Learner Variables Important for Success in L2 Listening

Comprehension in French Immersion Classrooms

Larry Vandergrift, Susan C. Baker

The Canadian Modern Language Review / La revue canadienne des langues

vivantes, Volume 74, Number 1, February / février 2018, pp. 79-100 (Article)

Published by University of Toronto Press

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/687656

Access provided by York University (30 Oct 2018 16:19 GMT)

 Learner Variables Important for
Success in L2 Listening
Comprehension in French Immersion
Classrooms

Larry Vandergrift and Susan C. Baker

Abstract: Listening comprehension, which is relatively straightforward for

native language (L1) speakers, is often frustrating for second language (L2)
learners. Listening comprehension is important to L2 acquisition, but little is
known about the variables that influence the development of L2 listening
skills. The goal of this study was to determine which learner variables play a
significant role in predicting L2 listening success among Grade 4 middle
immersion students (N = 84). The variables of interest in this study were L1
and L2 vocabulary knowledge, auditory ability, working memory, and meta-
cognition. Results showed that all the variables, except for metacognition,
were significantly related to L2 listening comprehension. Regression analysis
revealed that vocabulary knowledge, particularly L2 vocabulary, significantly
predicts L2 listening success. The results are discussed in relation to their ped-
agogical implications for beginner learners of French.

Keywords: immersion, L2 listening comprehension, metacognition, second

language

Résumé : La compréhension auditive, relativement simple pour les locuteurs

d’une langue maternelle (L1), présente souvent des difficultés pour les appre-
nants d’une langue seconde (L2). Malgré l’importance que revêt la compré-
hension auditive dans l’acquisition d’une langue seconde, la connaissance des
variables qui influent sur le développement des compétences auditives en lan-
gue seconde est lacunaire. L’étude a pour but de déterminer quelles variables
caractérisant l’apprenant jouent un rôle important dans la prévision du succès
de la compréhension auditive de la langue seconde chez les étudiants de
4e année en immersion intermédiaire (N = 84). Les variables d’intérêt de cette
étude sont la connaissance du vocabulaire de la L1 et de la L2, la capacité
auditive, la mémoire de travail et la métacognition. Les résultats montrent que
toutes ces variables, à l’exception de la métacognition, affichent un lien signifi-
catif avec la compréhension auditive de la langue seconde. L’analyse de
régression révèle que la connaissance du vocabulaire, en particulier celui de la
langue seconde, permet de prédire de manière efficace le succès de la compré-
hension auditive de la langue seconde. Les résultats sont analysés dans la

© The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906
80 Vandergrift and Baker

perspective de leurs répercussions pédagogiques pour les apprenants débu-

tants du français.
Mots clés : compréhension auditive de la langue seconde, immersion, langue
seconde, métacognition

Success in listening comprehension is a significant factor for success in

language learning, but evidence-based knowledge about the variables
that contribute to successful second language (L2) listening is limited.
Listening comprehension is also a key factor for success in language
immersion programs. According to Buck (2001), linguistic, strategic, and
learner variables are key to listening success. Rost (2004) further argues
that listening comprehension is more than simply speech perception
and that it entails listeners’ memory structures. Specifically, the listener
must be able to check what is heard with what is already known.
Earlier studies (Vandergrift, 2006) examined the L2 listening con-
struct only one variable at a time. This approach, however, fails to
consider how variables involved in L2 listening work together and
interact (Bernhardt, 2005). More recent studies have shown that exam-
ining several variables involved in L2 listening comprehension is a
fruitful way to examine the process. For instance, Vandergrift and
Baker (2015) recently explored the relationship between some learner
variables and performance in L2 listening comprehension among
Grade 7 French immersion students. The findings showed that general
skills, such as auditory discrimination, work with more specific lan-
guage skills, such as L2 vocabulary, to determine L2 listening compre-
hension. Findings from that study and others (Goh & Kaur, 2013; Goh
& Taib, 2006) also suggest that attention to the listening process
among young learners is warranted, as they can benefit from instruc-
tion, particularly in metacognitive strategies, in the earlier stages of
language development. The present study examines learner variables
that contribute to L2 listening comprehension among Grade 4 French
immersion students who have just started learning French. It includes
a regression model to identify the degree of influence that different
variables have for student success in L2 listening comprehension at
this level. The goal of this study, along with the earlier research at the
Grade 7 level, is to provide a richer understanding of the learner vari-
ables involved in L2 listening comprehension. This article begins by
highlighting the similarities and differences between the comprehen-
sion processes underlying reading and listening and reviewing the
literature pertaining to the variables under investigation. Then it ana-
lyzes their relationship to L2 listening comprehension and suggests
some pedagogical implications.

