AUGUST 12, 2014

DLIFLC Plenary PresentationMonterey, CA

THE ROLE OF LISTENING IN ADULT L-2 GAIN AT LEVEL 3: STRENGTHENING LEARNER SELF-MANAGEMENT

Dan E. Davidson

GEOGRAPHIC REACH

we operate in

more than 65 countries around the world

Afghanistan Albania Algeria Armenia Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Belarus Bosnia-Herzegovina Brazil Bulgaria China CroatiaEgypt EstoniaEthiopiaGeorgiaIndia Israel Japan

Kazakhstan Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lebanon Libya Lithuania Macedonia Mali Moldova MongoliaMontenegro

OmanPalestinian Territories Poland Qatar RomaniaRussia Saudi Arabia SenegalSerbiaSlovenia South Korea

Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan

Morocco Mozambique NepalNigeria

UkraineUnited StatesUnited Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Yemen

AMERICAN COUNCILS – THE NUMBERS

Employees• 404 staff members around the

world 237 Overseas 167 Washington, DC

Participating Countries• Offices in 33 locations• U.S. participant groups in 34

countries• 63 countries that send

participants to the U.S.

Number of Partners• U.S. Over 1000 associations,

NGOs, foundations, schools, and higher education institutions

• Overseas: Hundreds, including schools, universities, ministries, embassies, and NGOs

Higher Education programsProfessional TrainingTeacher and Faculty TrainingYouth Exchange

Basic Intervention Structure: AC Overseas ProgramsAcademic Components (age appropriate)

• Pre-Departure Orientation Process• Intensive language training in small groups• Regular twice weekly or daily meetings with peer tutor

• All overseas centers are native schools or universities• Direct enrollment courses or classes.• Integrated cultural program (bi-weekly, tied to thematic units of

the course)

Co-Curricular (age appropriate)

• Integrated homestay or residential component • Internships• Volunteer opportunities • Optional discussion groups with native speakers (5-6 times per

semester)• On-going evaluation (testing, site visits, teacher/tutor reports,

portfolio development, self-evaluation) • Bi-weekly Language Utilization Reports (time-place, function)

Direct Enrollments (Partial Listing)• Biochemistry and Viral Immunology

• Advanced Probability Theory

• Policy of the Russian Regions

• Legal Regulations: Social and Political Conflicts

• Orthodoxy and the Russian Philosophy of Culture

• The Modern System of Defending Human Rights

• The Technology of Election Campaigns

• Philosophy in the XIX – XX Century

• Economy of the Public Sector

• The Institution of Conflicting Sanctions: History and Theory

L2 Immersion: Outcomes and Beyond

Level 3 performances require professional-level intercultural competency (ICC), “global mindedness,” critical perspective and advanced abilities in cultural adaptation (IDI), as well as ILR Level-3 outcomes.

Recent cognitive research has also established linkages between successful SLA in the SA context and the development of

-critical thinking skills, thinking outside the box-access to multiple academic traditions and professional networks-advanced problem-solving, “multiple lenses,” heteroglossia, dialog-decrease in bias, -increased tolerance, -rapid task-switching (cognitive multi-tasking) -improved executive function and self-management skills, -ability to work and communicate effectively across cultural divides.

Such students have a distinctive advantage in today’s job markets: understanding of the internal dynamics that shape markets and social movements before they actually happen;

Level 3: (ILR-ICC - Professional Competence)•Able to participate successfully in most social, practical, and professional interactions, including those that may require a range of formal and informal language and behavior.

• Can adapt to a variety of individuals and groups without being misconstrued and transition smoothly from informal to formal styles of communication.

•Controls nonverbal responses, such as gestures, and handles unfamiliar situations appropriately, including those involving taboos or emotionally-charged subjects.

•Rarely misreads cultural cues, and can almost always repair misinterpretations.

•Can understand and make appropriate use of cultural references and expressions, and can usually discuss a variety of issues and subject matter that refer to the culture, such as history, politics, literature, and the arts.

