Introduction: defining listening fluency

Michael Rost

In Exploring EFL Fluency in Asia edited by Theron Muller, John Adamson, Philip Shigeo Brown, Steven Herder2014, Palgrave Macmillanhttp://tinyurl.com/l6zrom4

The term fluency is often used in relation to the language abilities ofspeaking, reading, and writing, though much less frequently in relationto listening. Listening would appear to be the one modality in whichthe language user does not have any control over speed or smoothness,the kind of characteristics that are most often associated with fluency.How then can the concept of fluency even be associated with listening?The key to defining ‘fluency in listening’ lies in understanding thatwhile most listening behavior is not visible, listening actually does involvereal mental processes that can be regulated by the listener. By learning toregulate these processes more easefully, a language user can become amore fluent listener, and therefore a more successful learner and moreproficient communicator.

As with speaking, reading, and writing, ‘fluency in listening’ refers toan increase in performance capacities. The three most obvious capacitiesare the ability to deal with longer stretches of spoken discourse, a growingfamiliarity with a wider range of speech situations, and the capability togive clearer responses to what is heard. Listening fluency is related to thetemporal aspect of performance, the ability to deal with progressively morefluent speech. While the normal speaking rate in most situations is about180 words per minute, it has been shown that competent listeners canlisten up to four times that rate, without any loss of comprehension,if they are listening to texts on familiar topics. Listening fluency obviouslyentails the ability to decode incoming language quickly, and toa large extent automatically. However, keeping up with fluent speechactually involves processing larger units of input at one time rather thandecoding smaller units more rapidly. All of these aspects of listening fluency can be targeted for improvementby L2 learners, though there are some limitations to keep in mind. Asresearch consistently shows, a listener’s fluency in an L2 will rarelyreach one’s L1 fluency in terms of capacity and efficiency (Best & Tyler,

2007; Cutler, 2012a; Flege, 2003). Except for learning languages that areextremely close in rhythmic structure (e.g. Dutch and English), mostlearners will experience nearly insurmountable obstacles in achieving highlevels of automatic aural processing (Cutler, 2012b; Cutler & Weber, 2007).In spite of the limitations, listening fluency for all learners can be markedlyimproved, given appropriate training and opportunities for practice.

Three frameworks for developing listening fluency

It is important to address listening fluency as one aspect of overall languageproficiency. Most scales of language proficiency incorporate threeaspects of listening fluency: (1) ease with continuous listening and recallof main ideas, (2) an ability to recognize specific words and phrases inrapid speech, and (3) smoothness of listening behavior in face-to-faceinteraction. Corresponding to these aspects of listening fluency, thereare three broad frameworks to use for developing fluency: top-down,bottom-up, and interactive.

Frame 1: top-down fluencyTop-down fluency is the overarching goal of L2 listening. All seriouslearners seek to be able to listen to progressively longer stretches of authenticinput with an acceptable level of comprehension. The instructionalgoals in developing top-down fluency are engendering a receptivityin listening situations, developing learners’ curiosity about new ideas,engaging learners actively in listening tasks, and encouraging them touse appropriate listening strategies when they encounter difficulties.There are two key areas of language learning research that support theinstruction of top down fluency.

Pre-listening tasks promote top-down fluency

Background knowledge activation is the foundation for continuouslistening. Top-down fluency involves ‘elaborating’ what one alreadyknows and applying this knowledge while listening. The goal of topdowninstruction is guiding learners toward building meaning as theylisten, and eventually for learners to develop an intuition for what bits ofknowledge they need as they listen. This is no easy task, since top-downlistening involves both activating knowledge quickly and discardingirrelevant ideas as one continues listening. Because of this challenge,many teachers feel it is essential to use simplified, highly predictabletexts in order to develop continuous listening, while other teachersprefer structured comprehension tests in order to guide students towardfocusing on important ideas (see Atkins, Chapter 14 for a discussion ofcomprehension tests in fluent reading).Though text simplification can have some benefits in developinglearners’ attention, there is an overriding advantage in using authentic