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

 L2 Listening Comprehension 81

L2 listening comprehension
L2 listening comprehension is understood as “the ability to process
extended samples of realistic spoken language, automatically and in
real time, to understand the linguistic information that is unequivo-
cally included in the text, and to make whatever inferences are unam-
biguously implicated by the content of the passage” (Buck, 2001,
p. 114). This definition is sufficiently flexible and broad to fit most con-
texts. Listeners, for example, exercise their comprehension ability in
“real-life” listening contexts, such as a French immersion classroom,
where the language of instruction is the target language. Listening
comprehension is often perceived as a large challenge, which can
cause frustration among second language learners (Graham, 2006).
Listening comprehension shares many important features with
reading comprehension (Grabe, 2009; Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Both
involve decoding and interpreting linguistic knowledge (e.g., vocabu-
lary and syntax) and world knowledge (e.g., topic, text structure,
schema, and culture) for the purpose of comprehension. Both use top-
down and bottom-up processing to apply these knowledge sources to
the language input during comprehension. Both listening and reading
require cognitive processing that is flexible and adaptable to task de-
mands to construct a mental representation of what has been compre-
hended in memory.
There are some key differences between readers and listeners, how-
ever. Listeners must attend to additional factors that complicate the
comprehension process, which makes listening more cognitively de-
manding than reading (Buck, 2001; Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). First, lis-
tening takes place in real time and the input is short-lived; the listener
does not have the option of reviewing the information presented and
has little control over the speed with which it is delivered. Second,
unlike readers who have the benefit of spaces between words, listeners
must apply phonological knowledge in the comprehension process to
segment a sound stream, which is often indistinct, into meaningful units
and then process them quickly. As a result, listeners have to rely more
on their working memory, which may, therefore, be a more critical vari-
able in listening than in reading. Third, listening comprehension is more
context sensitive, requiring attention to prosodic features such as stress
and intonation, which can change the meaning of information. In addi-
tion, the overall contours of meaning are often less clear to listeners
when they begin, and they have no stable visual text elements for refer-
ence. All these factors add to the complexity of listening.
Given the distinctive features of comprehension in the listening
mode, the present study will examine factors such as auditory

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

82 Vandergrift and Baker

discrimination ability and working memory capacity, factors that are

not examined in the reading literature.

Variables in listening comprehension

Selection of the variables to be studied took into consideration both
relevance and ability to be measured in this context. Background
knowledge, for example, is known to play a significant role in L2 lis-
tening comprehension (Long, 1990). Measuring this variable, however,
would be very complex. It would require the creation of a new listen-
ing test under a limited number of topics and then measuring student
knowledge of all the topics covered in the test. For reasons like this,
we chose to focus on the following variables: L2 vocabulary knowl-
edge, L1 vocabulary knowledge, working memory, auditory discrimi-
nation, and metacognition about listening.
L2 vocabulary
Mecartty (2000) examined the contribution of L2 vocabulary knowl-
edge to L2 listening ability in a study of the relative contributions of
vocabulary and syntactic (grammar) knowledge to L2 listening and
reading comprehension. Vocabulary knowledge, but not grammar
knowledge, emerged as a significant predictor for both skills. A more
recent study with a much larger sample found more notable evidence
for the contribution of L2 vocabulary knowledge to L2 listening
comprehension (Stæhr, 2009). Correlations between the listening test
scores of Danish learners of English and measures of vocabulary size
and depth of vocabulary knowledge demonstrated their relationship
to L2 listening to be 0.70 and 0.65 respectively. Furthermore, Stæhr ob-
served that L2 vocabulary knowledge explained 51% of listening vari-
ance (49% could be attributed to vocabulary size and the remaining
2% to depth of vocabulary knowledge).
Studies by van Zeeland and Schmitt (2013) and van Zeeland (2014)
provided further evidence for the important role of vocabulary knowl-
edge in L2 listening. Their findings showed that lexical knowledge
contributes to both L1 and L2 listening comprehension, with greater
variation for L2 listeners. This suggests that some L2 listeners can
manage unknown vocabulary better than others. In a provisional path
model, L2 vocabulary is portrayed as a direct precursor to L2 listening
comprehension (Vandergrift & Baker, 2015). In sum, while L2 vocabu-
lary plays a significant role in L2 listening comprehension, there may
be some variation among L2 listeners as to the degree to which they
can manage unknown or marginally known vocabulary items.

