IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

An Examination of Listening Acquisition: A Study of Japanese University Students
Bryan Hahn
Akita International University, Japan59

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Abstract
English language learners seek strong speaking, reading, writing, and listening skills. When it
comes to the last it is commonly assumed that if students have many opportunities to hear
spoken English then that exposure will improve their ability to comprehend it. Unfortunately,
this is often not the case since many second language learners do not get the opportunity todevelop their listening skills naturally. Despite this, classrooms dedicate little to no time in
English for Academic Purposes coursework towards listening strategies and techniques. One
strategy which has shown to be effective is “connected speech”. Students learn how to hear
the connection between words that native speakers develop naturally. In the Fall 2016
(September 16 – December 15), 43 students were the subject of a class dedicated to training
their listening skills to identify this technique. A pre-test and post-test control group design
analyzed listening interventions on listening fluency among English for Academic Purposes
students. An independent t-test was used to measure the mean average scores on the listening
section of the treatment group’s Test of English as a Foreign Language exams (n=35) taken
in December 2016 and were compared to scores taken in April and September 2016 (n=37).
The treatment group saw mean gains of +3.03, findings that were significant. The researchalso compared Test of English as a Foreign Language results taken in April and September
2015 (n=38) to those taken in December 2015 (n=29). Students had slightly higher mean
gains of +3.65, also significant, perhaps indicating other variables may have led to similarfindings.
Keywords: listening fluency, connected speech, Japan, ESL students, TOEFL

60

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Introduction
At Akita International University (AIU) in Northwest Japan, students are required to study
one-year abroad at one of the school’s 185 partner-universities as all coursework at AIU istaught in English. To qualify, learners must demonstrate proficiency in all learning domains
by scoring 550 or higher in the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). Thoughmost succeed, some students are left repeating English for Academic Purposes (EAP)
coursework and having to retake the TOEFL exam term after term in the hope of overcoming
another milestone towards graduation.
One learning domain which often gets ignored is listening. Some instructors take aprescriptive approach to teaching listening skills by inserting a compact disc into a player andinstructing students to shadow, transcribe, or just listen. Other past colleagues haveabandoned this approach to teaching, complaining that the practice is pedagogicallyineffective. Perhaps one reason we do not emphasize listening in the classroom is that itremains the most obscure and least understood among the four learning domains.
Research has shown that learners need to have effective strategies and techniques to become
sufficient listeners. Chamot (1995) argued there is a significant relationship between strategy
use and proficiency. However, many learners are unaware of how to improve their listening
comprehension skills especially when confronted with the speed of spoken English producedby native speakers. Some teachers also purposely enunciate words or slow their speech down
to facilitate the learner which will hinder development for students or cause them to listen tomaterials pronounced clearly and distinctly. As a result, from unfamiliar patterns of discourseto speech rates, to prosody, to vocabulary, learners face many challenges (Cross, 2009).
One listening strategy known to be effective is “connected speech” – a process in which
students learn how to listen to the connection of words that native speakers develop naturally.
The result, students become strategic listeners of English by understanding and anticipating
the connection of words that take place in spoken English. The implementation andunderstanding of this learning strategy could be a key component in the success of not only
improved listening for language learners, but also increased scores in TOEFL. Therefore, thiscurrent research hopes to shed light on how much listening time is necessary for students tomake significant strides in this learning domain.
Literature Review
Among the four learning domains, listening is arguably the most complex. In fact, listening is
the first encounter with the target language in a student’s endeavor to acquire a new language(Berne, 2004). Dunkel (1993) argued the listening process is highly complicated; it is hard
for a single instrument to measure all aspects of listening comprehension.
To make the classes student-centered, songs have been incorporated into classrooms byteachers with the idea that classes become active and fun. Though singing can be creative,
helps to build rhythmic patterns and taps into a particular culture, it can be argued the use of
singing to develop a second language (L2) improves speaking skills more than it does
listening. Also, it becomes a challenge for the instructor to find songs universally appealing.
Sometimes understanding the lyrics sung by the artist can be problematic even to a nativespeaker of English. Lastly, the use of songs to improve listening skills might be left best for
those with a musical background.