texts and tasks, even with lower-level learners. Rather than employingauthentic texts with only post-listening comprehension questions,however, research supports the idea of using authentic texts with focusedpre-listening activities as a means to developing comprehension (Lustiget al., 2001). A pre-listening task can be any activity that aims to stimulatethinking about concepts, vocabulary or comprehension points (i.e.questions about the listening text) prior to listening. Expectations thatare activated before listening significantly influence both what is understoodand how well it will be remembered (Bransford & Johnson, 2004;Woodall, 2010; see also Murphey, Chapter 3).

Activity types that are consistent with this principle of top-down fluencyinclude:• Extended expositions (lectures, demonstrations, interviews, newsbroadcasts, in audio or video or live formats) with pre-listeningimages, lexical items, questions or guided note-taking; can be donewith autonomous online listening activities (Chang, 2007; Chang& Read, 2007; Ginther, 2002; Herron et al., 1995; Tsai, Chapter 18).• Extended narratives (readers, stories, films, in audio or video formator with accompanying written text), particularly those that arehighly structured and reiterative (i.e. experience with one chapter orlesson serves as a kind of pre-listening for the next), with fluencyorientedtasks (e.g. keeping track of how much you have read/watched/heard; global summarizing, such as a ten-word summary; simpleevaluation form completion) (Rodgers & Webb, 2011; Waring, 2007;Atkins, Chapter 14; Nation, Chapter 1).• Listening-while-reading, using extended audio or video segments orstories with high visual support for concepts and text support (subtitlesfor video, audio accompanying graded readers); narrow listening(multiple inputs on the same topic) and repetitions (relistening multipletimes) (Aldera & Mohsen, 2013; Chang & Millett, 2014; Vidal,2011; Nation, Chapter 1). While-listening and post-listening tasks promotetop-down fluency

Meaningful activities that the learner undertakes during and immediatelyafter listening will significantly influence engagement, comprehension,and retention. Multimodal listening tasks can provide a more potentencoding effect because the input is being processed in more than oneway, such as listening plus writing. Improved recall is usually observedwhen while-listening tasks, such as note-taking, are paired with congruentpost-listening tasks such as oral summarizing (Armbruster, 2000;Carrier & Titus, 1981). In particular, the most effective post-listeningtasks seem to be those that encourage interactive review (such as reviewinga transcript or a set of notes) and appropriation of the input (such

as giving a presentation on the same topic) (Donato, 1994, 2000;Thornbury, 2005).

Listening tasks work best when they help learners construct thecontent on their own, in creative ways. According to the SemanticDeficiency Hypothesis (Perfetti & Lesgold, 1977), poor comprehenderstypically show significant differences in the manner in which theyelaborate and organize what they hear or read. Elaboration, as notedearlier, is the action of using prior knowledge in order to enrich one’sinterpretation. Organization, in this framework, refers to anticipatingthe content that will be heard, regulating attention while listening,and developing ‘an action plan’ for what to do while listening andafter listening.

Activity types that are consistent with this principle of top-down fluencyinclude:

• Drama and action sequences, which allow for extensive listening incontext, providing physical tasks to accompany input (Asher, 2003;Brauer, 2002).• Visual-guided listening tasks, such as demonstrations with physicalprops, visuals or slides; or sequential texts (stories, lists, travelogues)with continuous interactive questioning or content constructiontasks, such as selecting or drawing pictures that go with the narrative,to build links between visual memory and language memory (Plass &Jones, 2005; Suvorov, 2009).