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

 L2 Listening Comprehension 83

L1 vocabulary
The role of L1 vocabulary knowledge in L2 listening comprehension
had not been examined until recently by Vandergrift and Baker
(2015), who found a significant positive correlation between the two
variables. They also found that L1 and L2 vocabulary work together to
influence L2 listening comprehension. Given the high number of cog-
nates shared by French and English (about 40,000; Bragg, 2006), the
potential for transfer between the two languages is relatively strong.
Ringbom and Jarvis (2009) point out that the possibility of lexical
transfer is particularly high when there is a relationship between the
languages, when words occur in similar contexts, and when learners
are in the early stages of the language-learning process. Taken together,
these factors suggest that we can hypothesize a potential effect of L1
vocabulary knowledge on the L2 listening comprehension among
Grade 4 learners of French.
Auditory discrimination
Auditory discrimination (AD) refers to the ability to receive, differen-
tiate, and process information through the ear. In the present study,
this variable was measured using the Finding Rhymes subtest of the
Modern Language Aptitude Test-Elementary (MLAT-E), a form of
the MLAT for children. The MLAT is a well-known aptitude test that
measures how quickly and easily a person would be likely to learn the
target language. AD has been shown to correlate significantly with L1
development (Tsao, Liu, & Kuhl, 2004), but there is very little evi-
dence available regarding the relationship among AD ability, L2 lis-
tening ability, and language development. A recent study by Wilson,
Kaneko, Lyddon, Okamoto, and Ginsburg (2011) demonstrated signif-
icant correlations between AD and performance in L2 proficiency
tests with Japanese learners of English. The researchers observed a
moderate relationship (0.36) between AD and two general language
proficiency tests (an internal university test and a standardized test).
The relationship between AD and L2 listening comprehension, mea-
sured by the listening sub-test in the standardized test, was also at the
0.36 level. The relationship between L2 listening and the ability to dis-
criminate consonants was the highest for these learners (about 0.37).
These results indicate an interesting relationship, but they do not
specify the role of AD in L2 listening comprehension. In a provisional
model of L2 listening, AD indirectly influences L2 listening compre-
hension and is strongly related to working memory (Vandergrift &
Baker, 2015).

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

84 Vandergrift and Baker

Working memory
Researchers are increasingly interested in the role of working memory
(WM) to explain individual differences in L2 learning and use (Bloom-
field, Wayland, Rhoades, Blodgett, Linck, & Ross, 2011; Juffs & Har-
rington, 2011). WM refers to the temporary storage and manipulation
of information used in complex cognitive activities like language pro-
cessing (Baddeley, 1992). We adopted the multi-component model of
WM proposed by Baddeley, since it is considered the most influential
in SLA research (Juffs & Harrington, 2011). This model proposes a
central executive component for planning, coordinating the flow of
information, and retrieving knowledge from long-term memory. The
actual work, however, is carried out by two subsystems: a phonologi-
cal loop to retain spectral information about the sounds currently
being processed and a visuospatial sketchpad to hold non-verbal
(visual and spatial) information.
The phonological loop and central executive functions are particu-
larly relevant in listening research. The phonological loop is important
for retaining and manipulating speech, but it has limited capacity. The
information decays and is replaced by new information. The central
executive function is important to control the flow of information,
maintain focus, and reduce distracting information, which is neces-
sary for listening success.
Although there is a large body of research on the relationship between
comprehension (both reading and listening) and WM (Andringa,
Olsthoorn, van Beuningen, Schoonen, & Hulstijn, 2012) and on the rela-
tionship between WM and certain aspects of SLA (Kormos & Sáfár,
2008), there is limited research specifically on any relationship with L2
listening comprehension. Research by Miyake and Friedman (1998) re-
vealed that listeners with larger WM capacity were more sensitive to
cues that are important in L2 spoken discourse and that the listeners
knew how to use those same cues to their advantage while listening.
Kormos and Sáfár (2008) found a significant, moderate (.37) rela-
tionship between backward digit span scores and listening achieve-
ment in a small sample of Hungarian beginner-level learners of
English. More recently, working with a large sample of higher-level
learners of Dutch, Andringa et al. (2012) were able to go beyond estab-
lishing a relationship to actually exploring potential causality between
WM and L2 listening ability. An earlier study found that WM indir-
ectly influences L2 listening comprehension through the development
of L1 and L2 vocabulary knowledge (Vandergrift & Baker, 2015). In
sum, the role of WM in L2 listening comprehension deserves further
attention, particularly its role in real-life listening tasks.

