A Model for Listening and Viewing Comprehension in
Multimedia Environments
Debra Hoven
Abstract
This paper proposes an instructional
design model appropriate for humanistic multimedia Computer-Enhanced Language
Learning (CELL) in a self-access environment for second language learning
through listening and viewing comprehension. The model is grounded in sociocultural theory, and set against a background of
research into the complexities of listening and viewing, individual learner
differences and learning styles, characteristics of self-directed and
autonomous learning, and user-friendly instructional
software design.
INTRODUCTION
Computers give learners freedom to work
at their own pace and level, and to receive immediate and personalized
feedback. In terms of group dynamics, they enable learners to pool their
knowledge in more effective ways and enhance peer correction and language
repair work. For this reason, the term CELL is used here in preference to CALL
(Computer-Assisted/Aided Language Learning) to recognize the enhancing role
that computers play in the language learning process. Humanistic elements of
the use of computers in language learning emerge in discussions of types and
techniques of learning, where CELL brings the real world into the classroom,
makes learning more relevant, develops the learners’ sense of responsibility,
promotes non-linear and co-operative learning, helps reduce the need for a
meta-language, and changes the role of the teacher (Batley
& Freudenstein, 1991, pp.14-16).
From a philosophical point of view,
computers have a very different role today than they did in the past. By taking
on humanistic principles and shedding the rigidity of behaviorist approaches
and associated programmed learning, the scenarios for the use of computers in
language learning can be greatly expanded. In sharp contrast to the criticisms levelled at language laboratories, both with and without
computer technology, a much wider range of interaction models is now available
to learners (Davies & Higgins, 1985, pp. 35-36).
·
Learners can choose either to correct themselves or to be
corrected by the computer, the teacher, or peers.
·
Utterances need not be fabricated, though they must still
generally be pre-recorded for computer retrieval.
·
Communication is possible either between two or more
learners at the same terminal, at geographically distant terminals, or in an
interactive sense between learner and video and/or audio (Brett, 1995; Chang
& Smith, 1991; Doughty, 1991).
·
Learners can actively participate in the delivery of the
lessons, their interpretation of meaning during the activity, and the choices
they make (Bright, Verano, & Cubero,
1991; Garrigues, 1991).
·
Flexibility is limited only by the foresight of the designers
of the learning packages or the providers of learning materials.
With the extension of the presence of computers
in learning environments to include computer-mediated communications (CMC) such
as those possible using electronic mail or the Internet, we must now devise
models for computer-enhanced pedagogy to encompass these new interlocutors (Chapelle, 1994). In devising such models, it is important
that we keep in mind the theories and findings from mainstream second language
(L2) pedagogy and modern theories of second language acquisition (
While the presence of new technology and
new means of using it entail the development of new models, this is no reason
to start completely afresh. For example, the addition of multimedia
capabilities does not necessarily imply that a whole new set of pedagogical
models needs to be devised. Rather, we should look to findings in more
traditional areas such as classroom interaction, self-directed learning, and
the use of audio and video in language instruction to ground our models of good
practice in the areas of multimedia and CMC in language learning. We will look
at some of these findings and explore their relationship with newer technology
with a view toward developing a sociocultural
language learning model that incorporates these features.
This paper is divided into two sections:
the first dealing predominantly with the application of listening theory in the
context of computer technology, and the second with aspects of a sociocultural model for language learning in this context.
In the model proposed here, the framework for the allocation of control to
learners is provided in the software by structuring and presenting the
available language learning resources in a manner that is easy for them to
navigate, while at the same time providing the information necessary for the
learners to make informed decisions about their learning path (Lian & Lian, 1997). In
keeping with the principles outlined above, this management of learning choices
is improved by enabling learners to make informed decisions relating to their
own learning using the resources contained in, or presented through, the
software package.
LISTENING
AND VIEWING COMPREHENSION: THEORY AND APPLICATIONS
Learners
and L2 listening comprehension
Earlier discussions and
examinations of listening as a discrete component of language learning focused
mainly on classifying and grading listening tasks in terms of difficulty (Fish,
1981; Nunan, 1989; Richards, 1983; Ur, 1984). The
perception of difficulty usually resided in the difficulty of the material used
as the content for the comprehension activities, often borrowed from
readability measures for written texts. Concepts of the readability of texts,
in turn, were based on word counts and the frequency of occurrence of discourse
features such as nominalization, redundancy, and ellipsis (Grellet,
1981; Nunan, 1991; Swaffar
& Bacon, 1993). These readability measures were transferred to the
listening environment as the basis for determining the comprehensibility of
listening texts. Other measures of difficulty in listening comprehension (LC)
relied on some undefined and unspecified inherent qualities of the tasks. The
listening passages were often created, or at least simplified, for teaching
purposes, and the determination of levels of difficulty was often arbitrary or
subjective (Lynch, 1988, p. 178).
As changes in the focus of language teaching and
learning have moved from content- or teacher-centered
to more learner- or learning-centered approaches, the
focus in LC has also shifted. The social dynamics of listening have become a
much stronger force in the investigation and use of LC for language learning
(Lynch, 1988; Rost, 1990; Rubin, 1994). Progressively
less emphasis is now being placed on listening as a cognitive process internal
to the hearer, while the processes of interaction and meaning-negotiation are
being extensively investigated (Doughty, 1991; Dunkel,
1991b; Pica, Young, & Doughty, 1987; Robinson, 1991).
Researchers are also refining their
understanding of the essential differences and similarities between reading and
listening (Canale, 1984; Hoven,
1991; Lund, 1991; Swaffar & Bacon, 1993). This
has lead to the recognition that there are aspects of LC, in addition to those
mentioned above, that contribute to learners’ difficulty in successfully
completing LC tasks, and increasing their proficiency in this area. Where
previously the content material was graded, structured, or specially created in
keeping with the authors’ perceptions of ease and difficulty, it is now being
suggested that the tasks themselves be graded, particularly in the context of
increasing use of authentic texts (Hoven, 1991; Lund,
1990; Lynch, 1988; Mendelsohn & Rubin, 1995; Nunan, 1989).