61

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Studies have shown listening comprehension is broken down into three stages. The first
involves perceptual processing, the encoding of the spoken message. The second stage is themental representation of the sentences or the parsing of words. The last is the understandingof meaning known as the utilization stage. In essence, learners will react specifically towhether the spoken words are a question, a statement or a command (Anderson, 2009). This
cognitive psychological approach is an alternative to the top-down and bottom-up process tolistening comprehension, but some researchers have argued whether this strategy improves alearner’s listening ability. Ridgway (2000) makes the point it is difficult for second-language
learners to implement taught strategies while listening simultaneously.
One research study investigated the consequences of simultaneously reading and listening to
the same material while learning English as a foreign language. It found that the redundancyof performing both tasks at the same time likely interferes with the learning, concluding when
redundancy is added to the learning, the brain is used unnecessarily to attend to both sourcesof information (Moussa-Inaty, Ayres & Sweller, 2011). This additional process generates
what cognitive load theorists call extraneous cognitive load, meaning too much unnecessary
information is being memorized. By eliminating redundancy, the brain could be freed up torecall salient aspects of the lesson which helps to improve listening but the results showed nosignificant improvement in the other domains.
A study of Malaysian students emphasized listening instruction methods based on processoriented approaches instead of product driven methods, placing a premium to facilitate thelearner. During think-aloud sessions, the researcher would notate the students’ overt listening
behavior. By using an observation matrix, the information provided a tacit understanding of
the listeners’ problems and issues (Nair, Koo & Abu Bakar, 2014). The aforementioned is
helpful to determine that change may be necessary to a specific curriculum but says nothing
about which teaching methodology would be best to improve the program.
Another approach gaining popularity in the classroom is strategy-based instruction (SBI).
SBI is a method of teaching in which strategies are selected for intensive learning in theclassroom. These strategies can include comprehension, monitoring, predicting, clarifying
and summarizing. SBI has two main elements: 1) Students are taught how, when, and why
strategies are used to facilitate language acquisition and 2) strategies are integrated into classmaterials and are embedded into the language task (Cohen, 2000).
SBI is often ignored in Japan since Japanese teachers of English (JTE) teach the learning
domains they feel comfortable with. In fact, Japan’s education system is well known for itsprescribed curriculum and high-stakes exams. Additionally, instead of teaching English “in”
English, it is often taught in Japanese. Even at the university level, there is a common belief
that the opportunity to hear spoken English improves comprehension naturally. Perhaps
teachers do not appreciate the difficulty that students face when confronted with the speed of
spoken English produced by native speakers. It becomes a challenge for students who have
had little to no exposure to natural English (Rosa, 2002), as is the case for the vast majorityof Japanese students who attend Akita International University (AIU).
The Research Study
The study investigated the impact of interventions on listening fluency between Japanese
students taking an 80-minute listening class over the course of one semester in Fall, 2016. A

62

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

mixed-method research approach with a pre-test and post-test control group design was used.
There was also a post-research survey.
ParticipantsParticipants were first-year students at AIU taking Level 3 coursework in EAP as shown in
Table 1. To help students increase the listening section of their TOEFL exam scores,
participants in the Fall, 2016 term attended a strategy-based class. This class was held for 80
minutes every week in order to develop the ability to identify ‘connected speech’, wherestudents learned how to hear the connection between words that native speakers develop
naturally. The question remains how much exposure students need before there is asignificant improvement in listening comprehension. Forty-three Level 3 students were theparticipants for this research by taking one semester of a listening fluency class emphasizing
the use of this strategy. Participants attended the class for 15-weeks.
Table 1: EAP Level Placement
EAP Level

Level 1
Level 2
Level 3

TOEFL
Placement Score

479 or lower
480–499
500 or higher

Instruments
Two episodes from the fifth season of Friends were chosen. They included The One Where
Ross Can’t Flirt, and The One with Ross’s Sandwich. Students were also given deleted
transcripts of those episodes for transcribing purposes as shown in Appendices A and B. The
aim was expose students to the speed of spoken English with the following questions in
mind:
•
•
•

Does a weekly listening fluency class over the course of 15-weeks totaling 20
hours, significantly increase TOEFL listening scores?
Are TOEFL listening scores taken in December 2016 significantly higher
compared to scores taken in April and September 2016?
How do the results above compare to students’ scores from the year before?

Common listening instruments such as BBC News or other news programs were purposefully
avoided since the proper enunciation of words is emphasized to facilitate the listener. Also, inthe listening section of TOEFL the majority of questions are dialogue-based, testing thestudent’s understanding of meaning or implication.
Methods
The listening portion of the participants’ TOEFL exams was compared to Fall, 2015 students
who did not receive the intervention. Level 3 participants in Fall, 2016 learned the connection
patterns shown below:
1. Same consonant combination – students say one consonant sound as highlighted andunderlined in bold.
- Where is the bus stop
- I'll meet you at twelve o'clock.