• Reconstruction tasks, such as group or individual summarizingfrom notes or from memory, summarizing using key words, KWLcharts (what students know, want to know, and learn), fillingout evaluation forms or follow-up tests on content (the principleworks most efficiently if questions are previewed before listening) tobuild short-term memory (McNicoll & Lee, 2011; Thornbury, 1997;Wajnryb, 1990)

Frame 2: bottom-up fluency

If the goal of top-down fluency is be able to deal with longer stretches ofspoken discourse, the goal of bottom-up fluency is to become comfortableattending to shorter bits of spoken language. Bottom-up fluency isthe ability to decode speech automatically, so that conscious attentioncan be freed up to process ideas. Bottom-up processing in an L2 can bevery frustrating, as it is often difficult to recognize words or to parsegrammatical structures that we ‘know’.

The problems L2 listeners experience have a basis in the evolution

of the brain. Because of our early experience with our L1, our auditorylinguistic‘parameters’ in the brain are ‘set’ by the time we reach adolescence.We have become ‘wired’ to perceive and decode our nativelanguage automatically and effortlessly. However, as a consequence ofthis process, we become distinctly less efficient at decoding the phonologyof all other languages (Escudero, 2007; Werker & Tees, 1984).Similarly, the primary syntactic patterns (like word order, comparatives,verb tenses) and semantic concepts (like colors, directions, personalrelationships) of our native language become a default template for alllanguage decoding. Consequently, we cannot process L2 syntax andsemantics as fluidly as we do in our L1. Even though this biological realitymay prevent perfect decoding in an L2, it is definitely clear that L2learners will benefit from maximizing their bottom up-fluency.There are two main strands of applied linguistics research that relateto the role of bottom up listening fluency.

Teaching spoken language as a separate system increaseslistening fluency

Nearly all students in Asian EFL contexts have had their initial exposureto English in written form: written sentences for translation, writtentexts for comprehension and analysis, written test formats for assessmentof learning. Throughout middle school and high school, moststudents will deal with the L2 primarily as a written code. And onlyoccasionally will they hear the spoken form of the language, as manyteachers may rely entirely on the L1 in the classroom.Given this background, many Asian students’ first exposure to extensive,authentic spoken English may be overwhelming. In effect, theyneed to ‘relearn’ the language as a spoken code if they are to becomefluent listeners. The most essential relearning involves overcoming thetendency to anticipate individual words in their citation form with clearinter-word boundaries, rather than hearing clusters of words that haveundergone phonological ‘distortion’ (see also Carreira, Chapter 17).Beginning listeners typically believe they have to rely on identifyingevery sound and every word sequentially in order to understand completely,when actually they need to become more comfortable withhearing speech as clusters of words (Tsui & Fullilove, 1998).Relearning the language as a spoken code involves other realizationsas well, including how to deal with different styles of organization andspeaking, multiple speakers, addition of visual elements, ellipsis of content,and higher frequency of idiomatic and figurative language. (SeeTable 16.1 for a summary of some of these key features.)

Activity types that are consistent with this principle of bottom-upfluency include:

• Word grab: Learners listen to a story of two to three minutes, thenare given a set of cards with words and phrases (or a worksheet withmultiple words and phrases). Working in small groups, they are askedto identify which words and phrases appeared in the passage. Theythen listen again to verify.• Repeated listening: Same extract is repeated, three to five times insubsequent classes, with the teacher reading in an animated voice;best to use memorable stories, fables, plays, poems, jokes, famousspeeches. Variation: Teacher pauses from time to time to have studentspredict the next word or phrase (see Nation, Chapter 1).• 3–2–1 listening. An audio extract is manipulated (with softwaresuch as Audacity) and presented in three versions (slowed down10%–20%; normal, speeded up 10%–20%; or with normal pauses,then pauses lengthened by one, then two seconds). Students listenwithout a transcript, aiming to notice how speed and pausing affectstheir perception (Field, 1998; Rost, 2011).

Training in ‘fast speech’ phenomena improves listening fluency

Speech rate is a commonly perceived problem for L2 listeners, but difficultieswith normal fluent speech occur not so much because of thespeed itself, but because the L2 listener is often not prepared for fastspeech phenomena (Graham, 2006; Renandya & Farrell, 2011). Theseperceptual phenomena are primarily consonant assimilations, vowelreductions, consonant cluster reductions, omissions, and elisions

that result in word variations that are different from their ‘canonical’(citation) forms. (See Table 16.2 for common examples.) Consonantassimilations in particular tend to give Asian learners special difficulties,as consonant clustering does not occur in most Asian languages (i.e.Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai).