•Can interpret reading materials and recognize subtleties, implications, and tone.

•Able to communicate via social media. In professional contexts, the individual can interact appropriately during meetings and provide detailed explanations or reports both in person and in writing.

•Social behavior and interactions reflect significant knowledge and understanding of cultural expectations.

Population: AC Overseas Flagship participants in present study: Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Swahili 2004-05 to 2013-14

• 750 US participants to date

• Age

• 65% of students are 22-23 years old

• Range: 20-41

• Average: 23.77

• Gender

• 49.1% male and 51.9% female students

• Heritage status

• Approximately 1 in 8 participants are heritage

• 23 domestic Flagships and some at-large students

Overview of Outcomes:Arabic

ARABIC OVERSEAS FLAGSHIP PROGRAMSPRE- AND POST-PROGRAM SPEAKING SCORES FOR 2007/08 THROUGH 2013/14 ACADEMIC YEAR PROGRAM (N = 166)

1 1+ 2 2+ 3 3+ 4 4+0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5

11

64

17

2

13

19

53

85

1

Pre-program Post-program

Proficiency Levels

Perc

ent

ARABIC OVERSEAS FLAGSHIP PROGRAMSPRE- AND POST-PROGRAM READING SCORES FOR 2009/10 THROUGH 2013/14 ACADEMIC YEAR PROGRAM (N = 142)

1 1+ 2 2+ 3 3+0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1

20

54

22

4

11

36

50

3

Pre-program Post-program

Proficiency Levels

Perc

ent

ARABIC OVERSEAS FLAGSHIP PROGRAMSPRE- AND POST-PROGRAM LISTENING SCORES FOR 2009/10 THROUGH 2013/14 ACADEMIC YEAR PROGRAM (N = 142)

1 1+ 2 2+ 3 3+0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1

9

53

36

1

9

20

61

10

Pre-program Post-program

Proficiency Levels

Perc

ent

Listening Proficiency Scores for All AOF AY Learners (N=87),

Pre- and Post-program (Count/Row Percent)

Post-program Listening Proficiency Level

Pre-program Listening Proficiency Level

         2 2+ 3 3+ Total

         

1 0 0 1 0 1% 0 0 100.00 0 100.00

1+ 2 4 1 0 7% 28.60 57.10 14.30 0 100.002 9 15 25 2 51% 17.60 29.40 49.00 3.90 100.00

2+ 1 1 21 3 26% 3.80 3.80 80.80 11.50 100.003 0 0 0 2 2% 0 0 0 100.00 100.00

Total 12 20 48 7 87% 13.80 23.00 55.20 8.00 100.00

           

Mandarin

CHINESE OVERSEAS FLAGSHIP PROGRAMPRE- AND POST-PROGRAM SPEAKING SCORES FOR 2012/13 THROUGH 2013/14 ACADEMIC YEAR PROGRAM (N = 76)

2 2+ 30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

68

20

12

29

71

Pre-program Post-program

Proficiency Levels

Perc

ent

CHINESE OVERSEAS FLAGSHIP PROGRAMPRE- AND POST-PROGRAM LISTENING SCORES FOR 2012/13 ACADEMIC YEAR PROGRAM (N = 32)

1+ 2 2+ 30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

6

81

13

25

38 38

Pre-program Post-program

Proficiency Levels

Perc

ent

CHINESE OVERSEAS FLAGSHIP PROGRAMPRE- AND POST-PROGRAM LISTENING SCORES FOR 2012/13 ACADEMIC YEAR PROGRAM (N = 32)

1+ 2 2+ 30

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

6

81

13

25

38 38

Pre-program Post-program

Proficiency Levels

Perc

ent

Russian

RUSSIAN OVERSEAS FLAGSHIP PROGRAMPRE- AND POST-PROGRAM SPEAKING SCORES FOR 2004/05 THROUGH 2013/14 ACADEMIC YEAR PROGRAM (N = 120)