Background
to listening comprehension research
Recently, the focus of the examination of
factors contributing to successful LC has shifted toward formulating theories
which define the features involved in the L2 listening process (Anderson &
Lynch, 1988; Byrnes, 1984; Dunkel, 1991a; Rubin, 1994).
As Rost (1990) asks,
Is understanding a mental
phenomenon recoverable through the mind of the hearer or is it a social
phenomenon recoverable through examination of subsequent behaviour
by the listener? (p. 1)
However, except for examinations of L2 pronunciation
and auditory perception using computers, the implementation of LC in a
computer-assisted environment has not yet been attempted within a coherent
theoretical framework (Craven, Sinyor, & Paramskas, 1990;
Higgins, 1995; Kenning & Kenning, 1990; Pennington, 1989, 1996).
With a shift to more meaning- and
communication-oriented teaching approaches which started in the 1970s, much has
been published on the nature of the listening process and techniques for
teaching LC (Boekaerts, 1981; Boyle, 1984; Buck,
1992; Faerch & Kasper, 1986; Long, 1989; Lund,
1990; Richards, 1985; Taylor, 1981; Wipf, 1984).
Research into the interaction between speaking and listening (Anderson &
Lynch, 1988; Brown, 1986, 1989; Brown & Yule, 1983; Byrnes, 1984; Dunkel 1986; Nunan, 1990) has led
to the construction of information processing models of listening (Cook, 1985),
and, more recently, to investigations of various aspects of the listening task
and participants (Bacon, 1992a, 1992b; Herron, 1994; Rubin, 1994).
In addition, with increasingly more
sophisticated visual media, a perception is emerging of the intimate
relationship between viewing comprehension (VC) and LC. This applies
particularly in L2 and foreign language (FL) learning, where teachers and
cross-cultural researchers are focusing on the meanings conveyed by gesture,
expression, and body language (Armstrong, Stokoe,
& Wilcox, 1995; Fidelman, 1994, 1997; Hurley,
1992; Kellerman, 1992). Since the introduction of
video players into L2 language classrooms, and more recently with the advent of
interactive multimedia applications for L2 learning, paralinguistic features
have been receiving more attention in teaching and in learning applications
(Brett, 1995; Fidelman, 1994, 1997).
Changing
complexion of issues and factors in L2 listening comprehension
Increasingly, research is attempting to
establish the role of the learner as an active interpreter and negotiator of
the meaning of messages (Jonassen, 1992; Lantolf & Appel, 1994).
Research energy is turning away from mental
phenomenon towards social phenomenon
models. As Rubin (1994, p. 199) summarizes it, the on-going dialogue among
researchers about the nature of learners’ interaction with oral input revolves
around the characteristics of (a) text, (b) interlocutor, (c) task, (d)
listener, and (e) process (see also Hoven, 1991). In
addition, technological advances have made available to teachers and learners
certain forms of visual media, such as television and videos, to expand LC to
encompass VC as well (Kellerman, 1992;
Schmidt-Reinhart, 1994). Therefore, it has become essential to incorporate a
discussion of the impact of VC on listening, and listening tasks into the new
language learning models.
Many of the factors listed by Rubin
(1994), such as task and process characteristics, relate to general learning
and language learning rather than exclusively to listening. However, certain
aspects of these factors, such as acoustic variables, are inherently specific
to listening and viewing. This paper will deal with those specific aspects.
The
complementarity of listening and viewing
The increasing focus on multimedia in CALL
necessitates a renewed examination of the complementary nature of the visual
and auditory channels in listening and viewing comprehension. This is
particularly the case in the current context of an expanding emphasis on
non-verbal channels of communication in which video and other multimedia
resources are becoming prevalent in L2 learning contexts (Brett, 1995; Felix,
1995; Kennedy, Tiziana, & Visocnik;
Liou, 1995; Murray, 1995; Staddon,
1990). Areas of study include the following:
·
the importance of visual context (Hanley, Herron, &
Cole, 1995; Herron, 1994; Secules, Herron, & Tomasello, 1992),
·
the role of non-verbal aspects of communicative competence
(Kellerman, Ammerlaan, Bongaerts, & Poulisse, 1990; Meyer, 1990; Neu,
1990),
·
cross-cultural effects of non-verbal communication (Hurley,
1992),
·
messages conveyed through the visual channel (Herron,
Morris, Secules, & Curtis, 1995; Herron & Seay, 1991; Kellerman, 1992; Neu, 1990),
·
strategies used with audio-visual material (Mueller, 1980; Vogely, 1995; Wolff, 1987),
·
skills developed
through the use of computer-assisted multimedia (Brett, 1995; Dalgish, 1987; Fidelman, 1997; Hoven & Farquhar, 1996; Linquist, Rowekamp, & Stenson, 1991; Meskill, 1991b).
Examination of the role of the visual
channel leads to a discussion of the complementary nature of visual to auditory
cues in LC involving video and multimedia resources, such as in CELL packages
(Graham, 1990; Hurley, 1992; Kellerman, 1992; Neu, 1990). In expanding this discussion of LC to include paralinguistics, the focus is not solely on these aspects,
but rather the importance of including these critical aspects of listening and
viewing comprehension in the language learning process. Here, paralinguistic
features encompass kinesics, proxemics, and prosody.
The term kinesics refers to communicative movements such as facial, hand, and
other body expressions or gestures that accompany, complement, or replace
verbal utterances. Proxemics refers to the
"degree of physical distance between interlocutors which is acceptable in
a culture, including touching" (Hurley, 1992, p. 261). Following Arndt and
Janney (1987: 234-5) and Gassin
(1992), prosody comprises the varying "accent
(articulatory force, emphasis, stress, pitch
prominence), intonation (tune,
melody, pitch contour, pitch direction), and rhythm (speed, duration, pause, tempo) " of speakers (Gassin, 1992: 7).
As the studies by Beebe & Takahashi
(1989), Kasper (1989), and Lörscher (1986), have
indicated, attention to and practice in paralinguistic aspects of L2
communication can and should be implemented in language classes and materials,
particularly through activities in which the learners themselves control and
direct the interaction. Kellerman (1992) and Hurley
(1992, p. 274) advocate the use of target language audio-visual material
containing a range of different interaction types to enhance awareness of the
verbal, prosodic, kinesic and non-verbal features
used by members of the speech community.
