自由論題［研究論文］The Use of Listening Comprehension
Strategies and Note-taking to Recall on
TOEFL
The Effects of Learners’
L1 Backgrounds and Proficiency
LevelsTOEFL 問題内容リコールのための聴解ストラテジーとノートテイキングストラテジー
学習者の母語と英語熟達度が与える影響について

Yunlong Liu
Doctoral Program, Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University
リュウ・ウンリュウ
慶應義塾大学大学院政策・メディア研究科後期博士課程

Abstract:

The present study aimed to discover how listening comprehension strategies
and note taking could be used to recall the content of passages on TOEFL. The
independent variables were learners’ L1 backgrounds (Chinese and Japanese) andEnglish proficiency levels (intermediate and advanced). The results showed thatthe advanced listeners were more adept at recalling the gist and complete meaninggroups of a lecture, and took advantage of linkage words, notes, and the relationshipbetween sentences to recall information.
The study also revealed differing patterns between Japanese and Chinese
learners in terms of how they recalled the content of the lecture, and of the quality
and the quantity of the notes they took. Specifically, the test-answerability scoreof the Chinese participants in the study was higher than that of the Japaneseparticipants. The Chinese participants used more content words in their mothertongue to take notes than their Japanese counterparts, but the Japanese participants
included more words in their notes. The results of the study provide both theoreticalcontributions to SLA and pedagogical implications for the foreign language
本研究は、第二言語としての英語学習者の L2 聴解ストラテジーとノートテ
イキングが TOEFL リスニング問題の内容のリコールにどのように役立てられているのかを明らかにしたものである。
学習者の英語熟達度レベル（中級・上級）と母語（中国語・日本語）を独立変数とした。熟達レベルが高いと、講義の中の接続表現に着目するなど、内容理解のための工夫がなされ、また母語の影響がノートテイキングに表れることも分かった。本研究結果はリスニングの授業の教案作成の際に参考になり得ることから、理論的貢献に加え、教育的示唆も提供できると考える。

218

The Use of Listening Comprehension Strategies and Note-taking to Recall on TOEFL

Keywords: listening comprehension strategies, recall, note taking
聴解ストラテジー、
リコール、
ノートテイキング

1 Introduction
Learning strategies, which consist of metacognitive, cognitive, andsocio-affective strategies, are intentional behaviors used by learners tofacilitate their language learning (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Vandergrift(1997) maintained that L2 listeners can use learning strategies to process
audio information, and identified specific listening comprehension strategies
that belong to the metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective strategy
groups. Different from test-taking strategies, which are only for the
purpose of increasing the test score without comprehending test materials,
such as guessing the answers to questions (Hughes et al., 1988), listening
comprehension strategies help L2 learners solve difficulties in understanding
L2 audio material. For instance, in the cognitive strategy group, making
use of prior knowledge is a specific listening comprehension strategy,
and listeners may use their prior knowledge to understand the gist of alecture (Vandergrift, 1997; Chang, 2008). Previous studies discovered that
listeners at different foreign language proficiency levels might use different
listening comprehension strategies (Vogel, 1995; Oxford, 1996; Chang,2008). Nowadays, the role of working memory has become increasingly
salient in the field of second language acquisition (Vandergrift & Baker,2015), and a number of researchers (e.g. Andringa et al., 2012) haveverified the relationship between working memory capacity and L2 listening
comprehension. Based on their findings, the recall capacity, as a crucialcomponent in working memory capacity, is indispensable in the process of
L2 listening comprehension. Therefore, it is necessary for the researcher
to study what L2 listeners do after encoding the content of audio materials.
More specifically, how they use listening comprehension strategies to later
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.16 No.1 2016

219

自由論題

recall content should be further studied.
Furthermore, some English standardized tests, including TOEFL iBTand TEM-8 1, allow test-takers to take notes while listening to the audio
testing materials. This means an increasing number of researchers havestudied the criteria for evaluating the quality of notes, how to improve thequality of the notes taken by test-takers, and the relationship between thequality of test-takers’ notes and their test performances (Dunkel, 1988;
Song, 2011; Thorley et al., 2015). Previous studies have investigated how
L1 speakers and L2 learners at different language proficiency levels takenotes (e.g. Dunkel, 1988), but comparisons of notes taken by L2 learners
from different L1 backgrounds are scarce. The features of the notes taken by
L2 learners from different Asian cultural backgrounds should be compared,
as this could shed light on how to take effective and qualified notes and thus
improve Asian EFL learners’ listening comprehension competency.

