Promoting Process-Oriented Listening Instruction in the ESL Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When teaching listening, second language instructors tend to rely on product-oriented approaches that test learners’ abilities to identify words and answer comprehension questions, but this does li le to help learners improve upon their listening skills (e.g., Vandergri & Goh, 2012). To address this issue, alternative approaches that guide learners through the listening process toward improved comprehension and uency have been recommended in the literature. Based on a review of 6 popular intermediate adult English as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL) textbooks, we found that most of the listening activities in the texts exemplified a product-oriented approach (testing word recognition or listening comprehension) rather than a process-oriented approach (providing instruction to aid in word recognition and comprehension). To enhance the integration of process-oriented approaches for teaching listening, we provide suggestions for activities to supplement product-oriented teacher-made and textbook activities. We begin with an overview of second language listening theory and research that justi es the incorporation of process-oriented instructional approaches in the ESL classroom. Then we report the results of our textbook review and present examples of recommended activity types that teachers and textbook writers could incorporate into their instructional materials to encourage a balanced approach to teaching listening.Quand les enseignants de langue seconde enseignent l’écoute, ils ont tendance à sefier aux approches orientées sur le produit qui évaluent la capacité de leurs élèves à identifier des mots et à répondre à des questions de compréhension. Pourtant, ce e méthode ne contribue que très peu à l’amélioration des habiletés d’écoute des élèves (par ex., Vandergri & Goh, 2012). Pour aborder ce e question, les chercheurs recommandent des approches alternatives qui guident les apprenants au l du processus d’écoute de sorte à améliorer la compréhension et les compétences. Un examen de 6 manuels populaires d’anglais langue seconde ou étrangère pour adulte a révélé que la plupart des activités d’écoute sont orientées sur un produit (évaluation de la reconnaissance des mots ou la compréhension à l’écoute) plutôt que sur un processus (directives pour aider la reconnaissance des mots et la compréhension). Pour me re en valeur l’intégration des approches axées sur le processus dans l’enseignement de l’écoute, nous o rons des suggestions d’activités pour enrichir les activités créés par les enseignants ou provenant des manuels et qui sont axées sur le produit. Nous commençons par un survol de la recherche et de la théorie qui portent sur l’écoute en langue seconde et qui jus- ti ent l’intégration dans les cours d’ALS d’approches pédagogiques axées sur le processus. Ensuite, nous présentons les résultats de notre examen de manuels et recommandons des exemples de types d’activités que les enseignants et les auteurs de manuels pourraient incorporer dans leur matériel pédagogique pour o rir une approche équilibrée à l’enseignement de l’écoute.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".