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

 L2 Listening Comprehension 85

Metacognition
Metacognition here refers to listener awareness of the cognitive pro-
cesses involved in comprehension and the capacity to oversee, regu-
late, and direct these processes (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Much of
the research that examines the relationship between metacognition
and successful L2 listening has focused on skilled listeners. Skilled
listeners reveal that they use about twice as many metacognitive stra-
tegies as their less-skilled counterparts, primarily comprehension
monitoring. A qualitative analysis of think-aloud protocols revealed
that successful L2 listening appears to involve a skillful organization
of strategies to regulate listening processes and achieve comprehen-
sion (Vandergrift, 2003). This finding was also observed by Graham
and Macaro (2008), who attributed the positive results to listener ‘clus-
tering’ of strategies. Finally, in their validation of the Metacognitive
Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ), Vandergrift, Goh, Mar-
eschal, and Tafaghodtari (2006) determined that self-reported meta-
cognitive knowledge was able to explain about 13% of the variance in
L2 listening performance of university-level language learners. Although
the evidence is preliminary, it seems clear that a certain amount of vari-
ance in listening success may be explained by metacognition. Although a
large part of the research examining the benefits of teaching metacogni-
tive strategies focuses on older and more skilled learners, studies by Goh
and her colleagues seem to suggest that young learners can benefit as
much from metacognitive instruction as older learners (Goh & Kaur,
2013; Goh & Taib, 2006). In their study of 11- to 12-year-old students, for
instance, Goh & Taib (2006) found that teaching students metacognitive
awareness aided listening ability by exposing learners to new learning
methods, reducing their language anxiety, and fostering their confidence.
Therefore, it is worth further exploring the relationship between meta-
cognition and L2 listening among young learners.

Method
Participants
The participants (N = 84) came from four intact French immersion (FI)
classes, all in the first year of their Middle French Immersion Program.
All participants were about 10 years old. The teachers for each group
were responsible for all instruction. All instruction was in French,
except for mathematics. Middle immersion consists largely of students
who have moved into the school jurisdiction from other parts of Can-
ada, immigrant children who now feel comfortable in learning a third
(or more) language, and students who began FI at an earlier entry
point (kindergarten) but who dropped out and now wish to try it

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

86 Vandergrift and Baker

again. All data collection took place during the month of November.
No L2 proficiency test was administered because it is fair to assume
that language proficiency at this early point in their FI program would
be at the A1–A2 level (Common European Framework of Languages;
Council of Europe, 2001). Students were deemed to have English as L1
if they either were born in Canada or completed all their schooling in
English, thus developing conceptual knowledge in this language.
Instruments
The data for the present study were collected using six different in-
struments to measure the cognitive variables of interest: L2 listening
comprehension, L2 vocabulary, L1 vocabulary, auditory discrimina-
tion, working memory capacity, and metacognition.
L2 listening comprehension
The French listening comprehension test, developed from previously
elaborated tests for core French students (Lapkin, 1994; Wesche, Pe-
ters, & MacFarlane, 1994), consisted of 28 multiple-choice items, of
which 25 were included in the results (three items were removed to
improve internal consistency). The test required participants to pro-
cess extended examples of real-life speech and answer multiple-choice
questions. Both questions and potential answers were in the target
language. It took about 45 minutes to complete. Cronbach alpha for
internal consistency of the test was 0.71.
The test items were similar with respect to several important crite-
ria. First, in line with our concept of listening comprehension ability,
the test measured students’ ability to process extended samples of
realistic spoken language in real time (in contrast to individual sen-
tence processing, often used in L2 listening parsing research). Stu-
dents listened to several short authentic dialogues concerning topics
related to their life experience, and they demonstrated comprehension
by completing multiple-choice questions. While some questions dealt
with gist, most questions focused on important details. Each test also
included several designated inference questions (Vandergrift, 2006).
Questions and answers generally followed the following pattern:
8. Qui a téléphoné à Madame Gagnon?
• Un ami de Pierre.
• Le patron de Pierre.
• Un collègue de bureau.
L1 and L2 vocabulary
Vocabulary knowledge was measured using the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test, fourth edition (PPVT) (Dunn & Dunn, 2007), and its

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

 L2 Listening Comprehension 87

French version, Échelle de vocabulaire en images Peabody (ÉVIP)