Thus, studies of the relationship
between kinesic information and verbal communication
have shown the importance of kinesics in conveying and interpreting meaning at
a number of levels. These findings have considerable impact on the uses of
multimedia in a CELL environment. Therefore, not only should the visual channel
be incorporated into CELL materials, but also explicit efforts must be made to
provide learners with information on the kinesic
aspects of messages and how to interpret and produce them. These should include
information on how kinesic messages are conveyed in
the particular language being studied or materials being used, in order to
raise learners’ awareness of the importance of kinesics (Kellerman,
1992). This can be implemented in the software by displaying the pitch and
amplitude curves of authentic audiovisual texts (Lian
& Lian, 1997). A CELL multimedia environment also
offers learners some unique opportunities to select and focus on specific
intercultural differences in kinesic and prosodic
features and simultaneously gain practice in their use (Fidelman,
1994; Hoven, 1997b).
Essential
features of the listening process
Considerable L2 evidence has accumulated
over the last two decades which shows that effective listening requires active
mental processing by listeners on several levels, particularly in interactive
listening situations (Anderson & Lynch, 1988; Lynch, 1988; Riley, 1981).
Researchers have found that semantic and syntactic systems as well as top-down
and bottom-up processing operate simultaneously (Anderson & Lynch, 1988;
Bacon, 1992; Bond & Garnes, 1980; Conrad, 1985;
Lund, 1991; Marslen-Wilson & Tyler, 1980;
O’Malley, Chamot, & Küpper,
1989; Van Patten, 1989; Voss, 1984; Wolff, 1987). However, there is some
disagreement about which kind of processing predominates at different levels of
learner L2 proficiency (Rubin, 1994, pp. 210-211). Nevertheless, the components
of the listening process, including the listening text, the complete context of
this text (both external and internal to the listener), the task demands, and
the responses required of the listener are all interrelated.
Listening
comprehension and CELL: Constraints and advantages
Constraints
The implementation of listening and
viewing comprehension tasks in a CELL context implies certain advantages and
certain constraints. The constraints lie in the difficulties of allowing
students to input random text of the kind necessary for summarizing tasks.
Technology has not yet developed the capacity to process random text input
through the keyboard in ways that can simulate the way a teacher would annotate
and give feedback on a student’s work. However, this does not mean that such
tasks cannot be implemented in a CELL environment in a modified form.
Another constraint for CELL, arising from the
same difficulties as the one above, is the lack of realistic person-to-person
interaction. In the context of CMC via e-mail or the World Wide Web, real
learner-to-learner communication is possible for geographically separated
students. Although there are still bandwidth and financial constraints on the
personal use of visual computer-based communication, this may not be the case
for much longer, given the present rapid rate of technological development.
Nevertheless, even now it is easy to partially compensate for the lack of
interpersonal interaction by making available on-line grammar notes,
dictionaries, contextualized feedback, and repeated individualized playback.
All of these features can be provided whenever and as often as the learner
needs them.
Advantages
The importance of providing learners
with timely, task-specific feedback in LC practice is widely acknowledged.
Because of perception and recall constraints in LC, the availability of
immediate feedback can be a distinct advantage. Another advantage of a CELL
environment relates to the necessity for learners to be exposed to the same
text from different perspectives and with emphasis on different aspects in
order to fully comprehend a listening text. It is a simple matter to provide
learners with "multiple exposures to the same or similar texts" (Rost, 1990, p. 169). Moreover, choices about how often to
review a text, how many tasks to design for the same text, the level of
cognitive difficulty, and the type of text, can all be determined by the
learners themselves, with appropriate structuring and guidance provided in the
software.
Essential
principles of CELL
The following five hypotheses flow from various
research studies in learning, language learning, and computer- or
technology-mediated learning as being critical to effective CELL:
1. Interaction and
negotiation are important features of communication, and therefore of L2
learning (Doughty, 1987);
2. Computers with
appropriately designed software can play a mediating role between L2 learners
and their sociocultural context (Chapelle,
1994; Jonassen, 1992);
3. Software can be
designed to facilitate L2 learners’ interaction with the computer, and
negotiation of meaning from texts (Bickel & Truscello,
1996; Meskill, 1992);
4. The essential
characteristic of software is to enable learners to take control of both the
content of the learning material, and their approach to making meaning from it
(Robinson, 1991; Stevens, 1992);
5. Not all L2
learners, especially in the initial stages of L2 acquisition, want to, or are
able, to take control of their learning (Candy, 1987; Robinson, 1991).
What are the essential features of an
instructional design model that incorporates these research findings? The
following three features emerge at this stage:
1. We can improve
the kinds of tasks we provide for learners by increasing the level of choice
available to them;
2. In providing
increased choice, we, as instructional designers, need to recognize, understand,
and make provisions for individual differences in learning styles and learning
strategies;
3. With increased
choice, learners must be provided with the information to make those choices.
In a CELL environment, we can therefore give
learners informed control over the choice of task, topic or text content, and
the speed of progress through the tasks or within a task.
Collectively the above five hypotheses
encompass the critical features of the proposed model for the nature of
language learning, the contemporary role of computers in language learning, an
instructional design framework to suit this role, and the nature of the
relationship between learners and computer-based materials. In the discussion
below some of the implications of these principles for the proposed
instructional design model will be explored.
Learning
strategies and CELL
In order to incorporate
awareness-raising about learning strategies into the CELL environment,
taxonomies such as those of
The term interactivity in the context of the model being proposed here
refers to the potential for the learner to make decisions about the content,
mode, order, pace, level, and degree of self-direction of a software package.
In addition, it can be extended to mean the capacity the model provides for the
learner to interact with, interpret, negotiate, and make meaning from the texts
available, whether these are printed, audio, audio-visual, or visual.
A
SOCIOCULTURAL MODEL FOR CELL
Background
to the paradigm adopted for this model
This section provides a preliminary
explanation of the perceived need for, and uses of
CELL today. For the purpose of simplicity, the term second language learning is used here to refer to the learning of
another language after one’s first language (L1), whether within the target
culture, or removed from it.