1 1+ 2 2+ 3 3+ 4 4+0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

15

65

28

226

68

15

9

1

Pre-program Post-program

Proficiency Levels

Perc

ent

1 1+ 2 2+ 3 3+ 4 4+0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

17

59

31

3

10

40

50

35

53

1721

30

10

50

10

2004-2011 ROF Pre- and Post-Program OPI Scores:

Heritage (N=10) vs. Non-Heritage (N=75) Students

Heritage_Pre

NonHerit_Pre

Heritage_Post

NonHerit_Post

Proficiency Levels

Pe

rce

nt

RUSSIAN OVERSEAS FLAGSHIP PROGRAMPRE- AND POST-PROGRAM READING SCORES FOR 2009/10 THROUGH 2013/14 ACADEMIC YEAR PROGRAM (N = 73)

2 2+ 3 3+ 40

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

51

36

14

4

49

40

7

Pre-program Post-program

Proficiency Levels

Perc

ent

RUSSIAN OVERSEAS FLAGSHIP PROGRAMPRE- AND POST-PROGRAM LISTENING SCORES FOR 2009/10 THROUGH 2013/14 ACADEMIC YEAR PROGRAM (N = 73)

1+ 2 2+ 3 3+ 40

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5

48

41

53

59

37

1

Pre-program Post-program

Proficiency Levels

Perc

ent

2- 2 2+ 3- 3 3+ 4- 4 4+0

102030405060708090

100

21 19

60

13 15

31

1116 14

Pre- and Post-Program TORFL Scores:Listening (N = 85)

Pre-Program

Proficiency Levels

Pe

rce

nt

Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses for Linguistic Variables

Predicting Gain in OPI: AY/Flagship Students (N = 169)

Beyond L-2 Linguistic Variables.Culturally and Socially Appropriate Responses

“In order to develop their own voice, the FL learner must first develop an “ear” for other voices.” Kramsch, 2014.

“Given the increased complexity in the way we conceive of language, communication, culture, and learning in an era of globalization calls for greater reflexivity and interpretive capacities on the part of both teachers and learners. While modernist perspectives on FL education have favored doing over reflecting, and performance over analysis, late modernist approaches add a reflective element of self-awareness that enable language users to better interpret the communicative situations in which they are to make situated choices.” Kramsch, 2014.

L-2/C-2 Competence: Joining in a Collective Dialog with “other” Users of the L-2

“Dialogism applies to individual words and utterances, but also to the language system as a whole, which is embedded with the products of a continuing generalized collective dialog with “other” users of the language. To know a language, you must also “know” the general collective dialog. A word is always half someone else’s. It has to be populated, adjusted, before it is yours. Words carry the scent of other voices.”

Jakob Shpet, Inner Form of the Word, 1927

Low-stakes and high-stakes social interaction (Managing Cognitive Overload)

At Level 3 the L2 learner must:

• make choices based on contexts that have real consequences• produce meaning with words (requesting, apologizing, thanking, etc.);• interpret situations requiring these speech acts;• monitor the appropriateness of their utterances (e.g., for register)• repair their utterances, as needed;• evaluate the effectiveness of repairs and corrections

•The fixed model of the L2 NS is changing under the forces of globalization in the way languages are used, mixed, and “meshed” NNS is taught a normative language, but must process much more.

Listening Comprehension the Challenge: What Overload Can Mean to the L2 Learner

Listening Comprehension (LC) is linear and takes place in real time with no chance of review (normally). Unlike for reading, the listener does not control the rate of speed of the spoken input, must retain the full utterance in short-term memory in order to comprehend and respond to it; must recognize unit boundaries, based exclusively on phonological input, which would be visually evident in a reading text.

“The effective listener must comoprehend the text as they listen to it, retain information in memory, integrate it with what follows, and continually adjust their understanding of what they hear in the light of prior knowledge and incoming information. The processing imposes a heavy cognitive oad on listeners.” (I. Thompson, 1995.)

The Need for Learner Self-Management Skills

The Level 3 L2 learner

develops and exercises metacognitive knowledge, executive processes of planning for learning, monitoring ones comprehension and production, and skills of prediction, evaluation, and post-task reflection.