(Dunn, Thériault-Whalen, & Dunn, 1993). The EVIP is a standardized
French adaptation of the PPVT-R.
These well-known, reliable instruments were chosen because they
are a more valid measure of oral receptive vocabulary than most
vocabulary tests in which students identify a stimulus word through
reading, such as the Vocabulary Levels Test (Nation, 1983). The PPVT,
a test of meaning recognition, measures the extent of a person’s vocab-
ulary. Rather than choosing from written alternatives, participants
indicate comprehension of a spoken stimulus word by pointing to the
correct image of that word from a panel of four picture choices.
The first item, or starting point of the assessment, is determined by
the child’s PPVT age. By starting at an age-specific level of difficulty,
the tester can reduce the number of items that are too easy or too diffi-
cult (so as to avoid boredom or frustration). Suggested starting points
can be found in the PPVT manual (Dunn & Dunn, 2007).
Both tests are organized by increasingly difficult sets of 12 panels
each. Administration of the PPVT begins with items that are in the stu-
dent’s critical range based on chronological age (described above),
and a ceiling score is established when the student makes eight or
more errors in a given set. The test is not timed; however, students
are encouraged to make a choice if they have not yet responded after
10 seconds. Testing time is about 10–15 minutes per student.
The scoring system compensates for the effects of guessing by sub-
tracting the number of errors made before attaining the ceiling item
from the actual number of the ceiling item (the last item in a given
set). For example, if a student started at Set 5 (based on her PPVT age)
and ceilinged out at Set 9, one would take the total number of errors
she made and subtract that from the ceiling item. So, if the ceiling item
was #108 and the student made 15 errors, the raw score would be 93.
Both the French and English versions of the test have been normed
and validated for children and adults. The reliability coefficients for
these tests are very high, with ranges of 0.92 to 0.96 for the English
version (Dunn & Dunn, 2007, p. 56) and ranges of 0.80 to 0.85 for the
French version (Dunn et al., 1993, p. 38).
Auditory discrimination
Auditory discrimination ability was measured using the Finding
Rhymes sub-test (Part 3) of the Modern Language Aptitude Test-
Elementary (MLAT-E). This sub-test measures students’ ability to associ-
ate sounds with symbols. The test is speeded and measures the stu-
dent’s ability to hear and make distinctions between speech sounds.
Student success may depend somewhat on knowledge of English

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

88 Vandergrift and Baker

vocabulary. For example, each question has a group of words. The word
at the top of the group is not spelled in the usual way; instead, it is
spelled phonetically. Students must recognize the disguised word from
the spelling. To show that they recognize the disguised word, students
choose one of four words beneath it that rhymes most closely to the dis-
guised word. The students are asked to mark the box next to the word
that best rhymes with the stimulus (the word missing in the stimulus
blank line). Finding rhymes profiles the strengths and weaknesses of all
students in order to inform learning and teaching. Cronbach alpha for
internal consistency of the test was 0.90.
Working memory
Working memory capacity was measured using the Working Memory
Test Battery for Children (WMTB-C; Pickering & Gathercole, 2001), an
instrument normed and validated for 5- to 15-year-olds. The Nonword
List Recall (NLR) sub-test (tapping into the phonological loop, which
has been associated with learning vocabulary in both native and for-
eign languages) was selected for this situation; it was not feasible to
use all the sub-tests because of the time required to administer these
one-on-one tests. For the NLR, participants must recall a sequence of
one-syllable sounds in exactly the same order as it was heard. It stops
once the participant makes more than three errors in a block. By using
digits and nonsense one-syllable words, the sub-test avoids the prob-
lem of using an overt meaningful language component. It is an appro-
priate test of working memory capacity because it avoids the
possibility of covert rehearsal by engaging both the storage and pro-
cessing components as participants execute the task (Juffs & Harring-
ton, 2011). Historical internal reliability coefficients for the WMTB
were not available.
Metacognition
Metacognitive awareness of listening was measured (in English) using
the Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ; Van-
dergrift et al., 2006). It is a self-report instrument that consists of ran-
domly ordered items related to L2 listening comprehension. The items
measure the perceived use of the strategies and processes underlying
five factors related to the regulation of L2 listening comprehension:
problem-solving, planning and evaluation, mental translation, person
knowledge, and directed attention. Participants respond using a Likert
scale from 1 to 6, with 6 signifying full agreement with the item. For
example, the following statement is one of four items measuring the
factor of directed attention:

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

 L2 Listening Comprehension 89

14. After listening, I think back to how I listened, and about what I might
do differently next time.

A global score was created for each participant by adding up the

scores on all the items in the test. Cronbach alpha for internal consis-
tency of this scale was 0.88.
Procedure
Participation was voluntary. Both parents and students signed the
consent form. All participants completed a short demographic ques-
tionnaire requesting information concerning previous French instruc-
tion, language(s) spoken at home, and language of schooling from
senior kindergarten to the present. The listening tests, auditory ability
sub-tests, and metacognition questionnaire were administered to each
intact class. The vocabulary and WM tests were conducted one-on-one
with a research assistant outside the classroom. The length of time
varied for each test (e.g., the PPVT takes approximately 10 minutes).
Data collection occurred over the span of one month.
Results
The first goal of this study was to examine the relationship among L2
listening comprehension and French (L2) vocabulary, English (L1)
vocabulary, auditory discrimination, working memory, and metacog-
nition. The second goal was to determine the variables that predict L2
listening comprehension. The means, standard deviations, and mini-
mum/maximum scores for each variable measured in this study are
provided in Table 1.