2 Literature Review
2.1

The Use of Listening Comprehension Strategies to Recall theContent of a Passage
Different from short-term memory, which refers to a system for the

temporary storage of information, working memory refers to the ability
to store and retrieve information actively (Goo, 2010). The present study
focuses on how L2 listeners recall the content of L2 audio materials. The
participants were asked to process, store, and recall the content of thetwo lectures used in this study, which is more closely related to working
memory capacity than short-term memory. A number of researchers havestudied the relationship between working memory capacity and L2 listening
comprehension (e.g. Andringa et al., 2012; Vandergrift & Baker, 2015). By
studying highly proficiency learners of Dutch, Andringa et al. (2012) foundthat L2 listeners with greater working memory capacity could be more adept
at perceiving the important cues in L2 spoken discourses, and that these L2

220

The Use of Listening Comprehension Strategies and Note-taking to Recall on TOEFL

listeners could make full use of those cues to facilitate their L2 listening
comprehension process, which involves four steps: selecting, organizing,
integrating, and monitoring information (Wolvin, 2010).
Although the positive relationship between working memory capacity
and L2 listening comprehension has been verified, the question of how
L2 listeners recall the content they heard in the audio information has
not yet been answered. At the stage of processing audio information, L2
listeners may use listening comprehension strategies to solve difficulties
in audio materials (Vandergrift, 1997; Chang, 2008), so they may recall
the information processed by using listening comprehension strategies
to complete the corresponding comprehension tasks. Therefore, how L2listeners make use of their working memory capacity to recall information
deserves to be studied intensively. However, very few researchers havestudied this issue (Vogel, 1995; Liu, 2015). Vogel (1995) concluded thatin recall tests, learners who perceived themselves to be the most strategic
listeners outperformed those who saw themselves as the least strategic
listeners; however, he did not delve into the relationship between thelearners’ proficiency levels and recall ability. How successful and lesssuccessful listeners differ in recalling content processed by using listening
comprehension strategies remains unanswered; thus, finding an answer tothis question is one of the main objectives of the present study. Liu (2015)
compared the differences between TOEFL test-takers at different language
proficiency levels in recalling content while using listening comprehension
strategies. He concluded that successful listeners are more likely to recall
the gist of a lecture and its details, and then to make inferences in a lecture,compared to their less-successful counterparts. Advanced listeners arealso more adept at referring to their notes to recall (Liu, 2015). Like thequestionnaire in the present study, the design of the questionnaire used by
Liu (2015) was also based on Vandergrift’s (1997) conclusion with regard
to listening comprehension strategies. However, Liu’s (2015) questionnaire
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.16 No.1 2016

221

自由論題

did not distinguish between different kinds of details, which could be further
classified into single words, repeated words, and complete information
units (Vandergrift, 1997). Therefore, the present study improves upon themethod used in Liu’s (2015) study by ameliorating the items included in thequestionnaire.
2.2

The Role of Cultural Background in the Use of Listening
Comprehension Strategies
A number of researchers have found some similarities in how Japaneseand Chinese learners of English adopt listening comprehension strategies(Hu, 2002; Takeuchi, 2003). Chinese learners of English tend to focus on
every detail in audio materials, and when their listening comprehensioncompetency is enhanced they can use top-down and bottom-up listeningstyles simultaneously and effectively (Hu, 2002). Similarly, Takeuchi(2003) discovered that Japanese learners of English adopt different listening
comprehension strategies in different learning stages. More specifically, hefound that Japanese students are likely to pay attention to every detail inaudio materials at their initial learning stage, and then, at the intermediatestage, they are likely to decode an English audio passage in a top-downmanner.
However, there are differences in how they use listening comprehension
strategies. Chang and Read (2013) found that Chinese learners of English
at a high proficiency level could deal with the cognitive load posed by a testin which listening comprehension questions were raised orally, as they weretrained to focus on linking words, such as but, so, and firstly. However, noJapanese researcher found this the case with Japanese learners of English. In
addition, Chinese learners of English are inclined to adopt a socio-affective
strategy when they listen to English materials (Oxford, 1996), while
Takeuchi (2003) did not find this true of Japanese learners of English.
Based on the above analysis, it is clear there are similarities and222

The Use of Listening Comprehension Strategies and Note-taking to Recall on TOEFL

differences in how Japanese and Chinese learners of English use listening
comprehension strategies. Nevertheless, using listening comprehension
strategies for the sake of understanding the ongoing lecture is different fromrecalling content processed using listening comprehension strategies. Using
listening comprehension strategies occurs at the stage of processing audio
materials, during the playing of audio materials, while recalling the content
processed using listening comprehension strategies takes place after theplaying of audio materials. As the role of recall is significant, the gap in howlearners of English from different L1 backgrounds recall content processedusing different listening comprehension strategies should be bridged.
2.3 The Measurements for Evaluating the Quality of Notes
A number of researchers have verified the important role of note-taking
and proposed measurements for evaluating its quality (Dunkel, 1988; Song,
2011; Thorley et al., 2015). In Dunkel’s (1988) study, five measurements– the total-number-of-words score, the information-units count, the testanswerability, the completeness score, and the effective ratio – were utilized
to evaluate the quality of note taking by L1 and L2 speakers of English. As
an essential element for evaluating the quality of notes, the test-answerability
could be defined as the number of questions that could be answered fromlisteners’ notes (Dunkel, 1988). In addition, test-answerability is highly
correlated to the number of listening comprehension questions. Song (2011)
proposed listener’s notes could be judged by how well he or she wrote down
different levels of information units in an academic lecture; the format of thenotes would also exert an influence on the performance of listeners (Thorley
et al., 2015).
Furthermore, Dunkel (1988) discovered that the information unit
count and total number of words relate closely to L2 students’ listening
comprehension test performance, while the test-answerability score and total
number of words could be predictors of the performance of native speakers.
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.16 No.1 2016