63

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

2. Different consonant combination or consonant ending sound – execute the glottal stop.
For Japanese students, hot dog in Katakana (one component of the Japanese writing
system for the transcription of foreign loan words) is pronounced ho-tu do-gu. By
executing the glottal stop, a four syllable compound noun is reduced in half. For thesecond example, nice dress is a simple adjective/noun combination with each word
containing one syllable. In Katakana, this adjective/noun combination is pronounced
na-i-su do-ri-su, each word containing three syllables.
- I ate a hot dog for lunch.
- That is a nice dress you're wearing.
3. Consonant vowel combination or consonant ending sound – visualize as one word
- Can you turn on the lights?
- I will take out the trash.
By visualizing turn on as turnon, the first syllable break occurs after the letter /r/ as
underlined in bold. In the second example, take out becomes takeout, the first syllable
break occurs after /a/ as underlined in bold, essentially reading these phrasal verbs inthe following way: tur non, ta keout.
The activity involved watching episodes of the television show Friends. Each conversation
would be played three to four times. While listening, students were instructed to dictate asmuch as they could comprehend on the deleted transcripts as shown in Appendices A and B.
They were then asked to read aloud back to the teacher to demonstrate how much of theconversation they were able to pick up. The instructor wrote down the words repeated by thestudents using Microsoft Office on a projector screen for students to see. If words were
missing, the students got additional attempts to listen to the dialogue. Once all the words
were correctly identified, they were then instructed to demonstrate connected text.
Afterwards, the teacher read each dialogue aloud with students reading and repeating. Eachreading was delivered faster and faster, the idea being reading old material allows thestudents to read and hear the speed of spoken English. The exercise would finish by having
the students hear the spoken dialogue from the sitcom one last time, so they could compare
the rate of spoken English before and after the “connected speech” was identified before
moving onto the next dialogue.
An independent t-test was used to measure the progression of both the treatment and thecontrol group using the software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to answer
the three hypotheses aforementioned.
A post survey using a five-point Likert scale (5: Strongly Agree; 4: Agree; 3: Neutral; 2:
Disagree; 1: Strongly Disagree) was administered to ascertain students’ attitudes about
whether or not the listening class helped to improve listening comprehension (see Appendix
C).
Participants answered one additional question asking in which week they noticed asignificant difference, if any, in improved listening comprehension.
Results
The purpose of this research was to determine if 20 hours of listening class time utilizing“connected speech” would significantly improve the listening section of TOEFL. The
participants’ mean listening scores taken shortly after the end of the fall term, in late64

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

December, were compared to their mean scores taken in April 2016 or September 2016.
Students who took their exams in April 2016 would have been Level 2 students in EAP who
had matriculated up to Level 3. September 2016 students would have been first-semester
students who took the exams about a week before the beginning of the fall semester todetermine EAP placement. Those scores were compared to students who took the TOEFL theyear before.
Table 2 is used to show the mean difference between pre-test and post-test scores. Exams
taken in April and September 2016 (M=50.05; SD=4.42) were compared to exams taken in
December 2016 (M=53.08; SD=3.93). With an alpha level of .05 and a df of 70, and withequal variances assumed, December exams had a mean gain of +3.03 compared to April and
September exam scores; t(71)=3.03, p=.003. Based on the findings, the growth based on posttest scores of the treatment group is significantly higher compared to pre-test scores.
Table 2: Independent measures t-test Pre-test/Post-test 2016
Group
Apr/Sept 16
Dec. 16
t
3.06

N
37
35
df
70

Mean Gains
50.05
53.08

sig.(2-tailed).003

Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
4.42
.727
3.93
.665
95% confidence level
Mean Diff.
Std. Error Diff.
Lower Upper
3.03166.989-5.005 -1.058

Table 3 shows mean scores between April and September 2015 (M=49.55; SD=6.0) versus
scores taken in December 2015 (M=53.20; SD3.65). Based on the findings, with an alphalevel of .05 and a df of 62.28, the null hypothesis was rejected because the t score value fellwithin the critical region. The conclusion is that the growth based on the post-test scores isalso significantly higher compared to pre-test scores. December 2015 scores had mean gainsof +3.65; +.62 gain compared to December 2016 scores; t(66)=3.07, p=.003.
Table 3: Independent measures t-test Pre-test/Post-test 2015
Group
Apr/Sept 15
Dec. 15
t
3.07

N
38
29
df
62.28

Mean Gains
49.55
53.20

sig.(2-tailed).003

Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
6.00
.973
3.65
.679
95% confidence level
Mean Diff.
Std. Error Diff.
Lower Upper
3.65
1.18
-6.02 -1.28