Variables related to L2 listening comprehension

A correlational analysis was performed to assess the relationship
between L2 listening comprehension and the language learning vari-
ables. The results of the analysis, which are presented in Table 2, show
correlation coefficients that range from weak to strong (Cohen, 1988).
As expected, all the language learning variables were positively corre-
lated with L2 listening comprehension, with the strongest correlation
being between L2 listening comprehension and French vocabulary
knowledge. Therefore, the development of L2 listening comprehen-
sion is associated with increases in L2 and L1 vocabulary knowledge,
auditory discrimination ability, and working memory capacity. The
relationship between L2 listening comprehension and metacognition
was weak and non-significant.

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

90 Vandergrift and Baker

Table 1: Means, standard deviations, and minimum/maximum scores for the listening
variables
Variable Min–Max M (SD)

L2 vocabulary 8–113 33.68 (24.55)

L1 vocabulary 131–215 160.66 (14.87)
Auditory discrimination 14–45 39.52 (6.09)
Working memory 9–25 18.11 (2.71)
Metacognition (global) 40–94 69.41 (12.83)
L2 listening comprehension 3–24 14.06 (4.01)

Table 2: Correlations between L2 listening comprehension and listening variables for

Grade 4 Middle French Immersion students
Variable r

L2 vocabulary 0.51**
L1 vocabulary 0.37**
Auditory discrimination 0.33**
Working memory 0.23*
Metacognition (global) 0.06

Note. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

Predicting L2 listening comprehension

A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the predic-
tive nature of French vocabulary, English vocabulary, auditory dis-
crimination, working memory, and metacognitive awareness for
French listening comprehension. The adjusted R2 was 0.378, indicating
that approximately 38% of the variability in L2 listening comprehen-
sion is accounted for by the predictors. The regression equation was
significant, F (5, 55) = 8.300, p < 0.001, suggesting that the model does
a good job of predicting L2 listening comprehension. Results indicated
that French vocabulary (B = 0.072, t (55) = 4.23, p < 0.001) and English
vocabulary (B = 0.076, t (55) = 2.173, p < 0.05) contributed significantly
to the model. French vocabulary was the best predictor of L2 listening
comprehension. The contribution of auditory discrimination ap-
proached significance (B = 0.193, t (55) = 1.92, p = 0.06). The results
most clearly show that the development of French and English vocab-
ulary knowledge is associated with improvements in L2 listening
comprehension abilities.

Discussion
This study investigated the role of cognitive learner variables in L2 lis-
tening comprehension among Grade 4 French learners in middle
immersion. We conducted correlation and regression analyses to

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

 L2 Listening Comprehension 91

identify the variables that may influence L2 listening success among

these beginner learners. We will discuss the results by considering the
theoretical and pedagogical implications, the limitations of the study,
and suggestions for future research.
Results of both the correlation and regression analyses with regard
to L2 vocabulary revealed that L2 vocabulary knowledge plays a
robust role in L2 listening comprehension. L2 vocabulary had the
strongest relationship with, and was the best predictor of, L2 listening
comprehension. The importance of L2 vocabulary knowledge in L2
listening has been documented in earlier studies as well. Stæhr (2009),
for instance, found a strong relationship between vocabulary size and
L2 listening success, and a recent study of Grade 7 learners found that
L2 vocabulary was a direct precursor to L2 listening comprehension
(Vandergrift & Baker, 2015). Taken together, these findings, along
with those of Mecartty (2000), suggest that there may be a threshold
for L2 listening, based on the relationship between vocabulary knowl-
edge and listening success. Specifically, learners may need to reach a
certain level of L2 vocabulary knowledge before they can attain a cer-
tain level of listening comprehension (Bossers, 1991; Lee & Shallert,
1997; Schoonen, Hulstijn, & Bossers, 1998). Although these earlier stu-
dies have provided some evidence for the possibility of a threshold
for L2 reading, thresholds for L2 listening have yet to be explored.
As noted earlier, in contrast to L2 reading, L2 listening is more con-
text sensitive and occurs without a visual text for reference. Using the
puzzle as a metaphor, Lund (1991) noted that listeners begin the com-
prehension puzzle with more variation and fewer pieces face up than
readers do. Some L2 listeners cope better with unknown vocabulary
than others. This also echoes findings by Stæhr (2009) and Bonk
(2000), who suggest that some L2 listeners may be more strategic in
compensating for a weaker linguistic base, which makes them more
successful in their inferencing efforts. In sum, while the role of L2
vocabulary in L2 listening comprehension is obviously considerable,
there appears to be some variation among L2 listeners as to the degree
to which they can manage the unknown or marginally unknown
vocabulary items as they listen.
Our results also provide support for the importance of L1 vocabu-
lary in L2 listening comprehension, particularly for beginning lear-
ners. The role of L1 vocabulary in L2 learning has been established in
previous research, where the level of L1 vocabulary was shown to pre-
dict L2 skills (Holm & Dodd, 1996; van Zeeland & Schmitt, 2013; Van-
dergrift, 1997; Vandergrift & Baker, 2015). In the present study, L1
vocabulary knowledge had a significant correlation with L2 listening
comprehension and was the only other significant predictor of L2