The paradigm proposed here is based on a
humanistic cognitivist
perspective on the teaching of language using computer technology. This
perspective incorporates some elements of humanistic methodology (Stevick, 1990), cognitive learning theories (McLaughlin,
1987; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990), and sociocultural theories of language learning (Halliday, 1993; Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Wells, 1994). The humanistic aspect is based
on a belief in the necessary involvement of the whole person in the language
learning process. The cognitivist aspect derives from
the conviction that one of the ways L2 learners acquire language is through
progressive modification of their interlanguage brought
about by a process of hypothesis testing, confirmation/disconfirmation, and
subsequent modification. The sociocultural paradigm
provides an interpretative framework within which to anchor the complex
interplay of the features both internal and external to the physical body of
the learner. It is this paradigm which promotes cohesion and complementarity among these disparate perspectives.
Within this paradigm, learners take an
active, goal-oriented role, negotiating and interpreting new experiences in terms
of previous ones and of models they have built up to reformulate their internal
schemata. A corollary to this view is that if learners are provided with
opportunities to use language and learning strategies in L2, and if they are
given some training in their application, they can develop these strategies
through exposure to and experience in the L2 (McMeniman,
1994; Perrett, 1995). Such development can take place
through a series of steps, called scaffolding,
in which teachers play a progressively diminishing role as the involvement and
investment of the learner progressively increases (Donato,
1994). In this way, learners become more autonomous and
self-directing in their attitudes and approaches to their own learning
(Adair-Hauck & Donato, 1994; Rowsell
& Libben, 1994), enabling teachers to devote
their time and effort to aspects of language learning not easily mediated by
computers.
In an attempt to remedy the perceived
inability of Chomsky's transformational generative grammar (1965, 1981) to
account fully for the influence of social and cultural contexts on the semantic
aspects of language, Halliday (1978, 1985b) developed
a systemic functional grammar, which emphasizes the way in which the different
systems interact in the whole context of language, including the social and
cultural features. This theory represented the introduction of a focus on the sociocultural aspects of language, with emphasis on the way
in which social and cultural interaction shapes the realization of meaning.
A particularly strong influence over the
last few years on our understanding of the nature of language learning and the
interrelationship between language and learning has come from the recognition
of the similarities between the theories of Halliday
and Vygotsky. While Halliday,
as a linguist, has produced a detailed grammar that incorporates an
acknowledgement of the integral part that social interaction plays in language,
Vygotsky’s contributions have been greater in the
area of the role of language processing in the development of higher mental
processes. However, both scholars are interested in the development of language
as human beings grow and develop as social beings. In addition, they both
subscribe to the notion that "language is a human invention" (Wells,
1994), and both believe that there is a symbiotic relationship between language
and culture, and that language is intimately involved in the development of the
intellect.
A critical facet of Vygotsky’s
conception of the development of higher mental processes is realized as the Zone of Proximal Development or ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). This zone represents the sphere of
potential intellectual growth within which an individual can develop with the
stimulus and intervention of other more skilled individuals. The ZPD has been
likened in concept to Krashen’s concept of i + 1 (Richard-Amato, 1988). However, the
ZPD places more emphasis on the process
of learning development than on the stages. It is the interaction with others,
such as teachers, guides, mentors, or even computers, that
triggers the arousal of internal developmental processes. Lantolf
and Appel (1994) describe it as follows:
…the process of
voluntary acting is distributed between two people, one of whom (the adult or
expert) already knows how to perform a particular act and one who (the child or
novice) does not. Equally important is the fact that speech serves to direct,
or mediate, the interactive process that transpires between the two… The
difference between what the child, or novice, is
capable of when acting alone and what he or she is capable of when acting under
the guidance of a more experienced other is referred to as the zone of proximal development. (p. 10)
Donato (1994) uses the
concept of the ZPD to expand the potential of interaction from the conduit metaphor of a message in
communication to include and emphasize collaborative meaning making. For Donato, this metaphor for a communicative event as merely
"the successful sending and receiving of linguistic tokens…masks
fundamentally important mechanisms of L2 [second language] development"
such that "in the end, the social context is impoverished and undervalued
as an arena for truly collaborative L2 acquisition" (p. 34). Donato proposes the metaphor of scaffolding as an
alternative to that of the conduit, to exemplify the role of the ZPD in
language development. The metaphor of scaffolding is used to support the
principle that
in social
interaction a knowledgeable participant can create, by means of speech,
supportive conditions in which the novice can participate in, and extend,
current skills and knowledge to higher levels of competence (Donato, 1994, p. 40)
The concept of the ZPD thus represents a
useful metaphor for describing the kinds of interactions and posited outcomes
that a successful CELL software package should engender.
The
concept of learner-centeredness
Central to the development of a CELL model that
allocates more control to the learners is an understanding of what is meant by
learner-centeredness. Over the last quarter-century, the predominant factors
effecting changes in approach and methodology have been the following:
1. a stronger focus
on the learner as an individual (Ellis, 1985; Skehan,
1989; Stevick, 1976, 1981),
2. a corresponding
shift from a focus on teaching to a focus on learners and learning (Cotterall, 1995; Gremmo &
Riley, 1995; Kumaravadivelu, 1993; Little, 1995),
3. consideration of
differences in learning styles (Felder & Henriques,
1995; Griffiths & Sheen, 1992; Oxford & Ehrman,
1993; Wenden & Rubin, 1987; Willing, 1989) and
learning strategies (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990;
Oxford, 1990, 1993; Wenden, 1995; Wenden
& Rubin, 1987), and
4. various manifestations
of humanism (Asher, 1981; Crawford & Trojer,
1983; Curran, 1976; Gattegno, 1976; Lozanov, 1979; Stevick, 1990;
Underhill, 1989).
The focus on learners’ needs has become
central to the philosophy of learner-centeredness, as has the principle of
developing learners’ understanding of their own language learning styles and
processes (Brindley, 1984; Nunan,
1988; Wenden, 1991; Willing, 1985). As part of these
processes, learners need to be able to select which texts may be appropriate
for their specific needs. In the contexts of distance educationand
flexible delivery, this can be facilitated through a multimedia database which
uses classifications such as register, participants, and language function (Hoven, 1997b; Lian & Lian, 1997).
