Introduction .com



Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u 1Introduction PAGEREF _Toc17325092 \h 22Analysis PAGEREF _Toc17325093 \h 22.1 Listening processes PAGEREF _Toc17325094 \h 22.2 Decoding processes PAGEREF _Toc17325095 \h 22.3 Bottom-up skills PAGEREF _Toc17325096 \h 32.3.1 Relying on stress and content words PAGEREF _Toc17325097 \h 32.3.2 Listening “between the words” PAGEREF _Toc17325098 \h 32.3.3 Using linguistic knowledge PAGEREF _Toc17325099 \h 32.3.4 Decoding spontaneous speech PAGEREF _Toc17325100 \h 32.3.5 Awareness of flexiforms PAGEREF _Toc17325101 \h 42.3.6 Decoding word clusters PAGEREF _Toc17325102 \h 42.3.7 Decoding connected speech. PAGEREF _Toc17325103 \h 42.4 Strategies PAGEREF _Toc17325104 \h 53Issues PAGEREF _Toc17325105 \h 63.1 Learning issue: difficulty decoding at chunk level PAGEREF _Toc17325106 \h 63.2 Learning issue: difficulty decoding vague language PAGEREF _Toc17325107 \h 63.3 Teaching issue: gap-fills can be ineffective PAGEREF _Toc17325108 \h 63.4 Teaching issue: different decoding strengths and weaknesses PAGEREF _Toc17325109 \h 64Suggestions PAGEREF _Toc17325110 \h 74.1 Decoding at chunk level PAGEREF _Toc17325111 \h 74.1.1 Combination of paused play (Field, 2010) and active listening (Anderson and Lynch, 1998). PAGEREF _Toc17325112 \h 74.1.2 The botanic walk (Cauldwell, 2018) PAGEREF _Toc17325113 \h 74.2 Bingo card PAGEREF _Toc17325114 \h 84.3 Dictogloss PAGEREF _Toc17325115 \h 9Bibliography PAGEREF _Toc17325116 \h 10Appendices PAGEREF _Toc17325117 \h 12Appendix 1: Transcript PAGEREF _Toc17325118 \h 12Appendix 2: Bingo PAGEREF _Toc17325119 \h 13Appendix 3: listen and tick PAGEREF _Toc17325120 \h 14Appendix 4: Learning log PAGEREF _Toc17325121 \h 14IntroductionSince my initial teacher-training, I have adopted a product approach to listening (Field, 2010), i.e. measuring learners’ listening ability through comprehension tasks. Even when my intermediate learners managed to answer comprehension questions, they were not satisfied by the “don’t worry about understanding everything” response; they expected zero uncertainty (Thornbury, 2011). I realized I was training them to rely on context and background knowledge to understand recordings (Field, 2003); I did not include any phonological decoding activities. That was not a matter of preference as Cauldwell (2018) suggests; it was merely the only approach I was trained to use.Wilson’s (2008) words that this approach tests rather than teaches listening made me doubt its usefulness. We cannot expect that students will automatically develop better decoding skills through time and exposure to listening input. Therefore, this essay will focus on helping intermediate learners develop bottom-up processes, i.e. train them how to decode the stream of speech. Additionally, I will deepen my understanding of this teaching-listening approach. Analysis2.1 Listening processesCauldwell (2018) explains that listening involves decoding and understanding, i.e. deciphering the signal and interpreting meaning. Expert listeners combine these two processes to maximise comprehension:top-down, or meaning building (Field, 2010)bottom-up or decodingusing “inside the head knowledge” (Nunan, 1991:18)using the language input (Richards, 2008)For instance, when experienced cooks watch cooking videos, they use bottom-up processes, e.g. start from decoding phonemes, then words, then phrases to decode instructions. They also use top-down processes to predict what needs to be done, e.g. letting the dough rise, or tempering eggs before adding them to a mix. Wilson (2008:15) calls this combination the “interactive model”. 2.2 Decoding processesExpert listeners decode the acoustic signal rapidly, accurately and effortlessly as Field (2003) states, by matching sounds to information. Field’s information-processing model (2010:114), illustrates how a listener may decode the question “do you live here?”, moving from the smallest units towards meaning. Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 11Phoneme level /d?ju??l?vh??/2Syllable level/d? + ju? + l?v + h??