Instruction in bottom-up processing aims to improve the learners’perceptual capacity by highlighting the cues they attend to when theyprocess input (Field, 2008; Carreira, Chapter 17). The central goal ofbottom-up listening training is coming to recognize phonological patternsdirectly and in larger chunks, without ‘mentally transcribing’ towritten form. Classroom studies have shown that bottom-up trainingworks best with contextualization and sufficient repetition (Larsen-Freeman,2012; Serrano, 2011). Without contextualization, the listener must useonly audio cues to process input. While context-free word recognitionand parsing seems to be the goal of aural perception training, it is essentialto have ample context in order for maximal perception to occur. (It is well-known that without sufficient context, even native listenersexperience frequent mishearings.) By providing contextualized audio, in

the form of a story, exposition, song, etc., the learner has the opportunityto use contextual cues to make inferences to support aural perception(Field, 2003; Hulstijn, 2003; Carreira, Chapter 17). It has also been foundthat learners benefit from multiple exposures to the same input, multichannelexposures (audio and text), and spaced repetitions (encounteringthe same speech phenomena at regular intervals over a period of weeks)(Son, 2004; Xue et al., 2011).

Activity types that are consistent with this principle of bottom-upfluency include:

• Shadowing: Learners are taught different forms of shadowing (fullshadowing, key word shadowing, last word shadowing, paraphraseshadowing, silent/subvocal shadowing), and practice either as agroup or in pairs as the speaker (or teacher) narrates a short monologue(Murphey, 2000; Tomlinson, 2003).• Text monitoring: Students are given a transcript of an oral text; theyread along with audio and mark: stress, pauses, target sounds. Or thetranscript has some wrong words, based on confusable sounds, andthe students try to identify them (Al-jasser, 2008; Wilson, 2003).• Partial dictation: An extended extract (e.g. with songs) is given witha transcript that has some words and phrases gapped out. Studentsfill in the missing parts containing lexical or syntactic items to focuson, or on ‘problem’ sound combinations. Variation: Students can dopredictive work (filling in the gaps before listening) first, then listento check their answers (Davies & Rinvolucri, 1989; Nation & Newton,2009; Carreira, Chapter 17).

Frame 3: interactive fluencyThe third aspect of fluency involves the interactive nature of communicationand the cooperative nature of language learning. Interactivefluency refers not only to the act of the listener in collaborating witha speaker, but also to the role of the listener in promoting a higherquality of input (Antaki, 2008; Bremer et al., 1996; Heritage & Watson,1979). The goals of developing interactive fluency are creating an activemind-set in the listener, promoting inquisitiveness, and increasing themotivation to understand. A listener who is interactively fluent generallywants to take an active part in developing a conversation.Two key strands of research in applied linguistics inform this aspectof fluent listening.

Teaching active listening strategies improvesinteractive fluency

The central tenet of the ‘Active Learner Hypothesis’ (Gardner et al., 1985)is that active learners create more opportunities to learn and therefore learn

more efficiently. This principle can easily be extended to listening, aswe know from studies of successful learners that active listening behaviorleads to better comprehension and therefore to higher-quality interaction(Fujimoto, 2009; Oxford, 2011; Philp et al., 2014; Vandergrift & Goh,2012). What does it mean to be ‘an active listener’? Even though activelistening is essentially an attitude of openness, empathy, and encouragementon the part of the listener, there are specific sub-skills (such asleaning toward and ‘pacing’ the speaker, nodding, paraphrasing, andsummarizing), cognitive strategies (such as identifying the gist of what thespeaker has just said), and social strategies (such as asking for clarification)that can be isolated, taught, practiced, and assessed (Macaro, 2003;Vandergrift & Goh, 2012).