In a CELL environment, learners can be
introduced to taking control over their own learning by providing them with
exposure to awareness-raising activities across all parts of their language
learning program, including the CELL software. In the initial stages, highly
structured (teacher-centered) materials need to be available to cater to the
needs of those learners with a strong dependence on teacher direction. However,
to cater to differentially rapid development in the direction of autonomy, it
is also necessary to provide the means whereby learners can take more control
if they feel capable of doing so. This can be achieved by writing into the
design of a CELL software package several levels of entry or several modes of
interaction based on varying levels of learner control.
Roles
and characteristics of CELL in relation to listening comprehension
In the
context of multimedia, it is also necessary to consider the nature of emerging
roles of the computer as interlocutor, expert teacher, and mediator of
learning. According to Jonassen (1992, p.2), less
emphasis should be on the design of the technologies and more on the processes
involved in task completion. In order for these roles to be realized, the use
of computers needs to be located within a learning environment that promotes
and supports the activation of learners’ mental processes across all activities
and resources. The following is an outline of the elements of such a
technology-mediated learning environment:
1. total learning
environment characterized by a task-based and/or process-based syllabus and a
focus on
learning strategies
(learning how to learn)
language functions and
purposes
language structures
paralinguistic features
socio-cultural features
autonomy and
self-direction
2. focus all activities
on the development of control and responsibility for own learning
3. cultivate
learner self-direction and autonomy
4. provide access
to facilities for multi-channelled
perception/production
5. cultivate self- and
peer- feedback and evaluation techniques among learners (to improve
self-confidence and group cohesion)
6. design CELL
activities that incorporate self-exploration and self-discovery of problems and
errors
7. provide a range of
print and non-print based resources, including student- and teacher-produced
materials and well as those commercially available and on the Web.
In the context of CELL, there is also
room to raise the question of whether characteristics of the computer software,
help, and feedback mechanisms may be classified as interlocutor characteristics when there is a level of interactivity
between learners and these functions. While such questions lie outside the scope
of this article, studies in the field of human-computer interface (Reeves &
Nass, 1996), have begun to
deal with some aspects of this question.
There have so far been no studies in the CALL
area dealing specifically with the characteristics of interlocutors in
human-computer interactions, though researchers such as Dickson (1985) and Meskill (1992) have begun to investigate which aspects of
software and what kinds of computer-learner groupings lead to more
communicative interaction. In addition, Chapelle
(1994), working within the understanding of genre developed by Halliday and Hasan (1989) and
Swales (1990), suggests that the effective use and study of CALL hinges on the
analysis of CALL activities in terms of three levels of difference: text, genre,
and context. According to Chapelle, the computer is
both one of the participants in the co-creation of a text, and a mediator in
the learning experience (p. 38).
For Chapelle,
the computer clearly has a role to play as an interactor
in a language learning context. However, as stressed by Jonassen
(1992), computer technology does not of itself take this role. Pedersen (1987,
p. 100) also finds that "recent CALL research…suggests that the design of computer software to cause
adjustments in cognitive processing, not the medium used to deliver instruction, stands the best chance of
affecting learning outcomes." Technology is only the vehicle for the
pedagogy embodied in the software, and thus the rationale behind the design of
the software is what allows the computer to perform in this interactive role.
More specifically, the features of the computer that allow it to be used as a
mediator of learning are the instructional design of the learning activities,
the content of the learning material, the design of the interface, and the
various help and feedback facilities. This mediator role includes that of
mentor in the learner’s learning progression through the Zone of Proximal
Development.
Putting
it all together: What does the model look like?
Having considered the various features
to be included in a learner-centered sociocultural
model for incorporating CELL software, we now turn to the question of how these
features can be put together. It seems clear from the preceding discussion that
in order for the software to be effective as a learning tool, it needs to be
located within a learning environment that employs the same approach
consistently across the different learning activities, resources, and tools
which comprise this environment.
Within this environment, the content of the
software must incorporate what we know about effective listening and viewing
comprehension from a theoretical perspective, and relate this to sociocultural principles. In addition, individual
differences in learners, including learning styles and preferred learning
modes, must be factored in, to cater to the heterogeneity of learners. Finally,
the instructional design of the software, including the functional and
navigational aspects, must be mapped onto these components to produce a coherent
model as illustrated in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 Proposed learner-centered model for designing multimedia CELL software
for listening comprehension
CONCLUSION
From the preceding discussion, it can be
seen that it is difficult and probably undesirable to attempt to determine the
difficulty of a listening and viewing task in any absolute terms. By
considering the three aspects that affect the level of difficulty, namely text, task, and context features,
it is possible to identify those characteristics of tasks that can be
manipulated. Having identified the variable characteristics of tasks in
developing the model, it is necessary to look to the dynamic interaction among,
tasks, texts, and the computer-based environment.
Task design and text selection in this
model also incorporate the identification and consideration of context.
Teachers can make provision for their influence on learner perception of
difficulty by providing texts and tasks that range across these levels, and by
ensuring that learners with lower language proficiency can ease themselves
gradually into the more contextually difficult tasks. This can be achieved by
reducing the level of difficulty of other parameters such as text or task
difficulty, or by minimizing other aspects of contextual difficulty. Thus, for
example, learners of lower proficiency who are exposed for the first time to a
task based on a broadcast announcement would be provided with appropriate
visual support in the form of graphics or video to reduce textual difficulty.
The task type would also be kept to a low level of cognitive demand (Hoven, 1991, 1997a, 1997b).
In a CELL environment, this
identification of parameters of difficulty enables task designers to develop
and modify tasks on the basis of clear language pedagogy that is both
learner-centered and cognitively sound. Learners are provided with the
necessary information on text, task, and context to make informed choices, and
are given opportunities to implement their decisions. Teachers are therefore
creating a CELL environment that facilitates and encourages exploration of, and
experimentation with, the choices available. Within this model, learners are
then able to adjust their own learning paths through the texts and tasks, and
can do this at their own pace and at their individual points of readiness. In sociocultural terms, the model provides learners with a
guiding framework or community of practice within which to develop through
their individual Zones of Proximal Development. The model provides them with
the tools to mediate meaning in the form of software incorporating information,
feedback, and appropriate help systems.