/3Word level ?do you live here?4Chunk level do you live + here?5Syntax levelauxiliary + subject + verb + adverb of place6Intonation levelRising82358702800Do you live here?7Meaning levelAre you local? Are you a resident of this area/ building?2.3 Bottom-up skillsCauldwell (2018) states that bottom-up processing requires multiple skills that expert listeners possess. The following are the most vital in my opinion:2.3.1 Relying on stress and content wordsVandergrift and Goh (2012) suggest that when proficient listeners hear a sentence, e.g. “I’d like to go to Paris”, they are likely to rely on content words, which carry stress and meaning; e.g. like, go and Paris, instead of prepositions or the infinitive particle. Nevertheless, not all content words are equally stressed; prominence is determined by the speaker and the intended meaning (see 2.3.2).2.3.2 Listening “between the words” (Wilson, 2008:41). Speakers use stress and intonation to emphasize what they consider important instead of simply applying rules (Cauldwell, 2002). When I say my husband is on a business trip, my can be prominent to emphasize mine (not someone else’s), or business trip to imply he is not on holiday. Additionally, intonation can convey attitudinal meaning, e.g surprise or irony. 2.3.3 Using linguistic knowledge Hedge (2010) mentions expert listeners employ their linguistic knowledge, to decode utterances; e.g. using co-text to predict collocations. By hearing opening a bank…expert listeners expect to hear account.2.3.4 Decoding spontaneous speechUnplanned speech is imperfect and includes disfluencies (Cauldwell, 2018) that expert listeners interpret, e.g.:Repetition: that’s sad, so sadself-repair: last night..no last week fillers: I mean….Vague language is another element of spontaneity; Willis (2004) lists these types:suffixes -ish or -y: nineish, greenycompleters: that sort of thingplaceholders: whatsitcalledgeneralisers: sort of2.3.5 Awareness of flexiforms Cauldwell (2018) indicates that proficient listeners effortlessly decode words despite their flexible sound shapes, such as:Weak/strong forms of function words “I had eggs for breakfast”:/ f?/, what I’m looking for : /?f??/. speaker’s accentprivacy in British English: /?pr?v?si/ in American English: /?pra?v?si/ 2.3.6 Decoding word clusters Cauldwell (2018) adds that expert listeners decode multi-word clusters, although sounds are reduced, changed or dropped and words are mushed together.e.g. what do you mean /w????mi?n/. 2.3.7 Decoding connected speech. Competent listeners decode rapid speech, despite sandhi variations (Swift, 2013) that occur between words, e.g.:Catenation: consonant to vowel linking.Beautiful eyes/?bju?t?f?la?z/Assimilation: a sound changes quality and becomes more like another sound which precedes or follows it.?Ten boys/?temb??z/Elision: omission of a sound, e.g. /t/ before a word that begins with a consonant. I can’t do it/a??k?nd??t/Gemination: two identical sounds that occur adjacent to each other, merge and articulation lasts for slightly longer than normal.dull life /?d?la?f/Intrusion: vowel to vowel linking with the insertion of an approximant, e.g. /j/ /w/ or /r/The idea is/??a??d??r?z/Yod coalescence: /tj/ clusters become /?/last year?/?l?s???r/ 2.4 StrategiesIn interactive, or reciprocal listening, e.g. a conversation, listeners also become speakers. In non-reciprocal listening, e.g. recorded messages, listeners have no control over input (Wilson, 2008).When expert listeners fail to decode the signal, or to reinforce memory, they apply strategies, i.e. conscious behaviours (Wilson, 2008), such as the ones listed below (Vandergrift and Goh, 2012; Wilson, 2008): Table SEQ Table \* ARABIC 2Reciprocal listening Non-reciprocal listeningseeking repetition:Pardon?Taking notes, e.g. phone numbersechoing when unsure of what was heard:Scenery?Noting approximations of what was heard, e.g. Mr Giakoumi instead of Mr. Yakoummi.Seeking clarification:Did you say kit or kid?Faking understanding by nodding or using non-verbal signals:uh-huhIssues3.1 Learning issue: difficulty decoding at chunk levelWhen teaching exam classes in Greece, my intermediate learners struggled with decoding at chunk level (table 1,4). When they heard a couple of days, they were only able to decode the word days. Failure to decode such chunks lead to inability to answer certain comprehension questions in exam tasks.When native English speakers speak, they chunk words together; not all words are equally stressed. Additionally, features of connected speech occur, thus causing sound changes. For instance, a couple of days, could be realised as /?k?pl??de?z/ because:Of is weak when followed by the noun days, so /?/ is reduced to /?/ (2.3.5)final /f/ in of is elided and catenation occurs between words /?k?pl??de?z/ (2.3.7) / As Swan (2001) indicates, Greek is syllable-timed, i.e. all syllables are equally stressed with no weak forms or sound changes; hence the difficulty with these chunks. 