the Differences Between Post-TOEIC and Post-test-a /Post-test-b within Each Subgroup.

Subgroup		Mean	Std	SEM	99%CIF	t	df	p
0	a	−1.58	13.27	2.12	−7.34—4.18	−.75	38	.46
	b	−5.62	14.47	2.32	−11.90—.67	−2.42	38	.02
5	a	1.46	14.97	2.73	−6.07—9.00	.54	29	.60
	b	−1.73	15.41	2.81	−9.49—6.02	−.62	29	.54
10	a	−.92	17.82	3.99	−12.32—10.48	−.23	19	.82
	b	−4.40	15.99	3.58	−14.63—5.83	−1.23	19	.23
15	a	−7.45	21.97	4.31	−19.46—4.55	−1.73	25	.10
	b	−6.04	20.06	3.93	−17.00—4.93	−1.54	25	.14

Note: a–post-TOEIC vs. post-test-a; b–post TOEIC vs post-test-b.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

The Listening Scores (in Percentage) of Post-test-a, Post-test-b, and the Post-TOEIC.

The improvement in the comprehension levels for Group 10 and Group 15 were confirmed. Group 10 made an average of 9.29% (7.55% and 11.03%) in the post-tests and also made 9.05 points in the post-TOEIC. Group 15 improved an average of 24% (24.76% and 23.34%) in the post-tests and 16 points in the post-TOEIC (see Table 1 and Table 3). The performance of Group 10 and Group 15 suggests two things. First, students’ performance in the teacher-generated unpractised texts was comparable to their scores in the standardized TOEIC test; second, students’ listening competence improvements from practising narrative-type listening were transferrable to conversational-type listening input. Although one may argue that the comprehension levels of the two groups were not quite satisfactory, it has to be noted that the participants’ starting points were very low: 39% and 43% respectively. The low proficiency at the start might have made their progress slower (see Webb and Chang, 2015). Furthermore, it might have taken some time for these students to become used to the new approach. In interviews with the four students, all reported that they had had great difficulties comprehending the stories at the beginning of the EL programme, and they even doubted the effectiveness of this way of teaching because of their different previous experiences with this form of input. Another reason was that post-test-a and post-test-b were quite difficult and demanding and they were unpractised texts. For these two reasons, the scores might be satisfactory enough to make the claim that Group 10 made some small improvement seen from their slight advancement on the TOEIC test.

Due to the limited prior studies that can be compared with the results of the present study, reference is made to studies of extensive reading (ER) in relationship to the TOEIC test. The longitudinal study by Nishizawa, Yoshioka, and Fukada (2009) with Japanese junior college students over 120 weeks revealed no significant differences in mean TOEIC scores if students’ reading amount was around or less than 100,000 words. They further point out that students would start to see a significant increase in TOEIC score after reading 300,000 words – a threshold amount. Although the EL participants in this study read/listened to fewer than 100,000 words, the improvements were significant. The results could be attributed to doing the post-listening-focused activities and to the fact that participants had opportunities to repeat what they had read and what they had listened to.

Pedagogical Implications and Conclusion

The present study found that including post-listening-focused activities after extensive reading/listening is likely to significantly improve listening competence, and the enhanced listening competence is more likely to be transferred to TOEIC test scores if the L2 learners had done a reasonable amount of practise. It was not surprising that the more post-listening-focused activities students did, the higher the improvement they showed; however, one important point that was reported by the four interviewee students from the experimental groups has to be particularly mentioned here. They reported that while, in the beginning of the treatment they could hardly understand anything, after reading/listening to four or five books, they gradually comprehended more and more. One of the interviewees reported he nearly dropped the course in the beginning. However, he persevered through the initial stages and never missed a single class. After reading/listening to 10 audio graded readers, he became engrossed in reading and listening. Sometimes, when the first researcher raised a question from the study content, that student was the first one to provide the answer. The changes in his attitude from the beginning to the end were dramatic and encouraging. The other two interviewees also complained in the beginning that the ER/EL was not helpful to their TOEIC preparation. They doubted the value of reading and listening extensively. However, at the end of the treatment, they reported that ER and EL were very interesting and they did not want to study just one course book throughout, as in their previous learning experience.

The results of the present study together with the students’ reports had some pedagogical implications. First, lower level students require more time to become used to reading or listening. When deciding the quantity of study materials, L2 teachers should take into account their students’ level. It is certain that lower level students need to read many more lower-level texts than the higher level ones before they can feel comfortable with reading and listening, and then start to improve their language skills and to acquire linguistic elements. Second, extensive listening provides L2 learners opportunities to become exposed to abundant spoken language; however, to improve learning effectiveness, learning quality is important. The size of this study is significantly smaller in terms of quantity and treatment period than the study by Nishizawa, Yoshioka, and Fukada (2009) with Japanese junior college students over 120 weeks. The essential components of the present study, however, are the quality of input and repetition. The study adopted the linked skills approach simultaneous reading and listening at the first stage, then repeating the input by focusing on listening without referring to the written texts.

Finally, the study did not measure participants’ reading comprehension and reading speeds though they had both reading and listening input. It is likely some participants have increased their reading speed and comprehension (Chang and Millett, 2015). It is also likely that some participants might have shown improvements in their reading TOEIC scores if they had been tested. Future studies may look at L2 learners’ gains from various perspectives, including the two just mentioned.