By taking account of learners’ needs and
making provision for learner choice in this way, one of the major advantages of
using computers in language learning -- their capacity to allow learners to
work at their own pace and in their own time -- can be more fully exploited. It
then becomes our task as researchers to evaluate, with learners’ assistance, the
effectiveness of environments such as these in improving the
their listening and viewing comprehension as well as their approaches to
learning in these environments.
References
Adair-Hauck, B., & Donato, R.
(1994). Foreign language explanations within the zone
of proximal development. The
Canadian Modern Language Review 50 (3),
532-557.
Anderson, A., & Lynch, T. (1988). Listening.
Armstrong, D. F., Stokoe, W. C., &
Wilcox, S. E. (1995). Gesture
and the nature of language.
Arndt, H., & Janney, R. W. (1987). InterGrammar: Toward an integrative model of verbal,
prosodic and kinesic choices in speech.
Asher, J. J. (1981). Comprehension training: The evidence from
laboratory and classroom studies. In H. Winitz (Ed.),
The Comprehension Approach to Foreign Language
Instruction (pp. 187-222).
Bacon, S. M. (1992a). Authentic listening in spanish: how learners adjust their strategies to the
difficulty of input. Hispania 75, 29-43.
Bacon, S. M. (1992b). The relationship between gender,
comprehension, processing strategies, cognitive and affective response in
foreign language listening. Modern
Language Journal 76 (2), 160-178.
Batley, E. M., & Freudenstein, R.
(Eds.). (1991). CALL for the
Nineties: Computer Technology in Language Learning.
Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Do you have a bag?: Social status and patterned variation in second language
acquisition. In
Bickel, B., & Truscello, D. (1996). New
opportunities for learning: styles and strategies for computers. TESOL Journal 6 (1), 15-19.
Boekaerts,
M. (1981). Is there a direct link between the comprehension process and the
production process? In M. Heid (Ed.), Protokoll eines Werkstattgesprachs des Goethe House,
Bond, Z. S., & Garnes, S. (1980). Misperceptions of fluent speech. In R. A.
Cole (Ed.), Perception and production of
fluent speech, pp. 115-132.
Boyle, J. P. (1984). Factors affecting listening
comprehension. ELT Journal 38,
35-38.
Brett, P. (1995). Multimedia for listening comprehension: The
design of a multimedia-based resource for developing listening skills. System 23 (1), 77-85.
Bright, D. E., Verano, M., & Cubero, R. A. (1991). From theory to practice: A
model for an interactive videodisc lesson. In M. D. Bush, A. Slaton, M. Verano, & M. E. Slayden
(Eds.), Interactive videodisc: The
"Why" and the "How.” (CALICO Monograph
Series, Vol. 2, Spring, pp. 1-15.)
Brindley,
G. (1984). Needs
analysis and objective setting in the Adult Migrant Education Program.
Brown, G. (1986). Investigating listening
comprehension in context. Applied
Linguistics 7 (3), 284-302.
Brown, G. (1989). Making sense: The interaction
of linguistic expression and contextual information. Applied Linguistics 1, 97-108.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language.
Buck, G. (1992). Listening comprehension: Construct validity and
trait characteristics. Language Learning 42 , 313-349.
Byrnes, H. (1984). The role of listening comprehension: A
theoretical base. Foreign Language Annals
17 (4), 317-329.
Canale,
M. (1984). Considerations in the testing of reading and
listening proficiency. Foreign
Language Annals 17 (4), 349-357.
Candy, P. (1987). Evolution, revolution or devolution: Increasing
learner-control in the instructional setting. In D. Boud
& V. Griffin (Eds.), Appreciating
adults learning: From the learnersí perspective,
pp. 159-178.
Chang, K-Y. R., & Smith, W. F. (1991). CALL/IVD workstations: Towards a
rationale for their use in cooperative learning environments. In M. D. Bush, A.
Slaton, M. Verano, & M. E. Slayden
(Eds.), Interactive videodisc: The
"Why" and the "How." (CALICO
Monograph Series, Vol. 2, Spring, pp. 101-109.)
Chapelle, C. A. (1994). CALL
activities: Are they all the same? System
22 (1), 33-45.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding.
Conrad, L. (1985). Semantic versus syntactic
cues in listening comprehension. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 7 (1), 59-72.
Cook, V. J. (1985). Bridging the gap between
computers and language teaching. Computers in English language teaching. ELT Documents, No. 122, 13-24.
Cotterall,
S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System 23, 195-205.
Craven, M-L., Sinyor, R. & Paramskas, D. (Eds.). (1990). CALL: Papers and reports.
Crawford, J., & Trojer, L. (1983). An introduction to the structuro global
audio visual approach to language learning. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 6, 20-29.
Curran, C. A. (1976). Counseling-learning in second languages.
Dalgish, G. M. (1987). Some uses of
computers in teaching English as a Second Language: The issue of control. In J. S. Blanchard & G. E. Mason (Eds.), The Computer in reading and language arts, pp. 81-93.
Davies, G., & Higgins, J. (1985). Using computers in language
learning: A teacher's guide. Information Guide 22.
Dickson, W. P. 1985. Thought-provoking software: juxtaposing symbol systems. Educational Researcher (May): 30-38.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P.
Lantolf & G. Appel
(Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language learning,
pp. 33-56.
Doughty, C. (1987). Relating second-language
acquisition theory to CALL research and application. In W. F. Smith (Ed.),
Modern media in foreign language
education: Theory and implementation, pp. 133-167.
Doughty, C. (1991). Theoretical motivations for
IVD software research and development. In M. D. Bush, A. Slaton, M. Verano, & M. E. Slayden
(Eds.), Interactive videodisc: The
"Why" and the "How." (CALICO
Monograph Series, Vol. 2, Spring, pp. 17-23.)
Dunkel, P. (1986). Developing Listening Fluency in L2: Theoretical Principles and Pedagogical Considerations. The Modern Language Journal 70 (2), 99-106.
Dunkel, P. (Ed.)
(1991a). Computer-assisted
language learning and testing.