Learners make decisions about L2 utilization: where, how much, with whom; they evaluate and reflect on their interactions (+ and - ); Learners make use of engagement versus avoidance strategies They set short and longer-term goals for their learningInterpreting why and how to engage in local communicative situationsBecoming skillful interpreters of what they observe, of what is spoken, and what is not spoken.

The higher their level, the more complex the contexts, and, very often, the higher the stakes.

MAINTAINING A REFLECTIVE STANCE ON LEARNINGTHROUGH REGULAR SELF-ASSESSMENT

The task requires “expert” balancing of challenge and support to the learner who will invariably experience phases of euphoria, cultural shock and mental and emotional overload.

Effective programs encourage a reflective stance through regular self-assessments, goal setting, and feedback from facilitators/advisors, occasional help in analysis of events from both the local and the student’s own perspective.

Ultimately, however, the L-2 immersion learner must take charge of her/his learning, have the strategic know-how to plan, monitor, evaluate, reflect, and adjust the strategic decisions to be made for successful communications.

FROM PRODUCT TO PROCESS:TEACHING, LEARNING AND LEARNER

SELF-MANAGEMENT ON THE SA CONTEXT

Overview of Online Language Utilization Reporting Tool

(Now in its tenth year of use)

TOOL TO SUPPORT THE METACOGNITIVE FUNCTION:THE ONLINE LANGUAGE UTILIZATION REPORT (LUR)

consists of two parts:

1. Concise target-language time/activity map

2. Three open-ended questions about the student’s individual language and cultural use over the reporting period.

I. Language Use

How many clock hours during the past 7 days did you spend using L-2 in the following activities (remember that your individual language classes last for 90 minutes each).

Please use decimal-point notation, i.e. 1 hr. — "1"; 45 min. — "0.75"; 30 min. — "0.5"; 20 min. — 0.30; 15 min. = "0.25"; 10 min. — "0.15". Please only record the activities for ONE week. Do not add the time for the two week period of the report.

Language Utilization Report (Specimen)

Student NameStarted: Not yet started — Completed: Not yet submitted.Due: Sep 16

II. Communication Challenges

A. What challenges did you encounter during the past week in operating in (your L2) ?

(Consider interpersonal, interpretive, and presentational modes in responding, e.g., scanning detailed text for relevant information, understanding detailed written instructions or spoken advice, note taking, letter writing, holding the floor in a discussion, reacting appropriately to a culturally "sensitive" situation, etc.) Describe the situation briefly.

B. In view of the challenges described above, what language/cultural resources will you need to master or have greater control over to deal more effectively, when a similar situation arises in the future?III. Communication Successes

Describe a linguistic interaction in the L2 during the past week which might be seen to characterize your command of the language at its best.

(This may be an interaction of any kind which you consider you handled well.)

IV. Goals for the week(s) Ahead

Identify 2-3 thematic areas, language functions, or speech genres which you plan in the coming weeks to make stronger in your own Russian.

(E.g., getting better at making requests or offering apologies, understanding certain recurrent colloquialisms in the speech of friends, catching references to contemporary target culture and/or politics, mastering abstract expressions, learning how to keep up a conversation, improving phonetics/intonation, becoming more proficient at offering toasts, responding to compliments, invitations, leading a discussion, chairing a meeting, etc. )

V. Additional Comments

Please note any other observations that come to mind about your use of Russian during the past week?