223

自由論題

Dunkel’s (1988) study only compared the differences in notes taken by L1
speakers and L2 learners. However, the study on discovering differences in
the notes taken by L2 learners from different cultural backgrounds is scarce.
Koren (1997) discovered that some L2 learners are inclined to take notesin L1 while listening to lectures in L2. However, Parks (1982) concluded
that taking notes in L1 while listening to lectures in L2 requires four steps:
perception, semantic analysis, semantic reconstruction, and expression,
which is a rather demanding task. To avoid such a cognitive load, some L2
learners might be used to taking notes in the target language directly. L2
learners from different L1 backgrounds may take notes in different ways, so
the present study intends to find their differences in note-taking.
Although a number of researchers have studied how listening
comprehension strategies are used by L2 learners at different language
proficiency levels, few scholars have focused on how L2 learners use
these strategies to recall content in TOEFL listening comprehension tests.
Taking notes while listening is a rather challenging task for test-takers. As
mentioned above, although previous studies have revealed differences intaking notes between L1 speakers and L2 learners, little attention has been
paid to classifying differences in notes between L2 listeners from different
cultural backgrounds. Based on the above-mentioned gaps, the study asks
the following three research questions.
1) What are the differences in the advanced and intermediate learners’
self-reports of using listening strategies to recall information?
2) What are the differences in the Japanese and Chinese listeners’ selfreports of using listening strategies to recall information?
3) What are the differences in notes taken by the Japanese and Chinese
learners of English?

224

The Use of Listening Comprehension Strategies and Note-taking to Recall on TOEFL

3 Method
3.1 Participants
The participants in this study were 30 native speakers of Chinese and25 native Japanese speakers. Further characteristics of the participants areprovided in Table 1, including their age, major, and language proficiency
level. The participants were classified into two groups – advanced English
proficiency and intermediate English proficiency – with approximately
the same number of advanced and intermediate learners in the Japaneseand Chinese groups. Their standardized English test scores were taken
into consideration when classifying them into one of these two groups.
According to standards set by the Educational Testing Service (2005), theparticipants whose TOEFL iBT scores were above 88, or TOEIC scores wereabove 785, were classified into the advanced English proficiency group,
while those whose TOEFL iBT scores were between 56 and 87, or TOEIC
scores were between 605 and 780, were categorized as the intermediate
English proficiency group.
3.2 Materials
As the participants had different majors, the researcher chose two
academic lectures with different topics, science and art respectively, so
as to control the variable of major. All participants were asked to listen
to two audio lectures named “Octopus” and “Roman Sculptures” fromthe unpublished TOEFL iBT listening comprehension test. According
Table 1 Characteristics of the Participants
Study groups

Age

ChineseJapanese

19.4
20.8

Major
Arts
25
10

Science
515

The numberof advanced
learners

The number ofi n t e r m ed ia t elearners

13 (43%)10 (40%)17 (57%)15 (60%)KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.16 No.1 2016

225

自由論題

to Carrell (2007), TOEFL PBT is being phased out, and TOEFL iBT is
now recognized by the majority of top universities. The length of eachconversation or lecture used in TOEFL iBT is longer than that of the audio
materials used in TOEFL PBT, so TOEFL iBT test-takers have to takenotes while listening, which aggravates their cognitive loads. Therefore,choosing materials from TOEFL iBT could solve more practical problems
for L2 listeners. The biggest English training organization, the New
Oriental Education Group, purchased the copyright of the test, and theresearcher got permission from the group to use the two lectures to conduct
academic research. There were 12 multiple-choice questions (each lecture
raised six questions), and the participants were not allowed to preview thecorresponding questions until they finished listening to each lecture. The
two lectures lasted for 327 and 296 seconds, and the themes related tobiology and history, respectively.
3.3 Instruments
A questionnaire (see Appendix A) with a design based on Vandergrift’sclassification of listening comprehension strategies (see Vandergrift, 1997)
was used. It contained 13 items designed to measure how the participants
recalled the content processed using different listening comprehension
strategies in order to complete the corresponding listening comprehension
tasks. The participants were asked to respond to each item on a six-point
Likert scale, which was beneficial for conducting frequencies analysis.
The researcher removed some listening comprehension strategies from
Vandergrift’s original version as they could not be used to recall, such asadvance organization, which means listeners should predict the topic of alecture before they listen to it. The second part of the questionnaire asked
the participants to provide personal information, such as their age, majors,and standardized English proficiency test scores.