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

92 Vandergrift and Baker

listening success. It is likely that learners transfer L1 vocabulary

knowledge to their efforts to learn L2 vocabulary (Hulstijn, 2011; Van-
dergrift, 2003). Indeed, young, novice listeners rely heavily on transfer
and overcome their limited L2 knowledge by using cognates and ex-
tralinguistic cues (Vandergrift, 1997). Therefore, it is important to pay
attention to children’s L1 literacy acquisition during their elementary
school years, as it has been argued that a certain level of vocabulary
knowledge must be reached before L1 skills can be efficiently trans-
ferred to the L2 (Stæhr, 2009). The present study examines young lear-
ners whose L1 literacy skills are still developing. Therefore, it would
be useful to teach compensation strategies (e.g., using gestures, gues-
sing the meaning) to young learners to help them move beyond their
L1 level and facilitate their L2 comprehension. It is important to note
that this study focused on French and English, which share a high
number of cognates. It would be helpful to engage in similar research
in languages that have fewer cognates (particularly for more distant
languages) in order to explore the role played by transfer from one
language to the other.
To understand the significance of both L1 and L2 vocabulary, it
helps to remember that L1 listening proficiency is a function of lin-
guistic knowledge and efficiency of processing linguistic information
and that non-native listening proficiency comprises mostly linguistic
knowledge and reasoning ability. As documented in recent research
(Vandergrift & Baker, 2015), L1 and L2 vocabulary work together to
positively influence L2 listening comprehension.
Auditory discrimination featured prominently among the variables
examined in this study. Consistent with previous research, AD, as
measured by the instruments used in this study, correlates moderately
well with L2 listening comprehension, compared with the other vari-
ables (Wilson et al., 2011). AD was not a significant predictor for lis-
tening success in this study. AD develops through exposure to the L2,
so it may be the case that AD, as a general skill, is not yet developed
among these young, novice learners. Instead, more specific skills such
as vocabulary knowledge are better predictors of L2 listening. Based
on the strength of the relationship between AD and L2 listening com-
prehension, Wilson et al. (2011) suggest that consciousness-raising at
the sound-segment level may be warranted at lower levels of compre-
hension to enhance L2 listening success. Vandergrift and Baker (2015)
showed that AD had a strong relationship with WM, and together
those variables influenced the development of vocabulary knowledge
and ultimately L2 listening comprehension. The specific relationship
between these factors is an area for further research.

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

 L2 Listening Comprehension 93

Results of our study provide support for a significant correlation

between L2 listening comprehension and working memory; however,
when other variables were taken into account, WM was not a predic-
tor of L2 listening success. Like Andringa et al. (2012), we observed
WM as a cognitive variable, a concept that features prominently in
many theories of comprehension but that does not explain why some
are better listeners than others. Young children have limited WM
capacity (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1989). For the young learners in this
study, WM should improve as L2 language proficiency increases.
Greater L2 language proficiency helps listeners retain and process
increasingly larger amounts of meaningful speech. Once WM im-
proves, listeners will be able to concentrate on the content of what
they hear, which is important to listening skills (Vandergrift & Goh,
2012). Thus, like auditory discrimination ability, WM is a general skill
that develops with experience and may not be the best predictor of L2
listening in the early stages of learning.
Metacognition, as discussed above, refers to a person’s awareness
of his or her own level of knowledge and cognitive processes (Lang,
2012). It is understood as recursive cycles of decision-making pro-
cesses (strategies) that include planning, predicting, monitoring, and
evaluating (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Often tested using the MALQ,
qualitative studies (e.g., Goh & Kaur, 2013) provide insights into the
metacognitive awareness of young learners. These studies suggest
that young learners can develop and use metacognitive skills. The cur-
rent study of Grade 4 FSL learners, however, found that metacognitive
awareness had a weak (near zero) correlation with L2 listening com-
prehension, and the regression analysis revealed that it was not a sig-
nificant predictor of L2 listening skills.
The difference between this study and earlier studies regarding the
role of metacognition is perplexing, given the significant body of
research showing that metacognition plays a significant role in L2
listening comprehension and language learning (Bolitho, Carter,
Hughes, Ivanič, Masuhara, & Tomlison, 2003; Chamot, Barnhardt, El-
Dinary, & Robbins, 1999; Vandergrift, 1998; 2003). What might explain
the difference? Earlier research highlighted the benefits of metacogni-
tive skills for L2 listening (Vandergrift & Baker, 2015; Vandergrift &
Tafaghodtari, 2010), but that research was conducted with older, more
advanced students. Further, other studies provided metacognitive
instruction to students (Goh & Taib, 2006; Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari,
2010), while this study did not. The different results in this study may
suggest that younger, less skilled learners do not, on their own, tap
into their metacognitive knowledge to facilitate their L2 listening