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for ALL ROF students (Part 2)

Activity N Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Average weekly number of formal language learning classes 104 4.82 23.61 11.57 3.33

Average weekly number of hours spent on homework 104 0.00 25.66 7.17 5.20

Average weekly number of internship hours 104 0.60 19.33 5.02 3.65

Average weekly number of hours of tutoring sessions 104 0.78 11.97 2.94 1.37

Average weekly number of hours of acad. reading 104 0.00 9.64 2.26 2.45

Average weekly number of hours attending cultural events 104 0.00 9.66 2.47 1.80

Average weekly number of hours with host family 104 0.00 24.66 7.10 4.88

Average weekly number of hours in public transportation 104 0.00 16.56 3.08 3.33

Average weekly number of hours participating in OTHER activities 104 0.00 10.49 1.45 1.91

Average weekly number of hours spending on reading for pleasure 104 0.00 10.31 3.24 2.65

Average weekly number of hours following the press 104 0.00 9.50 2.46 1.87

Average weekly number of hours listening/watching local radio or TV 104 0.19 15.71 4.53 2.83

Average weekly number of hours with friends 104 0.25 39.28 10.22 6.71

Average weekly number of total hours spent on all activities 104 22.25 133.79 63.50 21.22

Average weekly number of total hours spent on acad activities (langclass, homework, tutorial, and acad read) 104 13.32 45.03 23.94 7.35

Average weekly number of total hours spent on three academic activities (langclass, homework, and tutorial sessions) 104 12.31 43.50 21.68 6.43

Average weekly number of total hours spent on reading activities (prof/acad read, read for pleasure, and read the press) 104 0.19 22.06 7.96 5.09

Average Weekly Number of Hours Spent on Activities: ROF By Post-test OPIs (All Years)

ActivityPost-test OPI 2+

(N = 5)Post-test OPI 3

(N = 60)Post-test OPI 3+/4/4+

(N = 39)

Homework 1.8 6.9 8.2

Internship 6.8 5.0 4.9

Tutoring 3.5 2.9 2.9

Academic Reading 4.7 1.8 2.7

Cultural Events 1.4 2.4 2.7

Host Family 6.0 6.5 8.2

Reading for Pleasure 0.8 3.1 3.7

Following the Press 2.2 2.1 3.0

Local TV/Radio 3.7 4.5 4.6

Time Spent with Friends 8.1 10.0 10.9

Average Weekly Number of Hours Spent on Activities: By Heritage Status (All Years)

ActivityAll Heritage

(N = 15)All Non-Heritage

(N = 89)

Homework 7.8 7.1

Internship 5.2 5.0

Tutoring 2.4 3.0

Academic Reading 4.3 1.9

Cultural Events 3.0 2.4

Host Family 6.8 7.2

Reading for Pleasure 3.5 3.2

Following the Press 2.2 2.5

Local TV/Radio 3.9 4.6

Time Spent with Friends 10.9 10.1

Percentage of Total Time Spent in L-2 Activities

• Friends 15%

• Host Family 13% (3+), 9.5(3), 8.6(2+)

• Academic 40%

• Reading 14% (3+), 11%(2+/3)

• Cultural events 4%(3+), 3.1% (3), 1.7% (2+)

• Internships 10%

• Other 4%

Effects of formative self-assessment on self-regulation, performance, self-efficacy: LUR basis 1. Under the proper conditions, and if applied over time,

students who self-assess have been shown to learn better, develop deeper understanding, improved work product, and take more responsibility for their own learning.” (Landrum, Dochy et al, 1999; Panandero, 2013, 2014).

2. In the overseas immersion environment, the criteria for self-assessment are provided by communicative situations in which the students find themselves: do they cope with them effectively, or not, and by their teachers and tutors.

3. “I meant X, but that is not how it was received. Will find out whether it was my choice of words or intonation, that caused the mis-understanding.”

*Criteria alone do not guarantee that students will use them, but it does increase the probability that they will.

EARLY COMMUNICATION CHALLENGES (ILR 2/2+)

A. What challenges did you encounter during the past week in operating in Russian? • I have made two new Russian friends in my direct enrollment

course, but I can't understand either of them when they speak! They both mumble to the extreme when they speak and I find it very awkward to continually ask them to repeat themselves.

•  

B. In view of the challenges described above, what language/cultural resources will you need to master or have greater control over to deal more effectively, when a similar situation arises in the future?• Greater practice with conversational, informal Russian.

