The Comparative Effect of Using Listening Strategies on Reflective and Impulsive Visually Impaired Learners’ Listening Comprehension

Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice

مقاله 3، دوره 11، شماره 22، آبان 2018، صفحه 73-54   

نوع مقاله: Research Paper

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30495/jal.2018.541065

نویسندگان

Foroozan Beiranvand؛ Behdokht Mall-Amiri Mall-Amiri^*

Department of English, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده

This study aimed to compare the effect of listening strategies, namely, metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective strategies, on impulsive and reflective visually impaired EFL learners’ (VILs) listening comprehension. The participants of the study were 58 male and female VILs at pre-intermediate level within the age range of 12-18 in the west of Iran, Khorram Abad. These participants were selected non-randomly from among 10 different classes available to the researcher. To select the participants, the researcher talked to learners of these 10 classes and sought the consent of 58 learners to take part in the study. The Preliminary English Test (PET) pre-piloted on 30 students with almost similar characteristics to the target sample was administered to 72 students for selecting a homogenized group of participants. Then, 58 students were selected. Afterwards, the researcher administered the Personality Questionnaire developed by Eysenck (1975) to categorize them into two experimental groups of impulsive and reflective. Furthermore, the researcher made sure that the two groups were homogeneous regarding their listening comprehension prior to the start of the treatment. In this study, both experimental groups practiced listening comprehension through listening strategies, namely, metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective strategies. The listening section of the PET test was administered as the posttest at the end of the treatment to both groups and their mean scores on the tests were compared through Independent Samples t-test. The results of statistical analyses led to the rejection of null hypothesis with the conclusion that the reflective learners significantly outperformed the impulsive students on the posttest of listening comprehension.

کلیدواژه‌ها

impulsive learner؛ Listening comprehension؛ Listening strategies؛ reflective learner؛ visually impaired

مراجع

References

Araluce, H. A. (2002). Teaching English as a foreign language to blind and visually impaired young learners: The affective factor (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real.

Arter, C. (1997). English. In H. Mason & S. McCall (Eds.), Visual impairment: Access to education for children and young people. London: David Fulton.

Bazargani, D. T., & Larsari, V. N. (2013). Impulsivity–reflectivity, gender and performance on multiple choice items. International Journal of Language Learning and applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 4 (2), 194-208.

Brodzinsky, D. M. (1985). On the relationship between cognitive styles and cognitive structures. Moderators of Competence, 2 (1), 147-164.

Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge University Press.

Byrnes, H. (1984). The role of listening comprehension: A theoretical base. Foreign Language Annals, 17 (4), 317-329.

Chamot, A. U. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. Learner Strategies in Language Learning, 3 (1), 71-83.

Chamot, A. U. (1993). Student responses to learning strategy instruction in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26(3), 308-317.

Chamot, A. (1995). Creating a community of thinkers in the ESL/EFL classroom. TESOL Matters, 5(5), 1-16.

Coskun, A. (2010). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on the listening performance of beginner students. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 4 (1), 35-50.

Eysenck, H. J. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck personality questionnaire. Educational and Industrial Testing Service: San Diego.

Eysenck, H. J. (1985). General features of the model. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for personality (pp. 1-27). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Eysenck, H. (1990). Personality and intelligence: Psychometric and experimental approaches. In R. Sternberg, & P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Personality and intelligence (pp. 31-33). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development theory, practice and research implications. RELC Journal, 39 (2), 188-213.

Goh, C., & Yusnita, T. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal, 60 (3), 222–232.

Guinan, H. (1997). ESL for students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 91(6), 555-63.

Graham, S., Santos, D., & Vanderplank, R. (2008). Listening comprehension and strategy use: A longitudinal exploration. System, 36 (1), 52-68.

Hansen-Strain, L. (1987). Cognitive style and first language background in second language test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (2), 265-268.

Jamieson, J. (1992). The cognitive styles of reflection/impulsivity and field independence/ dependence and ESL success. Modern Language Journal, 76(5), 491-501.

Kagan, J. (1966). Reflection-impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71 (1), 17-24.

Kagan, J., Pearson, L., & Welch, L. (1966). Conceptual impulsivity and inductive reasoning. Child Development, 21 (5), 583-594.

Keefe, J. W. (1987). Learning style theory and practice. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. Paris, S.A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 71-92). Center for improvement of early reading achievement (CIERA). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Lamb, G. (1998). Dots for Tots: Emergent literacy and braille reading. The British Journal of Visual Impairment, 16 (3), 111-115.

Mendelsohn, D. J. (1998). Teaching listening. Annual review of applied linguistics, 18, 3-19.

Opitz, M. F., & Zbaracki, M. D. (2004). Listen hear! 25 effective listening comprehension strategies. Heinemann Educational Books.

O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge university press.

O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R., & Kupper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (3), 285-296. 

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row.

Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual.3^rd Edition. McGrath Hill.

Richards, J. C. (2011). Teaching second language listening. Oxford University Press.

Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. The Modern Language Journal, 78 (2), 199-221.

Shipman, S., & Shipman, V. C. (1985). Chapter 7: Cognitive styles: Some conceptual, methodological, and applied issues. Review of Research in Education, 12 (1), 229-291.

Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 387-409.

Vandergrift, L. (2004). 1. Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Aeview of Applied Linguistics, 24 (1), 3-25.

Vandergrift, L. (2006). Second language listening: Listening ability or language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 90 (1), 6-18.

Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60 (2), 470-497.

Zhang, D., & Goh, C. C. (2006). Strategy knowledge and perceived strategy use: Singaporean students’ awareness of listening and speaking strategies. Language Awareness, 15 (3), 199-119.

Zhou, M. (2001). Learning styles and teaching styles in college English teaching. International Education Studies, 4 (1), 73-85.