Active listening, when taught as demonstrable skills and strategies,can benefit L2 learners by arming them with ways of dealing withconversations that might otherwise be ‘over their heads’. In addition,learning active listening strategies, even to a modest degree, can providea motivational boost to L2 learners, an incentive to become moreaffectively involved in learning English. As researchers on L2 motivationhave frequently noted, affective involvement of the learner duringan interaction is a key determinant of the quality of understanding he orshe experiences (Robbins, 1996; Rost, 2011; Sampasivam & Clement,2014; Ushioda, 2011). Listeners with greater involvement tend to bemore inclined to participate, to be open, to feel more confident in theirabilities, to reveal more of themselves, and thus have a more a morevaluable learning experience (Aniero, 1990; Sawyer et al., 2014; Yang,1993). On the other hand, listeners who perceive themselves as not ableto participate, also tend to feel discounted or marginalized, and beginto adopt an habitual low action orientation. Low action leads to greaterperceived social distance with speakers of the L2, which reduces motivationto interact, creating a downward spiral of demotivation (Ford et al.,2000; Villaume & Bodie, 2007).

Activity types that are consistent with this principle of interactivefluency include:• Speaking circles: Learners work in small groups and take turns beingthe designated speaker for a fixed period of time. As preparation, learnersmay write key words in response to a personal question. When it isa person’s turn to speak, the other partners must ask questions aboutthe key words (Rost & Wilson, 2013).• Interactive stories: Narrating a story with clear plot lines andunknown to the listeners, a story teller (usually the teacher) pauses atfixed intervals to elicit questions, answers questions, then continues.(Stenson, 2003).• Cloud discussions: Using online resources, such as VoiceThread,to allow for interactive discussions, with student contributions

recorded; teacher poses a question or posts an image or short readingfor student responses (Alameen, 2011; Rost & Wilson, 2013).

Promoting listener-initiated negotiation leads to greaterlistening fluency

The second line of research explores the contention that input aloneis not sufficient for L2 acquisition. In this framework, not only doesa learner need to be exposed to large amounts of listening input, thelearner must also acquire ways to make unclear parts of the input comprehensible.The listener does this by interacting with speakers to ‘tune’ theinput to an appropriate level. During these ‘negotiations for meaning’,the speaker will then adjust for content (narrow the topic or use morehere-and-now orientation), for vocabulary (use synonyms, paraphrases),for syntax (paraphrase complex parts with simpler structures), or forphonology (repeat a phrase more slowly). Learning how to tune inputrequires the use of listening strategies that will make the ideas in theinteraction more meaningful (Gass & Mackey, 2006; Pica, 2005). Assuch, instruction oriented toward interactive fluency needs to promotethe use of clarification checks, comprehension checks, and collaborativestrategies for building meaning (Fujii & Mackey, 2009).

Activity types that are consistent with this principle of interactivefluency include:

• Information gap: Students are given complementary pieces of aninformation puzzle. In pairs, students work together to solve aproblem or complete a puzzle. For example, one student describesa picture to their partner, who cannot see it; the listening studentasks for clarification to try to draw a comparable picture. Tasks canbe scaffolded to become more complex (Aronson & Patone, 2011;Robinson, 2005; Yeldham & Gruba, 2014).• Expert: Students work in pairs to share a skill they are expert in. Tobegin, students write down five things that they are an expert in.(Teacher can do a starter list as an example; skills can be as simpleas ‘weeding the garden’ or ‘making curry’.) After students havewritten their lists, they circle the three that they think will be mostinteresting to the other students in the class. Students then work inpairs, with the listener student asking as many questions as possibleabout the skills. After several minutes, students change partners andcontinue. Task demands (time limits, numbers of questions) can beincreased to make the activity more challenging (Folse, 2003).• Pair reconstruction: In pairs, students listen to (or read) separateinput about a topic or the same input on a complex topic, thencome together to share information and build a precise summary ofa story, news item or exposition. Texts can be made more complex to

increase task demands (Swain, 1999; Wajnryb, 1990).