Dunkel, P. (1991b). Listening in
the native and second/foreign language: Toward an integration of research and
practice. TESOL Quarterly 25 (3),
431-457.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition.
Faerch,
C., & Kasper, G. (1986). The role of comprehension in
second language learning. Applied
Linguistics 7 (3), 257-274.
Felder, R. M., & Henriques, E. R.
(1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign language education. Foreign Language Annals 28, 21-31.
Felix, U. (1995). Theater Interaktiv: multimedia integration of language and
literature. On-CALL 9, 12-16.
Fidelman, C. (1994). In the French Body/In the German Body:
Project results. Demonstrated at the CALICO ‘94 Annual
Symposium “Human Factors.” Northern
Fidelman, C. G. (1997). Extending the language curriculum with enabling technologies:
Nonverbal communication and interactive video. In K. A. Murphy-Judy
(Ed.), NEXUS – The convergence of
language teaching and reseearch using technology, pp. 28-41.
Fish, H. (1981). Graded activities and authentic
materials for listening comprehension. The teaching of listening comprehension. ELT Documents Special: Papers presented at the Goethe Institut Colloquium
Garrigues,
M. (1991). Teaching and learning languages with
interactive videodisc. In M. D. Bush, A. Slaton, M. Verano,
& M. E. Slayden (Eds.), Interactive videodisc: The "Why" and the "How.” (CALICO Monograph Series, Vol. 2, Spring, pp. 37-43.)
Gassin, J. (1992). Interkinesics
and Interprosodics in Second Language Acquisition.
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
15 (1), 95-106.
Gattegno, C. (1976). The common sense of teaching
foreign languages.
Graham, J. L. (1990). An exploratory study of
the process of marketing negotiations using a cross-cultural perspective.
In R. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing
communicative competence in a second language, pp. 239-279.
Grellet,
F. (1981). Developing
reading skills.
Gremmo,
M-J., & Riley, P. (1995). Autonomy, self-direction and self access in
language teaching and learning: The history of an idea. System 23, 151-164.
Griffiths, R., & Sheen, R. (1992). Disembedded figures in the landscape: A reappraisal of L2
research on field dependence/independence. Applied Linguistics 13, 133-148.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social
interpretation of language and meaning.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985b). An introduction to functional
grammar.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education 5 (2), 93-116.
Halliday,
M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: aspects of
language in a social-semiotic perspective.
Hanley, J. E. B., Herron, C. A., & Cole, S. P. (1995). Using video as an advance organizer to a written passage in the
FLES classroom. The Modern
Language Journal 79, 57-66.
Herron, C. (1994). An investigation of the
effectiveness of using an advance organizer to introduce video in the foreign
language classroom. The Modern
Language Journal 78 (2), 190-198.
Herron, C., Morris, M., Secules, T.,
& Curtis, L. (1995). A comparison study of the effects of video
versus text-centered instruction in the foreign
language curriculum. French Review
68, 775-795.
Herron, C., & Seay,
Higgins, J. (1995). Computers and English Language Learning.
Hoven, D. (1991). Towards a cognitive taxonomy
of listening comprehension tasks. SGAV
Review 9 (2), 1-14.
http://jcs120.jcs.uq.edu.au/~dlh/pubs/SGAV91.htm
Hoven, D. (1997a). Instructional design for multimedia: Towards a
learner-centred CELL (Computer-Enhanced Language Learning) model. In K. A.
Murphy-Judy (Ed.), NEXUS – The convergence
of language teaching and research using technology,
pp. 98-111.
Hoven, D. (1997b). Improving the management of flow of control in computer-assisted
listening comprehension tasks for second and foreign language learners.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
http://jcs120.jcs.uq.edu.au/~dlh/thesis/
Hoven, D., & Farquhar, M. (1996). On messages and media, clocks and cannibal chiefs. In M. Farquhar & P. McKay (Eds.),
Hurley, D. S. (1992). Issues in
teaching pragmatics, prosody, and non-verbal communication. Applied Linguistics 13 (3), 259-281.
Jonassen, D. (1992). What are
cognitive tools? In P. A. M. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen & J. T. Mayes (Eds.), Cognitive Tools for
Learning, pp. 1-6.
Kasper, G. (1989). Interactive procedures in interlanguage
discourse. In
Kellerman,
S. (1992). “I See What You Mean”: The role of
kinesic behaviour in listening and implications for foreign and second language
learning. Applied Linguistics 13 (3), 239-258.
Kellerman,
E., Ammerlaan, T., Bongaerts,
T., & Poulisse, N. (1990). System and hierarchy in L2 compensatory strategies. In R. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen
(Eds.), Developing communicative
competence in a second language
, pp. 163-178.
Kennedy, C., Tiziana, M., & Visocnik Murray, S. (1995). Italia oggi: a multimedia window on
contemporary
Kenning, M-M., & Kenning, M. J. (1990). Computers and language learning: Current theory
and practice.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1993). The name of the
task and the task of naming: Methodological aspects of task-based pedagogy. In
G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating
theory and practice , pp. 69-96.
Lantolf,
J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Theoretical
framework: An introduction to Vygotskian approaches
to second language research. In J. P. Lantolf &
G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research, pp. 1-32.
Lian, A. (1984). Aspects of answer-evaluation in traditional computer-assisted
language learning. In R. M. Russell (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd CALITE Congress,
pp. 150-160.
Lian,
A-P., & Lian, A. B. (1997). The secret of
the Shao-Lin monk: Contribution to an intellectual
framework for language learning. On-CALL
11 (2), 2-18.
Linquist,
K., Rowekamp, J., & Stenson,
N. (1991). Learner-controlled listening materials using a
commercial videodisc. CÆLL Journal
2, 3-7.
Liou,
H-C. (1995). Evaluation of interactive videodisc courseware: Effects
of strategy training and collaborative learning. In F. L. Borchardt & E. M. T. Johnson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Computer Assisted
Language Instruction Consortium 1995 annual symposium “Computers and
collaborative learning” pp. 112-115.
Little, D.
(1995). Learning as dialogue: the dependence of learner autonomy on
teacher autonomy. System 23, 175-181.