L2 Learner Articulates a Need, Evaluates, Sets a Goal

E.g., expressing emotion, appreciation, gratitude

“I have trouble expressing appreciation in Russian, whether that’s appreciation of a beautiful view or a well prepared meal. So far, I’ve been relying on a few standard expressions, and I’d like to be able to branch out more and clarify myself.”

“I’ll have to pay special attention to the way my Russian friends express themselves when they are pleased about something. Unless I set a goal of focusing on these expressions of pleasure, I’ll keep on getting caught up in the intonation and miss the words that are being spoken.”

Self-Evaluation Increases Self-Efficacy

A. “I spent Saturday afternoon with my new Russian friends from the church youth group. While discussing Dostoevsky, one of the boys in this group and I discovered we both have an interest in philosophy. From then on, we spent the evening trying to stump each other with difficult questions such as, “Which is more important: Freedom or Security?” I feel like I handled myself fairly well in this game…in any case, it was an excellent way to gain abstract vocabulary!”

B. “This past week I’ve been thrown into a bunch of situations where I’m using Russian in ways I never have before. The role-playing exercises we use during class are, I’m certain, a huge help to me in this respect, but I still dread them.. “

LC Self-Assessment: Background Knowledge Helps

“This past week I went to see Mozart’s “Die Zauberflöte” performed in Russian. Although I already knew the plot and meaning of each of the arias and other songs, I was surprised how much of the general libretto or even the songs I understood, as I was expecting to understand less than maybe 50% of the interlude text and barely none of the songs, but I would say it was about 75-80% of the conversations and roughly 60-65% of what the performers were singing.”

The Right Interlocutor and Self-Efficacy

“One of the girls in my elective course approached me and decided to introduce herself and start up a conversation. She of course recognized that I was most definitely not another Russian student, but all the same expressed her surprise at how much I understood/was able to converse and that I, as a non-native speaker, was taking a course that in her opinion was difficult even for her as a native speaker.”

Self-Management: Dealing with Linguistic Failure

“Hopefully this will be a one-off event, but on Thursday I simply could not operate in Russian. I felt as though I was back in my first semester of study. I barely could understand anything, had to ask teachers and other students to repeat themselves, could not function. This lead to much frustration, especially as it leads to people, especially Russians, trying to finish what I am trying to say for me. And although I understand the gesture to be friendly and showing that they’re trying to help, it ends up only exacerbating the situation and made everything worse.”

Monitoring Speech>Processing Feedback>Goal Setting

Getting Register Right:

“While it is nice to speak on a formal, professional level …, I know this [can also]… distract the listener and that is far from the ideal situation.

I have in mind especially all the Russian students with whom I attend my elective course. The girl who often chats with me passed comment on that while I for the most part can, at least in her opinion, sufficiently converse in Russian, she thinks I speak too formally, as though from a newspaper or a textbook.”

Monitoring Speech>Identity Competence (Self-Efficacy)

“Talking to my host mom earlier this week and making her laugh was one interaction that I thought went well. Usually we don’t have personal conversations but instead talk about broad topics like the weather, current events and so on. On Monday we talked about her school and her class and I made a few jokes that she enjoyed so that was a nice thing for me. I am a person who likes to make jokes and play around but that seems to be the hardest part of someone’s personality to translate into another language/culture.”

Monitoring Speech, Self-Efficacy through Identity Competence“And then we talked about her boyfriend and what’s wrong with him.  Maybe this is just a normal conversation for anyone to have, I only had to ask one word, and I was pretty mistake-free, not a big deal, except that I was trying to be convincing and be really supportive.  She [the host family sister] thanked me for all the great advice and support and [said] she felt much better having talked to me about it.   Among my friends at home I often play this role, and to have been unable to play this part until now is to have effectively become another person or, at the very least, to have not been fully me.  It’s like the American- me and the Russian-me are beginning to mesh better.   I like that.  I like that a lot.  Being able to be (almost) completely yourself in a foreign language in a foreign land makes one feel a whole lot less like a monkey on a tricycle.”   

 

LUR Russian Flagship Report (February)

Contact

Dan E. Davidsonceo@americancouncils.org