226

The Use of Listening Comprehension Strategies and Note-taking to Recall on TOEFL

3.4 ProceduresFirst, participants were introduced to the procedure of this study, andthey then had one practice session to confirm they understood what they
were supposed to do. There were many linguistic terms, such as linkage
words, in the questionnaire. In order to prevent the participants frommisunderstanding the terms, the researcher explained in detail what they
meant. After the practice session, they listened to the academic lectures usedin the present study. Meanwhile, they were allowed to take notes, and were
informed that the quality of their notes would later be compared to those ofother participants by the researcher. Next, they were asked to complete thequestionnaire described above. A post-hoc interview was provided for after
the data collection, during which the participants were asked about how
they learnt English before, how they recalled the content processed by using
different listening comprehension strategies, and how they took notes.
3.5 Analysis
The coding methods used to evaluate the note-taking quality weresimilar to those used in Dunkel’s (1988) study. First, with regard to thetotal number of words, two Japanese research assistants counted the total
number of English words and symbols in the notes taken by the Japaneseparticipants in this study, and two Chinese research assistants did thesame with the Chinese learners’ notes. Second, the two Japanese assistants
counted the total number of complete information units in the Japaneseparticipants’ notes, and the two Chinese assistants did the same for the
Chinese learners’ notes. Different single words, complete information
units represent complete information. When reading complete information,note-takers could recall abundant information. Third, the two Japanese
assistants counted the total number of Japanese content words in theJapanese students’ notes. Given that a proportion of Japanese characters aremeaningless, the Japanese assistants did not count the number of Japanese
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.16 No.1 2016

227

自由論題

characters in the participants’ notes; instead, they counted the number of
meaningful Japanese words in the participants’ notes. Two Chinese research
assistants did the same thing for the Chinese participants’ notes. Lastly,
there were 15 crucial points that could be referred to in answering the 12
comprehension questions. In order to answer the fourth question of the firstlecture correctly, a note-taker needed to write “projections” and “texture,” ortheir synonyms. If so, he or she could earn one point. If a note-taker wrote
six points, their answerability was calculated as 6/15, so his or her score
was 0.4. The Japanese assistants judged how many of the 15 points existed
in the Japanese participants’ notes, and the Chinese assistants judged theChinese participants’ notes using the same method. Means comparisonswere carried out using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to analyze
the differences in the different groups’ average scores for the listening
comprehension test. Descriptive analysis and frequency distribution wereused to describe the results of the questionnaire, and two-way ANOVA wasalso used to answer the three research questions.

4 Results
4.1

Differences in Using Strategies to Recall Content between
Advanced and Intermediate Learners
The participants’ test scores for the listening comprehension test in

this study are given in Table 2 and Table 3. The findings revealed that theparticipants’ proficiency level did contribute to the difference in their testscores (F = 52.305, p = .000), but their L1 background did not contribute to
the difference (F = 1.360, p = .249). By conducting descriptive analysis andtwo-way ANOVA, five differences between the advanced and intermediate
learners were identified (see Table 5). The advanced learners were more
adept at recalling the gist of a lecture (F = 7.920, p = .007) and made betteruse of their notes (F = 6.324, p = .015). Furthermore, compared to theintermediate learners, the advanced learners were good at recalling complete

228

The Use of Listening Comprehension Strategies and Note-taking to Recall on TOEFL

information units (F = 14.270, p = .000) and content after using linkage
words (F = 9.890, p = .003). Lastly, the lower-level learners in this study
were less capable of recalling content processed by analyzing the relationshipbetween sentences than the advanced learners (F = 12.437, p = .001).
Table 2 Differences in the Listening Comprehension Test Scores between the
Advanced and Intermediate Learners
Study groupn.

Intermediate

32

Advanced

23

M

SD

df

F

Sig.

6.62

1.99

1

52.305

0.000

10.04

1.26

Dependent variable: test scores; Independent variable: language proficiency level* Alpha level was set at p < .05
Table 3Differences in Scores of the Listening Comprehension Test between
the Chinese and Japanese Participants

Study group

n.

M

SD

df

F

Sig.

Chinese

30

8.40

2.47

1

1.360

0.249

Japanese

25

7.64

2.32

Dependent variable: test scores; Independent variable: L1 background* Alpha level was set at p < .05
Table 4Frequencies Distribution for Listening Strategies Used by the
Advanced and Intermediate Learners to Recall

Recall Proficiency

n

Never

1

Advanced

230%Hardly Sometimes Often Usually Always
0%

1

Intermediate

32

0%

12.4%

21.9% 31.3%

28.1%

6.3%

2

Advanced

23

4.4%

0%

26.1% 13.0%

34.8%

21.7%

17.4% 26.1%

17.4%

39.1%

2

Intermediate

32

6.3%

21.9%

31.3% 34.4%

6.1%

0%

5

Advanced

23

0%

0%

8.7% 34.8%

39.1%

17.4%

5

Intermediate

32

6.1%

12.5%

31.3% 18.8%

21.9%

9.4%

10

Advanced

23

0%

4.3%

21.7% 21.7%

26.2%

26.1%

10

Intermediate

32

9.4%

15.6%

15.6% 31.3%

18.7%

9.4%

12

Advanced

23

0%

8.7%

13.1% 39.1%

26.1%

13.0%

12

Intermediate

32

12.5%

21.9%

34.4% 18.8%

12.4%

0%

KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.16 No.1 2016

229

自由論題

Table 5Differences in How the Advanced and Intermediate Learners Used
Strategies to Recall

How the participants
recalled

Proficiency

M

SD

F

df

Sig.

