Various forms of pre-listening support, such as the provision of vocabulary and topic information, have been used to help second language (L2) learners better understand what they listen to. Results of studies on the effects of vocabulary support have been mixed. Furthermore, there has been little research on the effects of different quantities of vocabulary items and types of word information provided on the listening performance of L2 students of different proficiency levels. Therefore, this study investigated the effectiveness of two different levels of 18-week vocabulary support (an expanded vocabulary-instruction support that targeted both a greater quantity of lexical items and a focus on multiword units vs. an unexpanded vocabulary-instruction support with a focus on single words only) for enhancing listening ability of students of English as a foreign language (EFL) defined as their performance on the listening test of the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC). The results indicate that the group that received the expanded vocabulary support attained a significant gain and performed significantly better on the posttest than the group that received the unexpanded vocabulary support. The results also reveal that the expanded vocabulary support was particularly helpful for lower proficiency level students. Pedagogical and research implications are also discussed.
BejarI.DouglasD.JamiesonJ.NissanS.TurnerJ. (2000). TOEFL 2000 listening framework: A working paper. TOEFL monograph series MS 19. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.
2.
BerneJ.E. (1995). How does varying pre-listening activities affect second language listening comprehension?Hispania, 78, 316–319.
3.
BerneJ.E. (2004). Listening comprehension strategies: A review of the literature. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 521–533.
4.
BiberD.ConradS. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In: HasselgardH.OksfjellS. (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honor of Stig Johansson (pp. 181–190). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
5.
BiberD.ConradS.CortesV. (2004). If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405.
6.
BoersF.EyckmansJ.KappelJ.StrangersH.DemecheleerM. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10, 245–262.
7.
BonkW. (2000). Second language lexical knowledge and listening comprehension. International Journal of Listening, 14, 14–31.
8.
BrownD.N. (2014). Agency and motivation to achieve language-learning objectives among learners in an academic environment in France. Apples-Journal of Applied Language Studies, 8, 101–126.
9.
ChangC.S. (2007). The impact of vocabulary preparation on L2 listening comprehension, confidence and strategy use. System, 35, 534–550.
10.
ChangC.S.ReadJ. (2006).The effects of listening support on the listening performance of EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 375–397.
11.
ChouM.H.A. (2013). A content-based approach to teaching and testing listening skills to grade 5 EFL learners. International Journal of Listening, 27, 172–185.
12.
ChungJ.M.HuangS.C. (1998). The effects of three aural advance organizers for video viewing in a foreign language classroom. System, 26, 553–565.
13.
CohenJ. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
14.
ConklinK.SchmittN. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers?Applied Linguistics, 29, 72–89.
15.
CravenM. (2012). Pass the TOEIC. Sachse, TX: Compass Publishing.
16.
CrossleyS.SalsburyT.McNemaraD. (2015). Assessing lexical proficiency using analytic ratings: A case for collocation accuracy. Applied Linguistics, 36, 570–590.
17.
DupuyB.C. (1999). Narrow listening: An alternative way to develop and enhance listening comprehension in students of French as a foreign language. System, 27, 351–361.
18.
DurrantP.SchmittN. (2010). Adult learners’ retention of collocations from exposure. Second Language Research, 26, 163–188.
19.
Educational Testing Service (2010). TOEIC official test-preparation guide, volume 2. Taipei: Chun Shin Limited.
20.
EllisN. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In: DoughtyC.J.LongM.H. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
21.
FeytenC.M. (1991). The power of listening ability: An overlooked dimension in language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 173–180.
22.
FieldJ. (1998). Skills and strategies: Towards a new methodology for listening. ELF Journal, 52, 338–339.
23.
FieldJ. (2004). An insight into listeners’ problem: too much bottom-up or too much top-down?System, 32, 363–377.
24.
GrahamS. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System, 34, 165–182.
25.
HamreB.K.JusticeL.M.PiantaR.C.et al (2010). Implementation fidelity of MyTeachingPartner literacy and language activities: Association with preschoolers’ language and literacy growth. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 329–347.
26.
HowarthP. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied linguistics, 19, 4–44.
27.
HsuJ.Y.HsuL.C. (2007).Teaching lexical collocations to enhance listening comprehension of English majors in a technological university of Taiwan. Soochow University Journal of Foreign Languages and Cultures, 24, 1–34.
28.
KrashenS. (1996). The case of narrow listening. System, 24, 97–100.
29.
LeLoupJ.W.PonterioR. (2007). Listening: You’ve got to be carefully taught. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 4–15.
30.
LiuD. (2003). The most frequently used idioms in American spoken English: A corpus analysis and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 671–700.
31.
LiuD. (2010). Going beyond patterns: Involving cognitive analysis in the learning of collocations. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 4–30.
32.
LiuD. (2012). The most frequently-used multi-word constructions in academic written English: A multi-corpus study. English for Specific Purposes, 31, 25–35.
33.
MartinezR.SchmittN. (2012). A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33, 299–320.
34.
MendelsohnD.J. (1995). Applying learning strategies in the second/foreign language listening comprehension lesson. In: MendelsohnD.J.RubinJ. (Eds.), A guide for the teaching of second language listening (pp. 132–150). San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.
35.
MendelsohnD.J. (2001). Listening comprehension: We’ve come a long way, but … Contact, 27, 33–40.
36.
MeunierF.GrangerS. (Eds.). (2008). Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
37.
MillarN. (2011).The process of malformed formulaic language. Applied Linguistics, 32, 129–148.
38.
NesselhaufN. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
39.
PawleyA.SyderF.H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In: RichardsJ.C.SchmidtR.W. (Eds.) Language and communication (pp. 191–226). London: Longman.
40.
RichardsJ.C. (2005). Second thoughts on teaching listening. RELC Journal, 36, 85–92.
41.
RostM. (2002).Teaching and researching listening. London: Longman.
42.
SchmittN. (Ed.). (2004). Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
43.
SchmittN.SchmittD.ClaphamC. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18, 55–88.
44.
SerranoR.StengersH.HousenA. (2015). Acquisition of formulaic sequences in intensive and regular EFL programmes. Language Teaching Research, 19, 89–106.
45.
ShinW. (2012). Taking the TOEIC® 1: Skills and strategies. Sachse, TX: Compass Publishing.
46.
SinclairJ. (1987). Collocation: A progress report. In: SteeleR.ThomasT. (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honor of Michael Halliday II (pp. 319–331). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
47.
SinclairJ. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus, and discourse. London: Routledge.
48.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA. (2013). Eye-tracking and ERPs in multi-word expression research: A state-of-the-art review of the method and findings. The Mental Lexicon, 8, 245–268.
49.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA. (2015). On the ‘holistic’ nature of formulaic language. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 11, 285–301.
50.
StahrL.S. (2009). Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 577–607.
51.
SzudarskiP.ConklinK. (2014) Short- and long-term effects of rote rehearsal on ESL learners’ processing of L2 collocations. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 833–842
VandergriftL. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40, 191–210.
55.
WoodD. (2009). Effects of focused instruction of formulaic sequences on fluent expression in second language narratives: A case study. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 39–57.
56.
WrayA. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. New York: Cambridge University Press.