Conclusion: integrating the three frames

This chapter has presented an introductory model for developing fluencyin listening within an EFL context. The model uses three ‘frames’—top-down, bottom-up, and interactive—to represent key areas in whichlistening fluency can be improved. For each frame, two areas of supportingresearch were outlined and three prototype learning activities havebeen presented.The frames are intended to be complementary: all three areas of developmentare necessary for instruction in listening fluency. The typesof activities and the relative concentration and proportion of each ateacher selects will vary by the teaching context. All contexts will differin terms of ages and learning styles of students, as well as situationalconstraints and curricular expectations. The key to adapting a listeningfluency approach is in focusing on the underlying principles of each‘frame’ and including all three types of fluency training.

References

Alameen, G. (2011). Learner digital stories in a Web 2.0 age. TESOL Journal, 2,355–369.Aldera, A. S. & Mohsen, M. A. (2013). Annotations in captioned animation:Effects on vocabulary learning and listening skills. Computers & Education, 68,60–75.Al-jasser, F. (2008). The effect of teaching English phonotactics on the lexicalsegmentation of English as a foreign language. System, 36, 94–108.Aniero, S. (1990). The influence of receiver apprehension among Puerto Ricancollege students. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 50, 2300A.Antaki, C. (2008). Formulations in psychotherapy. In A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki,S. Vehviläinen, & I. Leudar (Eds), Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy(pp. 26–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Armbruster, B. B. (2000). Taking notes from lectures. In R. Flippo & D. Caverly(Eds), Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research (pp. 175–199).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Aronson, E. & Patone, S. (2011). Cooperation in the Classroom: The Jigsaw Method(3rd edn). London: Pinter and Martin.Asher, J. J. (2003). Learning Another Language through Actions (6th edn). Los Gatos,CA: Sky Oaks Production.Best, C. T. & Tyler, M. D. (2007). Nonnative and second-language speech perception:Commonalities and complementarities. In O. S. Bohn & M. J. Munro

(Eds), Language Experience in Second Language Speech Learning: In Honor of JamesEmil Flege (pp. 13–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Bransford, J. & Johnson, M. (2004). Contextual prerequisites for understanding:Some investigations of comprehension and recall. In D. A. Balota & J. Marsh (Eds),Cognitive Psychology: Key Readings (pp. 431–442). New York: Psychology Press.Brauer, G. (2002). Body and Language: Intercultural Learning through Drama.Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.Bremer, K., Roberts, C., Vasseur, M., Simonot, M., & Broeder, P. (1996). AchievingUnderstanding: Discourse in Intercultural Encounters. Language in Social Lifeseries. Harlow: Longman.Carrier, C. & Titus, A. (1981). Effects of note-taking pretraining and test modeexpectations on learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal,18, 385–397.Chang, A. (2007). The impact of vocabulary preparation on listening comprehension,confidence, and strategy use. System, 35, 534–550.Chang, A. & Read, J. (2007). Support for foreign language listeners: Its effectivenessand limitations. RELC Journal, 38, 375–394.Chang, A. C. S. & Millett, S. (2014). The effect of extensive listening on developingL2 listening fluency: Some hard evidence. English Language TeachingJournal, 68, 31–40.Cutler, A. (2012a). Native listening: The flexibility dimension. Dutch Journal ofApplied Linguistics, 1, 169–187.Cutler, A. (2012b). Native Listening: Language Experience and the Recognition ofSpoken Words. Boston, MA: MIT Press.Cutler, A. & Weber, A. (2007). Listening experience and phonetic-to-lexical mappingin L2. In J. Trouvain & W. J. Barry (Eds), Proceedings of the 16th InternationalCongress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2007), (pp. 43–48). Dudweiler: Pirrot.Davies, P. & Rinvolucri, M. (1989). Dictation: New Methods, New Possibilities.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. InJ. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research(pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign andsecond language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and SecondLanguage Learning (pp. 27–50). New York: Oxford University Press.Escudero, P. (2007). Second-language phonology: The role of perception. InM. C. Pennington (Ed.), Phonology in Context (pp. 109–134). New York: Palgrave.Field, J. (1998). Skills and strategies: Towards a new methodology for listening.ELT Journal, 52, 110–118.Field, J. (2003). Promoting perception: Lexical segmentation in L2 listening. ELTJournal, 57, 325–334.Field, J. (2008). Bricks or mortar: Which parts of the input does a second languagelistener rely on? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 411–432.Flege, J. E. (2003). Assessing constraints on second language segmental productionand perception. In N. Schiller & A. Meyer (Eds), Phonetics and Phonologyin Language Production and Perception: Differences and Similarities (pp. 319–355).