1. I recalled the gist of thelecture to choose my
response.

Intermediate
Advanced

2.94
3.78

1.13
1.17

7.920

1

.007

2. I recalled the complete
meaning groups in thelectures to choose my
response.

Intermediate
Advanced

2.13
3.39

1.04
1.34

14.2701.000

5. I recalled the content
after the linkage words
in the lectures to choose
my response.

Intermediate
Advanced

2.66
3.65

1.38
0.89

9.890

1

.003

10. I recalled the notes I
had taken to choose my
response.

Intermediate
Advanced

2.63
3.48

1.45
1.24

6.324

1

.015

12. I recalled the content
Intermediate
processed by analyzing Advanced
the relationship between
sentences in the lectures
to choose my response.

1.97
3.13

1.20
1.33

12.4371.001

Dependent variable: the learners’ response to each item; Independent variable:language proficiency level* Alpha level was set at p < .05

4.2

Differences in Using Strategies to Recall Content between the
Chinese and Japanese participants
The study also revealed differing patterns in the ways in which

Japanese and Chinese learners of English recalled the content of
the academic lecture (see Table 7). As mentioned above, there wasno signif icant difference in the average score between the Chineseand Japanese participants (F = 1.360, p = .249); however, there weredifferences in how the Chinese and Japanese participants used listening
comprehension strategies to recall content. The Chinese learners of

230

The Use of Listening Comprehension Strategies and Note-taking to Recall on TOEFL

English were more inclined to recall the gist of a lecture than the Japaneseparticipants (F = 8.145, p = .006). In addition, the Chinese participants
were more likely to recall the content processed by making inferences (F =5.544, p = .022) and by translating them into Chinese to answer questions
than their Japanese counterparts (F = 4.783, p = .033). As seen in Table
8, the researcher discovered that the advanced Chinese participants weremore likely to recall the content processed by referring to their priorknowledge (F = 5.005, p = .030).

Table 6 Frequencies Analysis for Listening Strategies Used by the Chinese andJapanese Participants to Recall
RecallL1n.

1

Chinese30

Never Hardly Sometimes Often Usually Always
0%

3.4%

13.3% 23.3% 30.0%

30.0%

1

Japanese

25

0%

12.0%

28.0% 36.0% 16.0%

8.0%

11

Chinese

30

3.3%

3.4%

33.3% 40.0% 20.0%

0%11Japanese

25

4.0%

36.0%

32.0% 20.0%

4.0%

4.0%

13

Chinese

30

10.0%

20.0%

23.3% 26.7% 10.0%

10.0%

13

Japanese

25

12.0%

40.0%

32.0%

Table 7

8.0%

8.0%

0%

Differences in How the Chinese and Japanese Participants Used
Strategies to Recall

How the participants recalled

L1

M

SD

F

df

Sig.

1. I recalled the gist of the lecture Chinese
to choose my response.
Japanese

3.70
2.80

1.15
1.12

8.145

1

.006

11. I recalled the content processed Chineseb y m a k i n g i n f e r e n c e s t o Japanesechoose my response

2.70
1.96

0.95
1.14

5.544

1

.022

13. I recalled the meaning groups Chinese
processed by translating into Japanese
my mother language to choose
my response.

2.37
1.60

1.45
1.08

4.783

1

.033

Dependent variable: the learners’ response to each item; Independent variable: L1
background* Alpha level was set at p < .05
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.16 No.1 2016

231

自由論題

Table 8 How Proficiency *L1 Affected Using Listening Strategies to Recall
How the participants
recalled

Proficiency *L1

n.

M

F

df

Sig.

I recalled the content proce- Advanced Chinese 13
ssed by referring to my prior Advanced Japanese 10
knowledge to choose my
response.

2.46
1.40

5.005

1

.030

Dependent variable: the learners’ response to each item. Independent variable:
proficiency level *L1 background* Alpha level was set at p < .05

4.3 Differences in Notes Taken by the Chinese and Japanese Participants
The study also found differing patterns in the ways in which Japaneseand Chinese learners of English took notes while listening to audio materials
in English (see Table 9). The results revealed that the test-answerability scoreof the Chinese participants was higher than that of the Japanese participants(F = 7.097, p = .010). Furthermore, the Chinese participants used more
words and characters in their mother tongue to take notes than their Japanesecounterparts (F = 7.180, p = .010). Conversely, the Japanese students wrote
more words in their notes than the Chinese students (F = 8.816, p = .005).
As is evident in Table 10, the advanced Japanese participants wrote more
words in their notes than their Chinese counterparts (F = 5.564, p = .022).
In addition, the advanced Chinese participants wrote more Chinese content
words to take notes, while the advanced Japanese participants were lesslikely to use their mother tongue to take notes (F = 4.260, p = .044).

