In contrast to cognitive processes, which operate automatically, listening strategies are conscious, goal-directed mental actions to aid comprehension (A. D. Cohen & Upton, 2007; Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977). Listening strategies are particularly important for
23 L2 learners, as their cognitive processes might not have been developed to the extent that comprehension is fully fluent (Faerch & Kasper, 1986). Therefore, any model of L2 listening comprehension needs to take listening strategies into account.
One of the most comprehensive models of listening strategies has been developed by Vandergrift and Goh (2012), who conceptualise listening strategies within a framework of metacognition. Metacognition, which is often described as thinking about thinking (Flavell, 1976), plays a crucial role in successful language learning and L2 comprehension (Wenden, 1987). In Vandergrift and Goh’s framework for listening, metacognition is separated into 1) metacognitive knowledge, which is the knowledge about one’s own personality, the task at hand, and strategies which might be effective to complete the task; 2) metacognitive experience, which relates to prior experience with and use of effective strategies; and 3) strategy use, which is the conscious application of strategic knowledge to aid understanding. Based on the work by Goh (1998, 2002), O’Malley and Chamot (1990), Oxford (1990), Vandergrift (1997, 2003), and Young (1997), Vandergrift and Goh propose the following listening strategies, each of which are further split into separate sub-categories not described here:
1. Planning: Developing awareness of what needs to be done to accomplish a listening task, developing an appropriate action plan and/or appropriate contingency plans to overcome difficulties that may interfere with successful completion of a task.
2. Focusing attention: Avoiding distractions and heeding the auditory input in different ways, or keeping to a plan for listening development.
3. Monitoring: Checking, verifying, or correcting one’s comprehension or performance in the course of a task.
4. Evaluation: Checking the outcomes of listening comprehension or a listening plan against an internal or an external measure of completeness, reasonableness, and accuracy.
5. Inferencing: Using information within the text or conversational context to guess the meanings of unfamiliar language items associated with a listening task, to predict content and outcomes, or to fill in missing information.
6. Elaboration: Using prior knowledge from outside the text or conversational context and relating it to knowledge gained from the text or conversation in order to embellish one’s interpretation of the text.
24 7. Prediction: Anticipating the contents and the message of what one is going to hear.
8. Contextualization: Placing what is heard in a specific context in order to prepare for listening or assist comprehension.
9. Reorganizing: Transferring what one has processed into forms that help understanding, storage, and retrieval.
10. Using linguistic and learning resources: Relying on one’s knowledge of the first language or additional languages to make sense of what is heard, or consulting learning resources after listening.
11. Cooperation: Working with others to get help on improving comprehension, language use, and learning.
12. Managing emotions: Keeping track of one’s feelings and not allowing negative ones to influence attitudes and behaviors.
(Vandergrift & Goh, 2012, pp. 277–284)
Some of these strategies do not usually play a role in listening assessment. For example, using learning resources (part of strategy 10 in the list above) may be a useful strategy for classroom practice, but would not be relevant in listening tests, as candidates generally are not allowed to use aids such as dictionaries. In addition, the strategy of cooperation (strategy 11 in the list above) would not be applicable to assessing listening, as listening tests are usually completed alone. Thus, overall, 11 of the 12 listening strategies proposed by Vandergrift and Goh (with only the linguistic part of strategy 10 in the list above) should ideally be assessed in L2 listening tests. In the following, it will be discussed how the use of these strategies may be influenced by double play in listening assessment.
2.4.2.1. Potential effects of double play on the use of listening strategies Double play could potentially impact the use of all of the strategies relevant to listening assessment proposed by Vandergrift and Goh discussed above. Starting from the top of the list with the strategy of planning (strategy 1), students would quite likely plan their completion of a listening task differently if they know from the outset that they are going to hear the recording twice. They might plan to listen on a more general level
25 during the first play and pay more attention to specific questions during the second play, or vice versa.
Similarly, students may focus their attention differently as well (strategy 2). In a double play situation, they might pay selective attention to unanswered questions during the second play, whereas in a single play situation, they might try to maintain their attention throughout as they know they will not get a second chance.
The strategies of monitoring and evaluation (strategies 3 and 4) may play a bigger role in tasks which utilise double play. That is because students simply have more opportunities to monitor and evaluate their comprehension and performance on a task if they hear a recording a second time. In a single play condition L2 learners’ limited processing capacity might already be at the limit through the use of other strategies such as focussing attention, and monitoring and evaluation might therefore play a smaller role.
On the other hand, the next three strategies in Vandergrift and Goh’s model - inferencing, elaboration, and prediction (strategies 5, 6, and 7) - could be more important in a single play condition. This is because students may miss important information during the first play and in the absence of a second play try to infer what they have missed from different parts of the listening text, or elaborate on the missed information from outside sources, such as personal experience or world knowledge. Similarly, if students know that they are going to hear a listening text only once, they might put more cognitive resources into predicting what they are going to hear.
Contextualisation and reorganising (strategies 8 and 9), in contrast, could potentially be used more often in double play situations. When students get the chance to hear a listening text again, they might be able to better contextualise what they hear during the second play as they are already familiar with the recording. They might also have more opportunities to reorganise what they have heard and thereby increase comprehension, for example by making a mental summary after the first play and using it during the second play.
Finally, using linguistic resources and managing emotions (strategies 10 and 12) could again be more relevant for test takers if they hear the listening text only once. Test takers might rely more on simple linguistic strategies such as translation in single play, as their limited processing capacity may not allow them to utilise more resource-intense strategies such as monitoring or evaluation. In addition, they may be more anxious if
26 they know that they are going to hear a text only once, therefore relying more on strategies which help them keep their emotions in check.
In summary, the use of all of the listening strategies relevant to listening assessment proposed by Vandergrift and Goh could potentially be impacted by double play. However, no study has yet investigated in detail how double play impacts the use of listening strategies.