3.2 Learning issue: difficulty decoding vague languageWhen teaching ESL in the UK, I incorporated authentic materials in my multilingual classes. Videos or recordings often included examples of vague language (2.3.4).Intermediate students from Poland, where TV programmes are dubbed into Polish, were not exposed to authentic English input and could not decode the spoken form of completers (2.3.4), e.g. that sort of thing. They asked me “what did he say about the thing?”, thus wasting time trying to decode something that could be ignored.3.3 Teaching issue: gap-fills can be ineffectiveI agree with Vandergrift (2004) and Wilson (2008) that decoding tasks can be simplistic and mechanistic. I have observed that my B1 teenage students find gap-fills dull or stressful, as they remind them of exam tasks. More specifically, when classes are over 90 minutes long, or take place in the evening, teenagers complete gap-fills passively; they may identify stressed words (2.3.1), but do not develop other skills, e.g. decoding clusters (2.3.6), or features of connected speech (2.3.7).3.4 Teaching issue: different decoding strengths and weaknessesWhen I taught B1 courses to adult Spanish students, I noticed that learners did not have the same decoding difficulties. Students who had been to the UK, were able to decode intrusion (2.3.7) e.g. Linda asked me /l?nd?r?ɑ?sktmi?/Those who watched Netflix programmes in English, easily processed at chunk level (table 1,4), e.g. decoded /????en????de?/ at the end of the day.Some students were aware of flexiforms (2.3.5), e.g. envelop is pronounced both /?env?l??p/ and /?ɑ?nv?l??p/. Therefore, when post-listening tasks focused on one phonological feature, some students complained that the activity underchallenged them.Suggestions4.1 Decoding at chunk level To address issue 3.1, I propose the two techniques listed below and dictogloss (4.3).4.1.1 Combination of paused play (Field, 2010) and active listening (Anderson and Lynch, 1998). Procedure: Play the recording (appendix 1) at normal speed. When students hear an unclear chunk, they ask the teacher to stop and rewind. The teacher encourages students to:focus on words that carry stress (2.3.1) echo an approximation of the chunk (table 2,b)listen to what comes before or after the chunk to help them decode it (2.3.3)Students call out answers and the teacher confirms or provides right answers if chunks are too challenging. Finally, the teacher dictates the chunks and learners repeat them in “ideal form” (Ur 1984:42); e.g., the teacher says /w????w?n/ and learners repeat what do you want?4.1.2 The botanic walk (Cauldwell, 2018)Procedure: Draw three columns on the whiteboard: Greenhouse, Garden and Jungle. Explain the analogy of words to plants: separate and neat in the greenhouse, closer together in the garden, chaotic in the jungle.Write the chunk which occurred in the recording, e.g. a couple of days. Point to greenhouse and model the words in isolation /e?/ /k?pl/ ?f/ de?z/Point to garden and model the gentle contact between the words: /?k?pl?v?de?z/Point to jungle and model rapid and messy speech: /?k?pl??de?z/Provide more chunks from the recording and ask students to repeat after you. Stronger learners can try to predict how other chunks may vary across the three domains. Evaluation: Intermediate learners have already stored several chunks in their lexicons, e.g. no problem or just a moment. Both techniques provide receptive exposure to chunks and train Greek learners to decode them more rapidly when they hear them. The technique in 4.1.1:allows control over input, thus providing more opportunities to hear and process chunks which still cause uncertainties at intermediate level (Dellar and Walkley, 2017).trains learners to use strategies, e.g. using co-text (2.3.3) and focusing on stressed words (2.3.1), which is vital for B1 exams. Field adds that instructors should always teach strategies in the listening classroom (2010).checks learners can associate the spoken to the written form with Ur’s (1984) dictation. However, stronger Greek learners in B1 classes may feel under-challenged. Assigning them roles, e.g. correcting or modelling chunks, increases their confidence while consolidating existing knowledge.Cauldwell’s (2018) technique (4.1.2) is appreciated by Greek learners, who prefer creative and fun activities to lecture-type teaching in my experience. Moreover, intermediate Greek learners are more comfortable with dictionary pronunciation; practicing and repeating the “messy” form heightens awareness of rapid speech that may occur in exam tasks. As Cauldwell (2018) suggests, if they can say it, they can decode it. Nevertheless, some Greek learners felt embarrassed and refused to repeat the messy form. Mumbling or internal drilling (Underhill, 2008) can be encouraged instead; they still manipulate the oral form without feeling exposed. 