Discussion
Despite significant improvement in the listening section of TOEFL taken by students at theend of December 2016, students who took exams in December 2015 also witnessedsignificant gains. The research concludes the listening fluency class for the treatment group
was not the primary reason for increased exam scores. Other variables such as EAP
coursework, an English-speaking environment in which 20-percent of students come fromoverseas, a facility providing students with movies, books, educational software and othermaterials likely contributed to significant gains in listening. Accordingly, this analysis has

65

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

shown that 20 hours of intervention over 15-weeks is likely not enough time to makesignificant gains in TOEFL listening.
The research parallels a study of fifteen Japanese students who received slightly lessintervention compared to the current study and were also part of a quasi-experiment.
Participants received 90-minutes of listening intervention by watching a BBC news website
over 10-weeks totaling twelve hours (Cook, 2009). The participants self-selected one of two
Current Affairs classes forming the experimental group (EG) of seven students and acomparison group (CG) of eight students. EG received 90-minutes of strategy instruction
appropriate to the given listening task. Despite significant gains by both groups between pretest and post-test scores, the independent t-test did not indicate a significant difference
between the two groups (Cook, et al, 2009).
On the basis of these findings, it is evident that TOEFL should not be the only indicatorof improved listening comprehension since this learning domain remains largely ambiguous(Alderson & Bachman, 2001). In support of this, a quantitative non-experiment was
conducted seeking the attitudes of the treatment group on a five-point scale (5-Strongly
Agree; 4-Agree; 3-Neutral; 2-Disagree; 1-Strongly Disagree).
Table 4: Survey Questionnaire Results
Survey Questions
Connected Speech increased my ability tolisten to the speed of English.
The listening fluency class improved myability to comprehend English.
The listening fluency class is an effective way toincrease listening comprehension.
The listening fluency class increased my ability tounderstand spoken English with a native speaker.
The listening fluency class increased my ability tounderstand American humor.
The listening fluency class increased my ability tounderstand idiomatic expressions.

Mean Score
4.1
3.98
3.87
4
4.2
3.92

The results show the vast majority of students believed the listening fluency class improved
their listening skills as shown above in Table 4. When asked if the class improved theirability to hear spoken English, the mean score was 4.1 on a five-point scale. When asked if it
improved their comprehension, the results were also high with a mean score of 3.98.
Additionally, students were asked to estimate in which week they began to notice a
significant difference in listening comprehension. Students were invited to circle the answer
closest to their experience as shown in Appendix C. No student noticed any significant
difference between weeks 1 and 3. However, 90 percent of students answered they noticed asignificant improvement during the term with the largest percentage (33%) reporting gains
between weeks 7 and 9, as shown in Table 5”.

66

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Table 5: Significant Listening Improvement Gains
Weeks

1-3
4-6
7-9
10-12
13-15
No difference

Percentage

0%
10%
33%
13%
15%
10%

In consequence, it could be that learners were unfamiliar with the topic itself in TOEFL andmay have come across too many unfamiliar words to understand the recording. Moreover, alarge portion of the listening section requires that the listener understand intent as information
itself is often not enough. Test-takers must negotiate the speakers’ attitudes, the setting, andbe able to anticipate natural sequences. What is likely to happen next becomes much easier if
the learner can visualize where the conversation is taking place. Another factor to consider,
the exam taker is required to listen, understand, and maintain the information in memory toanswer a variety of questions related to the topic. Arguably, L2 learners are being tested fortheir ability to listen as opposed to being tested in their second language skills. The scorebased interpretation of TOEFL and its accuracy to determine a learner’s second-language
ability is a debate that has led to many academic research. Lastly, the instrumentation
selected may have had a washback effect in seeing gains for Cognitive Academic Language
Proficiency (CALP) but positive survey responses perhaps is an indication students noticed
significant gains in Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS) as AIU students often
engage with internationals.
Conclusion
Conceivably different instrumentation could have been used since much of the content
involved the understanding of colloquial and idiomatic expressions which may not be usefulin preparation for TOEFL. Moreover, with a class size of 43 students, this type of learning
environment lacks the discursive cues sometimes necessary to facilitate a large class(Camiciottoli, 2004). Furthermore, positive feedback from participants based on post-survey
results demonstrates the need for additional studies to determine if increased intervention
time would significantly increase scores between the treatment and control group and toassess how much listening intervention time is necessary to actuate those differences.