5 Discussion
5.1

Differences between the Advanced and Intermediate Learners in
the Use of Listening Comprehension Strategies to Recall Content
In the present study, the intermediate learners were less adept atrecalling complete information units of the lectures to which they listened,
which aligns with Goh’s (2002) finding that less-skilled listeners have

232

The Use of Listening Comprehension Strategies and Note-taking to Recall on TOEFL

Table 9 Differences in Notes Taken by the Chinese and Japanese Participants
Criteria for judging the qualityof notes

L1

n.

M

F

df

Sig.

The total-number-of-words
score

ChineseJapanese

30
25

63.63
87.48

8.816

1

.005

The total-number-of-contentwords-in-mother-tongue score

ChineseJapanese

30
25

9.53
3.56

7.180

1

.010

The test-answerability score

ChineseJapanese

30
25

0.533
0.389

7.097

1

.010

Dependent variable: mean of each criterion; Independent variable: L1 background.
* Alpha level was set at p < .05
Table 10

How Proficiency *L1 Caused Differences in Notes Taken by the
Chinese and Japanese Participants

Criteria for
judging notequality

Proficiency *L1

n.

M

F

df

Sig.

The total-number- Advanced Chinese
Advanced Japaneseof-words score

13
10

76.15
128.60

5.564

1

.022

The total-number- Advanced Chinese
of-content-words- Advanced Japanese
in-mother-tongue
score

13
10

14.85
3.00

4.260

1

.044

Dependent variable: mean of each criterion; Independent variable: language
proficiency level * L1 background* Alpha level was set at p < .05

problems in chunking and processing the stream of speech. Less-skilled
listeners could not process the stream of speech in a timely and correctmanner, so they might only recall single words to facilitate comprehension
and recall. Furthermore, the advanced participants were more adept atrecalling the gist of a lecture, which is consistent with Chang’s (2008)
finding that advanced learners paid attention to the gist of the lecture morethan intermediate learners, which enables them to use this gist to recall
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.16 No.1 2016

233

自由論題

information.
Furthermore, the advanced learners in this study were more adept atanalyzing the relationship between sentences and recalling them to complete
the corresponding comprehension tasks. Goh (2002) argued that advanced
learners were better at completing cognitive tasks, such as analyzing therelationship between sentences. Highly proficient L2 learners can not only
process the linguistic information on the surface level but also deduce
the relationship between sentences, which might explain why they could
recall this in completing the comprehension task. They can also take notes
comprehensively, logically, and effectively (Carrell, 2007). Therefore, it
seems reasonable to deduce that in this study the advanced learners could
make better use of their notes to recall content than the intermediate
participants.
Although linkage words, such as but, so, and because, could benefit
L2 listeners because they enable listeners to distinguish key informationfrom unimportant information, these words are not easily perceived byintermediate L2 listeners (Field, 2008); advanced L2 learners find it
relatively easier to notice linkage words and understand the content thatcomes after them, meaning they could recall more content than theirintermediate counterparts.
5.2 Differences between the Chinese and Japanese Participants in the
Use of Listening Comprehension Strategies to Recall Content
As Table 3 shows, there was no statistical difference between the
Chinese and Japanese groups in terms of their average score in the listening
comprehension test used in this study, but both groups used different
listening comprehension strategies to recall content. This finding could be
attributed to the pedagogical training they received in their home countries.
As shown in the results section, there were three statistically significant
differences in terms of how Chinese and Japanese participants recalled the234

The Use of Listening Comprehension Strategies and Note-taking to Recall on TOEFL

content of the passages. First, the Chinese participants were more inclined
to recall the gist of a lecture and the inferences made. According to the posthoc interview, the Chinese participants claimed they were test-oriented,
and that their EFL teachers often taught them to pay attention to the gist of
a lecture and make inferences. This explains why the Chinese participants
were more likely to recall the gist of the lectures and the inferences.
Furthermore, in China, the teaching method of translation is stillprevalent, so Chinese learners of English are used to translating incoming
audio materials into their mother tongue to facilitate their comprehension.
That may explain why the Chinese participants were more inclined to recall
the content processed by translating into their mother tongue. Above all,the role of mother tongue is despised in the process of learning foreign
languages, but in my study, the Chinese participants took advantage of theirmother tongue to recall more content and achieved high scores in the tests
associated with the present study.
The finding that the advanced Chinese learners were inclined touse their prior knowledge to help them recall aligns with Long’s (1989)
discovery that prior knowledge enables listeners to make inferences andunderstand audio information better. Furthermore, in the post-hoc interview,
the advanced Chinese participants suggested they were informed about theimportance of accumulating background knowledge, which could explain
why they were more likely to recall the content processed by referring totheir prior background knowledge than their Japanese counterparts. Thus, it
can be argued that past language-learning experiences and beliefs reflect on
how they chose listening strategies to recall information.
5.3

Differences in the Content of Notes Taken by the Chinese andJapanese Participants
In the present study, the test-answerability scores of the Chineseparticipants were higher than those of their Japanese counterparts, which
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.16 No.1 2016