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Folse, K. (2003). Applying second language research results in design of moreeffective ESL discussion activities. The CATESOL Journal, 15(1), 1–12.Ford, W., Wolvin, A. D., & Chung, S. (2000). Students’ self-perceived listeningcompetencies. International Journal of Listening, 14, 1–13.Fujii, A. & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner–learner interactionsin a task-based EFL classroom. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,47, 267–301.Fujimoto, D. (2009). Listener responses in interaction: A case for abandoningthe term, backchannel. Osaka Jogakuin University Research Repository, 37, 35–54.Retrieved from: http://ir-lib.wilmina.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10775/48/1/03.pdf.Gardner, R., Lalonde, R., & Moorcroft, R. (1985). The role of attitudes and motivationin second language learning: Correlational and experimental considerations.Language Learning, 35(2), 207–227.Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction, and output: An overview.AILA Review, 19, 3–17.Ginther, A. (2002). Context and content visuals and performance on listeningcomprehension stimuli. Language Testing, 19, 133–167.Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System,34, 165–182.Heritage, J. & Watson, D. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. InG. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 123–161).New York: Irvington Publishers.Herron, C., Hanley, J., & Cole, S. (1995). A comparison study of two advanceorganizers for introducing beginning foreign language students to video.Modern Language Journal, 79, 387–395.Hulstijn, J. (2003). Connectionist models of language processing and the trainingof listening skills with the aid of multimedia software. Computer AssistedLanguage Learning, 16(5), 413–425.Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). On the roles of repetition in language teaching andlearning. Applied Linguistics Review, 3(2), 195–210.Lustig, C., May, C., & Hasher, L. (2001). Working memory span and the role ofproactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 130, 199–207.Macaro, E. (2003). Teaching and Learning a Second Language. New York: Continuum.McNicoll, J. & Lee, J. H. (2011). Collaborative consciousness-raising tasks in EALclassrooms. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4), 127–138.Murphey, T. (2000). Shadowing and Summarizing, NFLRC Video #11. Honolulu,HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Nation, P. & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking. New York:Routledge.Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies (2nd edn).Harlow: Pearson Education.Perfetti, C. A. & Lesgold, A. M. (1977). Discourse comprehension and sourcesof individual differences. In M. Just & P. Carpenter (Eds), Cognitive Processesin Comprehension (pp. 141–183). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Philp, J., Adams, R., & Iwashita, N. (2014). Peer Interaction and Second LanguageLearning. New York: Routledge.Pica, T. (2005). Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task-based perspective.The Modern Language Journal, 89(3), 339–352.Plass, J. & Jones, L. (2005). Multimedia learning in second language acquisition.In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 467–488).New York: Cambridge University Press.Renandya, W. & Farrell, T. (2011). Teacher, the tape is too fast! Extensive listeningin ELT. ELT Journal, 65, 52–59.Robbins, J. (1996). Between ‘Hello’ and ‘See you later’: Development strategiesfor interpersonal communication. PhD dissertation, Washington, DC:Georgetown University (UMI 9634593).Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in acomponential framework for second language task design. IRAL, 43(1), 1–32.Rodgers, M. & Webb, S. (2011). Narrow viewing: The vocabulary in related televisionprograms. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 689–717.Rost, M. (2011). Teaching and Researching Listening, (2nd edn). Harlow: PearsonEducation.Rost, M. & Wilson, J. J. (2013). Active Listening: Research and Resources for LanguageTeaching. Harlow: Pearson Education.Sampasivam, S. & Clement, R. (2014). The dynamics of second language confidence:Contact and interaction. In S. Mercer & M. Williams (Eds), MultiplePerspective on the Self in SL (pp. 23–40). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Sawyer, C., Gayle, K., Topa, A., & Powers, W. (2014). Listening fidelity amongnative and nonnative English-speaking undergraduates as a function of listeningapprehension and gender. Communication Research Reports, 31, 62–71.Serrano, R. (2011). The time factor in EFL classroom practice. Language Learning,61, 117–145.Son, L. K. (2004). Spacing one’s study: Evidence for a metacognitive controlstrategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,30, 601–604.Stenson, G. (2003). Listening fluency with conversational storytelling. Bulletin ofHokoriku University, 27, 137–143. Retrieved from: http://www.hokuriku-u.ac.jp/jimu/kiyo/kiyo27/gai10.pdf.Suvorov, R. (2009). Context visuals in L2 listening tests: The effects of photographsand video vs. audio-only format. In C. A. Chapelle, H. G. Jun, & I. Katz(Eds), Developing and Evaluating Language Learning Materials (pp. 53–68). Ames,IA: Iowa State University.Swain, M. (1999). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborativetasks. In W. Renandya & C. S. Ward (Eds), Language Teaching: New Insightsfor the Language Teacher (pp. 125–147). Singapore: Regional Language Centre.Thornbury, S. (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: Tasks that promote‘noticing’. ELT Journal, 51, 326–335.Thornbury, S. (2005). How to Teach Speaking. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Tomlinson, B. (2003). Helping learners develop an effective L2 inner voice. RELCJournal, 34(2), 178–194.Tsui, A. B. M. & Fullilove, J. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminatorof L2 listening performance. Applied Linguistics, 19, 432–451.Ushioda, E. (2011). Motivating learners to speak as themselves. In G. Murray, X.Gao, & T. Lamb (Eds), Identity, Motivation, and Autonomy in Language Learning(pp. 11–24). Bristol, UK: Multicultural Matters.Vandergrift, L. & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and Learning Second Language Listening:Metacognition in Action. New York: Routledge.Vidal, K. (2011). A comparison of the effects of reading and listening on incidentalvocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 61, 219–258.Villaume, W. & Bodie, G. (2007). Discovering the listener within us: The impactof trait-like personality variables and communicator styles on preferences forlistening style. International Journal of Listening, 21, 102–123.Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar Dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Waring, R. (2007). Bringing extensive reading into oral communication classes.The Language Teacher, 31(7), 38–39.Werker, J. & Tees, R. (1984). Phonemic and phonetic factors in adult crosslanguagespeech perception. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 75(6),1866–1878.Wilson, M. (2003). Discovery listening – improving perceptual processes. ELTJournal, 35, 325–334.Woodall, B. (2010). Simultaneous listening and reading in ESL: Helping secondlanguage learners read (and enjoy reading) more efficiently. TESOL Journal,1(2), 186–205.Xue, G., Mei, L., Chen, C., Lu, Z., Poldrack, R., & Dong, Q. (2011). Spaced learningenhances subsequent recognition memory by reducing neural repetitionsuppression. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(7), 1624–1633.Yang, R. L. (1993). A study of the communicative anxiety and self-esteem ofChinese students in relation to their oral and listening proficiency in English.Doctoral dissertation, Atlanta, GA: University of Georgia. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 54, 2132A.Yeldham, M. & Gruba, P. (2014). Toward an instructional approach to developinginteractive second language listening. Language Teaching Research , 18(1), 33–53.