67

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

References
Alderson, C., & Bachman, L. (2001). Introduction. In G. Buck (Ed.), Assessing Listening.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, J. R. (2009). Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York: WorthPublishers.
Berne, J.E. (1998). Examining the relationship between L2 listening research, pedagogicaltheory, and practice. Foreign Language Annals, 31(2), 169–90.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1998.tb00566.x
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2004). Interactive discourse structuring in L2 guest lectures: Some
insights from a comparative corpus-based study. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 3(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00044-4
Chamot, A. U. (1995). Learning strategies and listening comprehension. In D. Mendelsohn &J. Rubin (Eds.) Guide for the teaching of second language listening (pp. 13–30). San
Diego, California: Dominie Press.
Cohen, A. D. (2000). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London, UK:
Longman.
Cook, M. (2009). Factors inhibiting and facilitating Japanese teachers of English in adopting
communicative language teaching methodologies. K@ta, 11 (2), 99–116. Retrieved
from http://puslit2.petra.ac.id/ejournal/index.php/ing/article/shop/17887/ 17815
Cross, J. (2009). Effects of listening strategy instruction on news videotext comprehension.
Language Teaching Research, 13(2), 151–176.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168809103446
Dunkel, P., Henning, G., and Chaudron, C. (1993). The assessment of an L2 listening
comprehension construct: A tentative model for test specification and development.
The Modern Language Journal, 77, 180-191.
https://doi.org /10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01962.x
Londe, Z. (2008). Working memory and English as a Second Language listening
comprehension tests: A latent variable approach. ProQuest LLC, UMI 3347004.
Moussa-Inaty, J., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2011). Improving listening skills in English as a
Foreign Language by reading rather than listening: A cognitive load perspective.
Applied Cognitive Psychology. 26(3), https://doi.org /391–402. 10.1002/acp.1840
Nair, S., Koo, Y.L., & Abu Bakar, K. (2014). Exploring the listening processes of preuniversity ESL students. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 475–482.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.065
Ridgway, T. (2000). Listening strategies: I beg your pardon? ELT Journal, 54, 179–185.
https://doi.org /10.1093/elt/54.2.196
Rosa, M. (2002). Don'cha know? A survey of ESL teacher's perspectives on reduced forms
instruction. Second Language Studies, 21 (1), 49–78.

Corresponding author: Bryan Hahn
Contact email: bhahn@aiu.ac.jp

68

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Appendix A
Friends: The One with Ross’s Sandwich

Phoebe: ________________________________________________?

Chandler: _______________________________________________?

________________________________?____________________________________________.

Phoebe: Ew-eww!! Undies!

Rachel: _________________________________! ______________________________________? _________________________________?

Ross: Well, _______________________________________________!

Chandler: Well, they're Joey's! They gotta be Joey's!

(Rachel turns and stares at him.)

Joey: Yeah, they're mine.

Chandler: See? They're Joey's! J-J-J-J-J-Joey's!

Ross: ___________________________________________________?

Joey: ____________________________________________________.

69

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Appendix B
Friends: The One Where Ross Can’t Flirt

Ross: Hey!

Chandler: Hey!

Ross: Wow! _____________________________________________________________________.

_____________________________________________________?

Chandler: _______________________________________________________________________,

we’ve got reservations at Ja George.

Ross: Wow! _____________________________________________________________________?

Chandler: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.

Delivery Girl: Hi Chandler!

Chandler: Hey Caitlin! _____________________________________________________________.

Caitlin: Ugh! _______________________________________________________________!

________________________________________________________________________________.

70

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Appendix C
SurveyConfidentiality: This survey should take less than five minutes of your time. You will not be asked to attach
your name to your survey responses. Individual responses will be used for research purposes only and will bestrictly confidential. Please ask the surveyor to clarify any questions you don’t understand.

Instructions: Check the box that most closely matches the question.
Questions
Strongly
Agree
NeutralAgree
1. Connected Speechincreased myability to listen to
the speed ofEnglish.
2. The Listening
Fluency class
improved myability tocomprehend
English.
3. The Listening
Fluency class is aneffective way toincrease listening
comprehension.
4. The listening
fluency classincreased myability tounderstand spoken
English with anative speaker.
5. The Listening
Fluency classincreased myability tounderstandAmerican humor.
6. The Listening
Fluency classincreased myability tounderstandAmerican idioms.

DisagreeCircle the box that best applies to you.
I began to notice a significant difference in my listening skills during the following week.
Weeks 1-3
Weeks 4-6
Weeks 7-9
Weeks 10-12 Weeks 13-15

71

Strongly
DisagreeNosignificant
improvement

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 201872