Long, D. R. (1989). Second language listening
comprehension: A schema-theoretic perspective. The Modern Language Journal 73
(i) 32-40.
Lörscher,
W. (1986). Conversational structures in the foreign
language classroom. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Learning, teaching and communicating in the
foreign language classroom, pp. 11-22.
Lozanov, G. (1979). Suggestology and outlines of Suggestopedy.
Lynch, A. J. (1988). Grading foreign language listening comprehension materials: The use of
naturally modified interaction. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation,
Marslen-Wilson,
W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of
spoken language understanding. Cognition
8, 1-71.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of Second Language Learning.
McMeniman,
M. (1994). Putting thinking back into language.
Public Research Lecture delivered at
Mendelsohn, D. J., & Rubin, J.
(1995). A guide for the teaching of
second language listening.
Meskill, C. J. (1991a). A systematic approach to the design of videodisc courseware.
In M. D. Bush, A. Slaton, M. Verano, & M. E. Slayden (Eds.), Interactive
videodisc: The "Why" and the "How." (CALICO
Monograph Series, Vol. 2, Spring, pp. 45-62.)
Meskill, C. (1991b). Multimedia and
language learning: Assessing goals and system attributes. CÆLL Journal 2, 11-14.
Meskill, C. (1992). CALL: Individual
versus negotiated task processing. Paper presented at the CALICO Symposium:
Outreach ‘92,
Meyer, L. (1990). It was no trouble: Achieving communicative
competence in a second language. In R. Scarcella, E.
S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a
second language, pp. 195-215.
Mueller, G. (1980). Visual contextual cues and listening
comprehension: An experiment. Modern
Language Journal 64, 335-340.
Neu, J. (1990). Assessing the role of non-verbal communication in the acquisition
of communicative competence in L2. In R. Scarcella,
E. S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a
second language, pp. 121-138.
Nunan, D. (1988). The learner-centred
curriculum.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the
communicative classroom.
Nunan, D. (1990). Learning to listen in a second language. Prospect 5 (2), 7-23.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology.
O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U.
(1990). Learning
strategies in second language acquisition.
O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., & Küpper, L. (1989). Listening
comprehension strategies in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 10 (4), 419-437.
Pederson, K. M. (1987). Research on CALL.
In W. F. Smith (Ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: theory and implementation, pp. 99-131.
Pennington, M. C. (Ed.). (1989). Teaching languages with computers: The state of the art.
Pennington, M. C. (Ed.). (1996). The power of CALL. Houston, TX.: Athelstan Publications.
Perrett, G. (1995, August 21-24). Communicative language teaching and second language acquisition
theory. MLTAQ
Inc. Newsletter, No. 101.
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly 21 (4), 737-758.
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat
computers, televisions, and New Media like real people and places. Center for the Study of Language & Information, Lecture
Notes Series: CSLI Publications.
Richards, J. C. (1983). Listening comprehension: Approach, design,
procedure. TESOL Quarterly 17 (2),
219-240.
Richards, J. C. (1985). The context of language teaching.
Riley, P. (1981). Viewing comprehension: l’oeil
ecoute. The teaching of listening comprehension. (ELT Documents Special: Papers presented at the
Goethe Institut Colloquium Paris 1979, pp. 143-156.)
Robinson, G. L. (1991). Effective feedback
strategies in CALL. In P. Dunkel
(Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning
and testing, pp. 155-167.
Rost,
M. (1990). Listening
in language learning.
Rowe, A. A. (1991). Language discovery
environments. In M. D. Bush, A. Slaton, M. Verano,
& M. E. Slayden (Eds.), Interactive videodisc: The "Why" and the "How.” (CALICO Monograph Series, Vol. 2, Spring, pp. 73-88.)
Rowsell,
L. V., & Libben, G. (1994). The sound of one
hand clapping: How to succeed in independent language learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review 50 (4), 668-687.
Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language
listening comprehension research. The
Modern Language Journal 78 (2),
199-221.
Schmidt-Reinhart, B. C. (1994). The effects of
topic familiarity on second language listening comprehension. The Modern Language Journal 78 (2),
179-189.
Secules,
T., Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). The effect of video context on foreign language learning. Modern Language Journal 76, 480-490.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in
second-language learning.
Staddon,
S. (1990). Interactive video and language learning – the Expodisc Spanish experience. On-CALL 5, 2-4.
Stevens, V. (1992). Humanism and CALL: A coming
of age. In M. C. Pennington & V. Stevens (Eds.), Computers in applied linguistics: An
international perspective, pp. 11-38.
Stevick, E. W. (1976). Memory, meaning and method.
Stevick, E. W. (1981). Teaching and learning languages.
Stevick, E. W. (1990). Humanism in language
teaching.
Swaffar, J., & Bacon, S. (1993).
Swales, J. (1990). Genre
analysis: English in academic and research settings.
Taylor, H. M. (1981). Learning to Listen to
English. TESOL Quarterly 15
(1), 41-50.
Underhill, A. (1989). Process in humanistic
education. ELT Journal, 43 (4), 250-260.
Van Patten, B. (1989). Can learners attend to form and content
while processing input? Hispania 72, 409-417.
Vogely, A. (1995). Perceived strategy use during performance on three authentic
listening comprehension tasks. The
Modern Language Journal 79,
41-56.
Voss, B. (1984). Perception of first-language
and second-language texts – a comparative study. Bielefelder Beiträge
zur Sprachlehrvorschung
13 (2), 131-153.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V.
John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.
and Trans.).
Wells, G. (1994). The complementary contributions
of Halliday and Vygotsky to
a “language-based theory of learning.” Linguistics and Education 6 (1), 41-90.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for
learner autonomy.
Wenden, A. (1995). Learner training
in context: A knowledge-based approach. System
23, 183-194.
Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (1987).
Learner strategies in
language learning.
Willing, K. (1985). Helping adults develop their learning strategies.
Willing, K. (1989). Teaching how to learn. Learning strategies in ESL: A teachers guide.
Wipf, J. A. (1984). Strategies for teaching second language listening comprehension.
Foreign Language Annals 17 (4), 345-348.
Wolff, D. (1987). Some assumptions about second
language text comprehension. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition
