3 Listening and the learner
3.2 The role of the teacher: a non-interventionist approach Transcript 3.1 is my own recording of a listening class which adheres
quite closely to CA principles. The teacher played a short section of a listening passage, asked comprehension questions to the class as a whole, then replayed the relevant part of the text so that those who did not understand the first time could check the facts.
Transcript 3.1
Teacher plays 60 seconds of a narrative (Underwood, 1976: 133).
T: so what was in+ in the folder Ss: silence
T: the folder + do you understand the word + it’s a piece of card-board+ like this [demonstrates with hands] + what was in the folder
S1: passport
T: yes their passports+ anything else S2: tickets
T: what kind of tickets S2: ticket for a car S3: tickets for a boat
T: that’s right+ they were tickets for the boat + anything else S4: money
T: how much+ does anyone know S2: hundred pounds
T: not a hundred pounds+ it was hundreds of pounds + hundreds + was that in money
[Ss: silence]
T: it was in traveller’s cheques+ you know cheques that you change into foreign money+ let’s listen again
The teacher is doing quite a competent job in testing comprehension at a very local level and in supplying what is missing. But the exchanges are
characterised by the relatively limited contribution made by the students.
This is partly because the culture of the CA marks out the student’s role as being to answer questions. It is partly because of the teacher’s desire to be helpful and to fill gaps – though note that no distinction is made between gaps that are due to lack of vocabulary knowledge and gaps that are due to failure to recognise a known word. Note too that the subsequent replay does not challenge the learners’ listening skills any further but just gives them the chance to check the truth of what they have been told.
It is the teacher who controls the agenda – in ways that would be unacceptable if this were a lesson to practise speaking. He perceives his role as being to determine, on the basis of his own knowledge and experience, where potential problems might occur and to intervene as often as necessary to provide correct answers to assist the listeners. It is the teacher, in short, who does most of the work.
The CA was founded on the premise that there is a ‘right’ answer to each question that is asked. Tradition thus places the teacher in the role of sage, the person who holds the keys to understanding. If a learner’s response is deemed accurate by the teacher, the lesson moves on; if it is not, the teacher takes responsibility for giving and explaining the correct answer and replays the relevant section of the listening passage by way of justification.
The single-interpretation assumption is very much open to challenge.
As Brown (1995: Chap. 1) points out, there may be two or more possible answers to a comprehension question, depending upon how the individ-ual listener has interpreted the information. The issue is not whether an answer is correct but whether it conforms to the evidence. Yet CA methodology remains heavily dependent upon right and wrong, upon ticks and crosses.
Teachers are sensitive to the fact that L2 listeners differ widely, not simply in how much they know but also in how they approach the listening task. Yet underlying the CA is the implicit premise that learners listen in ways that are broadly similar. Standard practice obliges the teacher to make decisions for a class as a whole:
How much of the text should I play at a time? Should I stop if there are signs that some class members do not understand?
Do I ask questions of the whole class or nominate? If I nominate a weak listener, will it slow things down and possibly embarrass the individual?
If Student A gives the right answer, can I take it for granted that everyone understands?
How serious was that last breakdown of understanding? How widespread? Do I briefly explain it or do I replay the relevant part of the recording?
How long should I spend on reworking a part of the text, given the danger of losing the attention of those who understood it from the start?
The methodology thus places heavy demands upon the teacher in terms of moment-to-moment decision-making, since any decision runs the risk of either boring the better listeners or demoralising the weaker ones. Even the most committed teacher sometimes feels the need to take an easy course in order to keep a listening lesson moving. There is a temptation to accept that understanding has been achieved once one or two class members have given the target response proposed by the materials writer.
What of the learners? The notion of a single ‘correct’ answer influences their behaviour, too. Because the pace is set by the better and more outspoken listeners, those who are defeatist about listening do not focus effort on the input when it is first heard. Instead, they monitor it at a low level of attention, listening out for the odd familiar word, until such time as the ‘official’ answer is established. It is at this point that their attention becomes fully engaged: for them, listening practice consists chiefly of checking the answer given against a subsequent replay.
The solution to this situation is relatively simple. It requires teachers to change the persona they adopt in relation to the listening exercise.
They need to suppress their instinct to assist; instead, what is needed is a deliberate policy of non-intervention. Instead of assuming that their role is to explain/paraphrase/target, teachers should ensure that the learners do much more of the listening work for themselves. It is by listening and re-listening and by testing hypotheses for themselves that learners progress; not by having the answers handed to them.
To give an idea of how this works in practice, Transcript 3.2 comes from a lesson in which a group of learners was presented with an authen-tic text somewhat beyond their lexical level and encouraged to mine it for words, phrases and information.
This teacher provides minimal assistance. Instead of giving answers, he is simply acting as a facilitator: encouraging the class to compare the pieces of information they have extracted for themselves from the passage. Listening becomes a problem-solving exercise which engages the attention of the class to a much greater degree. It is the class who, between them, construct a provisional meaning representation and revise it as more is heard.
Transcript 3.2
Teacher plays a short extract (30 seconds) from a recording about international relations after the Second World War and about the then US Secretary of State.
T: right+ how much have you understood so far
S1: two or three years ago before the+ no two or three years before the second war
T: two or three years before the second world war + does everybody agree that’s
S2: after after
S3: after
T: two or three years after the second world war
S1: ah
S2: yes after
T: well what do you think+ before or after Various Ss: after
T: after+ what did he say about two or three years after S1: the president of North America+ I don’t know + what
country he is president
T: the president of somewhere [ . . . ] + does everybody agree+ are we talking about the president
Various Ss: yes
T: ok anything else+ any other words you picked up [ . . . ] S4: er finish+ America was the only one superpower T: America was the only superpower+ do you agree that’s
what he said
S3: super?
T: superpower + can you tell me what does superpower mean
S4: wars [laughter]+ strong
S3: oh yes
T: the superpowers are the most important countries in the world + so he was saying that America was the only superpower
S5: and the Soviet Union
T: you think that the Soviet Union was also a superpower S5: he said something but
T: he mentioned the Soviet Union
S6: he said something from+ but er England
S3: Spanish
T: you heard something about Spanish + and you heard England
S1: Britain
T: is it Britain [ . . . ]+ talking about Britain S3: he also said a moustache
T: he mentioned a man’s moustache [ . . . ]+ do you think the moustache was important
S3: no
T: I’m not going to tell you any more+ listen to a little more and see if you change your minds
[Plays another 15 seconds ending in the sentence ‘America was now top nation’]
T: anything you want to add
S7: he says that America wasn’t top nation Various Ss: was was
S1: was now
S3: was now was not
T: you think America was top nation or wasn’t Various Ss: was
T: was
In this particular case, the passage was a demanding one in relation to the language level of the students. The main focus of attention was therefore at the level of the word and the information that could be generated from it. In a more advanced class, the teacher might have asked students to compare their different interpretations of the speaker’s main points or to make decisions as to which ideas were most central. He would then have replayed the passage without passing judgement, to see if the class members changed their minds or not. The important principle is that the views of the teacher and the teacher’s ability to match input to words should be called upon only as a last resort.