4.2 Bingo cardTo help learners with vague language (3.2), I use bingo: Procedure: Play recording once to process for meaning.Distribute bingo sheet (appendix 2).Ask learners to read it, listen again and tick the four phrases they hear. When they have ticked all four, they shout Bingo!They check answers with the transcript.Ask learners if this language is specific or approximate. Explicitly clarify form (adding -ish after adjectives or numbers, use kind of and sort of with adjectives, and so on, and that kind of stuff to complete a sentence.Model and drill phrases.Evaluation: I believe that intermediate level is the right time to teach vague language; it would also improve intermediate Polish learners’ understanding of Netflix programmes and interaction with native speakers. I find that bingo, as Wilson (2008) and White (2010) agree, is ideal for selective listening and draws attention to the target items. As Benati (2017) suggests, this input flood, i.e. multiple encounters of vague language in the bingo card, can help Polish learners notice it and retain both form and meaning. Moreover, modelling and drilling:is expected by Polish learners in my experience.provide exposure and manipulation of the oral form and enable Polish learners to decode vague language faster when they hear it, without wasting time, like before. Polish learners appreciate explicit clarification from the teacher in my experience, hence the direct focus on form.Nevertheless, I have noticed that some Polish learners, being used to more traditional techniques, consider bingo a non-educational activity. An alternative task is a neutral listen-and-tick-what-you-hear activity (appendix 3). 4.3 DictoglossI use dictogloss as a more effective decoding task (3.3) to focus on chunks (3.1) and learners’ individual weaknesses (3.4).Procedure: Learners listen to the recording (appendix 1) three times:the first time without taking notes.the second, they write down key words. the third, they expand on their notes. Then, they reconstruct the text in groups and compare theirs with the transcript, what Wilson (2003) calls the discovery stage. Students underline their uncertainties and discuss errors with each other and the teacher. They can keep a listening log (Kemp, 2009), where they record errors (appendix 4) or classify them by type.Evaluation: Dictogloss is a collaborative output-based technique (Benati, 2017) which engages teenagers (3.3) as:group work makes tasks less stressful teenagers respond well to learner-centred tasks and appreciate a degree of independence in my experience.it is an active and motivating task with a reasonable challenge at intermediate level.Dictogloss benefits Greek exam students (3.1), as language in the recordings mostly occurs in chunks (Woolard, n.d.). Thus, during the discovery stage, intermediate Greek learners compare their notes to the transcript, measure their ability to decode chunks and learn from their mistakes. I concur with Thornbury (1999) that dictogloss can cater for different needs. It allows Spanish B1 learners (3.4) to trace individual weaknesses at the discovery stage. Some will notice uncertainties caused by connected speech (2.3.7), others will become aware of flexible sound shapes of words (2.3.5). Hence, they make new sound to form connections (Ellis, 1995) and prioritize the problems they need to overcome. Adult learners (3.1, 3.4) in my view have high expectations from courses, as Harmer (2015) also notes; techniques that allow them to focus on their own weaknesses are highly appreciated.Some teachers, according to Wilson (2008), fear that providing transcripts, cushions teenagers or exam students against making real effort to listen and does not mirror real-life situations. I agree with Cauldwell (2018) that training students to cope is valuable but they also need to receive training and develop confidence; overusing deep-end approaches is likely to cause teenagers anxiety and demotivate adults to the point of quitting classes in my experience. BibliographyAnderson, A. and Lynch, T. (1998). Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Benati, A. (2017). The role of input and output tasks in grammar instruction: Theoretical, empirical and pedagogical considerations.?Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), pp.377-396.Cauldwell, R. (2018). A syllabus for listening. Birmingham: speechinaction.Caudlwell, R. (2009) The functional irrhythmicality of spontaneous speech: A discourse view of speech rhythms. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 2(1), pp. 1-24.Dellar, H. and Walkley, A. (2017). Teaching lexically. Stuttgart: DELTA publishing.Field, J. (2003). Promoting perception: lexical segmentation in L2 listening. ELT Journal, 57(4), pp.325-334.Field, J. (2010). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Harmer, J. (2015). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Pearson/Longman.Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford. Oxford University Press.Kemp, J. (2009). The Listening Log: motivating autonomous learning. ELT Journal, 64(4), pp.385-395.Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. New York: Prentice Hall. Richards, J. (2008). Teaching listening and speaking. Singapore: Cambridge University Press.Swan, M. and Smith, B. (2001). Learner English. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Thornbury, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Longman.Underhill, A. (2008). Sound foundations. Oxford: Macmillan.Ur, P. (1984). Teaching listening comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vandergrift, L. and Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening. New York: Routledge. Vandergrift, L. 2004. ‘Listening to learn or learning to listen?’. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 3–25White, G. (2010) Listening. Oxford University Press, 2010.Wilson, J. (2008). How to teach listening. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.Wilson, M. (2003). Discovery listening--improving perceptual processing. ELT Journal, 57(4), pp.335-343.Online sourcesCauldwell, R. (2002). Phonology for Listening: Relishing the messy. [online] . Available at: [Accessed 9 Jul. 2019].Learnenglishteens.. (2019). Important people. [online] Available at: [Accessed 20 July 2019].Swift, S. (2013). An ELT Glossary: Connected Speech - Sandhi Variations. [online] Eltnotebook.. Available at: [Accessed 17 Jul. 2019].Thornbury, S. (2011). zero uncertainty | An A-Z of ELT. [online] Scottthornbury.. Available at: / [Accessed 20 May 2019].Willis, J. (2014). Lesson 3 Vague Language. [online] Willis-elt.co.uk. Available at: [Accessed 20 July 2019].Woolard, G. (n.d.). [PDF] Collocations,Chunks,and the Corpus - A (more) Lexical Approach - Free Download PDF. [online] . Available at: [Accessed 8 Aug. 2019].AppendicesAppendix 1: TranscriptSource: Learnenglishteens.. (2019). His family moved in just a few houses down from us when I was about ten, and I still remember how excited I felt when I found out there was another boy on the street. I’d been the only boy, you see. The others were all girls. We were good friends from the beginning because we were into the same things: computers and football, mostly. But we had quite a few of the same hobbies for a while. I remember making lots of models of aeroplanes one year. Another year we took up fishing. We had all the equipment and everything and we’d spend ages down by the river. His family moved away a couple of days ago. We’re still friends on Facebook but I know I’m going to miss him a lot.Appendix 2: BingoBingo time! Cross the words/phrases you hear!SevenishKind of lateSort of oldOldishA museum or somethingthirtyishYoungishSixish Museums and that kind of stufftranscript-Who is Mr. Jacobs?-He’s Jane’s new husband. -Jane’s husband? But how old is he?-Well, I guess he’s oldish.. He’s twelve years older than us.-What does he do? Is he a teacher too?-No..I’m not sure.. I think he works at a museum or something.-Museum? He sounds boring!-Not at all! He’s really funny. If you come over for dinner tonight, you’ll meet him.-Fine, I’ll be there round sevenish.-That’s kind of late.. Be here at six! I need help in the kitchen!Appendix 3: listen and tickListen and tick what you hear:SevenishOldishYoungishSixishThirtyishSort of old Kind of lateMuseums and that kind of stuffA museum or somethingAppendix 4: Learning log ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download