235

自由論題

means the Chinese participants included in their notes more informationthat could be used to complete the listening comprehension task than theJapanese participants. Flowerdew and Tauroza (1995) suggested that L2
listeners could better understand a lecture with evident discourse markers,
such as so, right, but, and first, than a lecture without those markers. In the
post-hoc interview, the majority of the Chinese participants claimed they
understood the role of linkage words and paid more attention to the content
following these words. They knew the linkage words were essential tocomplete the corresponding listening comprehension task; therefore, they
endeavored to write down the content in their notes, which increased thetest-answerability of their notes.
Second, the Chinese participants in the present study were inclined
to take notes in Chinese. That the Chinese participants wrote more words
in L1 in their notes aligns with the finding of Koren’s (1997) study thatL2 learners take notes in L1 for the purpose of recalling information
easily, and that the role of L1 in taking notes should be promoted. Liu’s(2001) study revealed that the role of note-taking is recognized by Chinese
learners of English. Based on the above analysis, the Chinese participants
were more inclined to take notes in L1. However, as the above mentioned,
Parks (1982) concluded that taking notes in L1 while listening to lecturesin L2 is a demanding task, so some learners of English might be used totaking notes in the target language directly (Parks, 1982). This finding may
explain why the Japanese participants seemed to be accustomed to taking
notes in the target language.
Finally, the Japanese participants wrote down more content than the
Chinese participants. Takeuchi (2003) claimed that Japanese students tend
to adopt analytical strategies to acquire foreign languages and focus on theaccuracy of small details, thus explaining why they wrote down as many
details as possible.

236

The Use of Listening Comprehension Strategies and Note-taking to Recall on TOEFL

6 Conclusion
Several significant differences between the two different proficiency
level groups were found. The advanced learners were good at recallingthe complete information units and content following linkage words in a
lecture. In addition, the lower-level learners were less capable of recallingthe content processed by inferring the relationship between sentences in a
lecture. Lastly, the advanced learners self-reported that they were inclined
to use their notes and the gist of a lecture to recall. The study also revealed
differing patterns in the ways in which Japanese and Chinese learners
recalled the content of the listening passages. The Chinese learners ofEnglish in the study were more inclined to recall the gist of a lecture thanthe Japanese participants. Furthermore, the Chinese participants wereinclined to recall inferences they made and content processed by translating
into their L1.
The study also compared the quality of the notes taken by the Chineseand Japanese participants. The results revealed that the test-answerability
score of the Chinese participants was higher than that of the Japaneseparticipants. Furthermore, the Chinese participants used more content
words in L1 to take notes than their Japanese counterparts, but the Japaneseparticipants wrote more words in their notes than the Chinese participants.

7 Pedagogical Implications
Given that the current study revealed the importance of using listening
comprehension strategies to recall information, it is advisable that EFL
teachers are aware of those strategies and embed the practice of recallingwhen they give listening exercises. Furthermore, note taking should
be recognized as an indispensable part of the traditional L2 listening
comprehension class, be it in English as an L2 or in the learners’ L1. Given
the importance of note taking, EFL teachers should provide their students
with more tutorials about how to take qualified notes while listening to
KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.16 No.1 2016

237

自由論題

an academic lecture. At the same time, L2 learners should be informedthat taking notes does not mean they should write down all the words they
hear mechanically. Lastly, the role of using L1 to take notes should not beignored, as some L2 learners, like the Chinese participants in this study,
may be accustomed to using L1 to take notes while listening to L2 audio
materials. In the heyday of globalization, language teachers should be
encouraged to familiarize themselves with the characteristics of international
students from different cultural backgrounds, so that their faculties can be
developed further.

Notes
1

TEM-8 refers to Test for English Majors Grade Eight. It is the most difficult test for
Chinese English majors, and is held only once every year. The full mark of the test is100, and only 30% of the test-takers can pass the test. The test consists of five parts:
listening comprehension, reading comprehension, translation, proofreading, andcomposition.

References
Andringa, S., Olsthoor n, N., Van Beuningen, C., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J.,“Determinants of success in native and non-native listening comprehension: An
individual differences approach.” Language Learning, 62(S2), 2012, pp. 49-78.
Carrell, P. L., Notetaking strategies and their relationship to performance on listening
comprehension and communicative assessment tasks (TOEFL Monograph Series No.
MS-35). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 2007.
Chang, C-S., “Listening strategies of L2 learners with varied test tasks. TESL Canada
Journal, 25, 2008, pp. 1-26.
Chang, C-S., & Read, J., “Investigating the effects of multiple-choice listening test itemsin the oral versus written mode on L2 listeners’ performance and perceptions.”
System, 41, 2013, pp. 575-586.
Dunkel, P., “The content of L1 and L2 students’ lecture notes and its relation to test
performance.” TESOL Quarterly, 22, 1988, pp. 259-281.
Educational Testing Service (2005), TOEFL iBT test scores. Retrieved June 1, 2015, from<http://www.ets.org/toefl/ibt/scores?WT.ac=toeflhome_scores_121127>.
Field, J., “Bricks or Mortar: Which parts of the input does a second language listener relyon?” TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 42(3), 2008, pp. 411- 432.
Flowerdew, J., & Tauroza, S., “The effect of discourse markers on second language lecture
comprehension.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 1995, pp. 435-458.
Goh, C.,“Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns.”

238

The Use of Listening Comprehension Strategies and Note-taking to Recall on TOEFL
System, 30, 2002, pp. 185-206.
Goo, J., “Working Memory and Reactivity.” Language Learning, 60, 2010, pp. 712-752.
Hu, G-W., “Potential Cultural Resistance to Pedagogical Impor ts: The Case ofCommunicative Language Teaching in China.” Language, Culture and Curriculum,15(2), 2002, pp. 93-105.
Hughes, C. A., & Schumaker, J. B., “Test-taking strategy instruction for adolescents withlearning disabilities.” Exceptionality, 2, 1991, pp. 205-221.
Koren, S., “Listening to lectures in L2; Taking notes in L1.” The Electronic Journal for
English as a Second Language, 1997, 2(4), pp. 1-10. Retrieved from <http://www.
tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume2/ej08/ej08a1/>.
Liu, Y., “A cognitive study on the functions of note-taking and the content of notes taken
in a context of Chinese EFL learners.” Unpublished master’s thesis, Guangdong
University of Foreign Studies, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China, 2001.
Liu, Y., “The Use of Listening Comprehension Strategies to Recall on TOEFL: The Caseof Chinese and Japanese Successful and Less Successful Listeners.” The Asian EFL
Journal, 85, 2015, pp. 117-135.
Long, D., “Second language listening comprehension: A schema-theoretical perspective.”
Modern Language Journal, 73, 1989, pp. 32-41.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U., Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Oxford, R., & Burry, J., “Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide
with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning (SILL).”
System, 23, 1995, pp. 1-23.
Oxford, R. L., Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural
perspectives. Honolulu, Hawaii: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre,
1996.
Parks, G., “Notes on the use of translation in language classes.” System, 10(3), 1982,
pp. 241-245.
Song, M-Y., “Note-taking quality and performance on an L2 academic listening test.”
Language Testing, 29, 2011, pp. 67-89.
Takeuchi, O., “What can we learn from good foreign language learners? A qualitative
study in the Japanese foreign language context.” System, 31, 2003, pp. 385-392.
Thorley, C., Baxter, R., & Lorek, J., “The impact of note taking style and note availability
at retrieval on mock juror’s recall and recognition of trial information.” Memory,
24(4), 2015, pp. 560-574.
Vandergrift, L., “The strategies of second language (French) listeners.” Foreign Language
Annals, 30, 1997, pp. 387–409.
Vandergrift, L., & Baker, S., “Learner Variables in Second Language Listening
Comprehension: An Exploratory Path Analysis.” Language Learning, 65(2), 2015,
pp. 390-416.
Vogel, A., “Perceived strategy use during performance on three authentic listening
comprehension tasks.” The Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 1995, pp. 41-56.
Wolvin, A., Listening and Human Communication in the 21st Century. UK: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd, 2010.

KEIO SFC JOURNAL Vol.16 No.1 2016

239

自由論題

Appendix A
QuestionnairePart One: How often did you use the following listening strategies to recall whenchoosing your response to each listening comprehension question?
0
Never

1
Hardly2Sometimes

3
Often

4
Usually5
Always1) Directed attention: I recalled the gist of the lecture to choose my response. ____
2) Selective attention: I recalled the complete meaning groups in the lectures tochoose my response. ____
3) Selective attention: I recalled some single words in the lectures to choose my
response. ____
4) Selective attention: I recalled the repeated words in the lectures to choose my
response. ____
5) Selective attention: I recalled the content after the linkage words in the lectures tochoose my response (e.g. first, second, however, because). ____
6) Voice inference: I recalled the content processed by focusing on the tone of thelecturer to choose my response (e.g. fall and rise tones). ____
7) Academic elaboration: I recalled the content processed by referring to my prior
background knowledge to choose my response. ____
8) Imagery: I recalled the picture depicting the content of the lectures to choose my
response. ____
9) Structure: I recalled the structure of the lectures in my mind to choose my
response. ____
10) Note taking: I recalled the notes I had taken to choose my response. ____
11) Inferencing between parts: I recalled the content processed by making inferences
to choose my response. ____
12) Grouping: I recalled the content processed by analyzing the relationship between
sentences in the lectures to choose my response (e.g. statement + example). ____
13) Translation: I recalled the meaning groups processed by translating into mymother language to choose my response. ____Part Two: Personal information
Name:
Age:
Past TOEFL score:E-mail:Major:TOEIC score:

Gender:For how many years have you studied English?
Have you ever studied in an English-speaking country?			
A. YesB. No
Have you taken TOEFL before?						A. YesB. No〔受付日 2016. 4. 15〕〔採録日 2016. 6. 21〕240