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

94 Vandergrift and Baker

comprehension. Indeed, the difference in the use of metacognitive

strategies by more and less skilled L2 learners has been well documen-
ted (Bacon, 1992; Goh, 1998; 2000; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Vander-
grift (2003), for example, showed that skilled learners use substantially
more metacognitive strategies than less skilled learners. Such findings
may help to highlight some of the challenges faced by beginner L2 lear-
ners and, as a result, inform L2 listening teaching and remediation.
Specifically, unlike more skilled language learners, the less skilled
learners in this study do not yet appear to possess the metacognitive
awareness necessary to enhance their listening by using such tools as
contextual clues, background knowledge, and L2 vocabulary knowl-
edge for inferencing. When the research team met with the teachers to
discuss the results after the testing in November, both groups were
surprised at the weak relationship between L2 comprehension and
metacognition. Students were given another MALQ test at the end of
the academic year to determine if there was any change as a result of
six months of instruction and more experience with the French lan-
guage. The results showed some improvement over that time. Goh
and Taib (2006) argue that L2 listening can be anxiety-provoking for
beginning language learners and that teachers should be encouraged
to help young learners to understand the mental processes in their
learning. For instance, they found that one useful strategy was to ask
learners to report and discuss their cognitive processes during listen-
ing tasks. This suggests that less skilled L2 learners can benefit in the
long term from instruction in the use of metacognitive skills.
As part of teaching listening skills, teachers need to tap into stu-
dents’ metacognition (i.e., their ability to regulate their own learning)
and to show them how to improve their L2 listening abilities. Students
with more advanced L2 listening skills are able to manage their com-
prehension processes through their use of metacognitive knowledge.
Specifically, they use what they know about themselves as learners
and what it takes to be a successful learner (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012).
Proficient listeners also know how to best approach a listening task,
and they know what strategies they can use to assist their listening
comprehension. Young, novice learners have some degree of metacog-
nitive knowledge (Vandergrift, 2002) but would benefit from class-
room instruction. It is beyond the scope of this article to provide a
comprehensive overview of suggested metacognitive strategies (for a
complete review, see Goh, 2008; Vandergrift & Goh, 2012), but the
basic principles are identified as planning (deciding on the learning
objectives and how they can be achieved), monitoring (checking one’s
listening progress and assessing learning plans), and evaluating (judg-
ing the progress and success of listening and learning efforts).

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

 L2 Listening Comprehension 95

Metacognitive instruction should result in a greater ability among

young learners to self-regulate, to manage the process of specific lis-
tening tasks, to use that information (or strategies) for future listening
tasks, and to develop richer knowledge of themselves as listeners.
Taking a metacognitive approach to teaching listening would heighten
learners’ awareness about the demands of the listening process and
about themselves as learners.
Limitations, implications, and future directions
The claims made in this study are limited by the variables under
investigation. First, some learner variables that have a discernible role
in successful L2 listening comprehension, such as background knowl-
edge and particularly topic familiarity, were not included in this
study (Leeser, 2004; Long, 1990). Other potentially significant learner
variables, such as reasoning ability as measured by IQ (Andringa
et al., 2012), were not included. Second, our results are limited to the
languages and proficiency level under investigation, which is French
learned by students in an English-speaking school context at a begin-
ning level of L2 proficiency. Results for languages that are more dis-
tant would likely be different, as would the results for more advanced
proficiency levels. Third, our results are limited to the age group ex-
amined; learners who have much more life experience or language-
learning experience might be quite different.
Our results have implications for pedagogy. First of all, the signifi-
cant role of L2 vocabulary in listening comprehension achievement is
important information for teachers. Time spent in L2 vocabulary devel-
opment should bear fruit. Research has established several useful
guidelines for the teaching of efficient learning of vocabulary (Nation,
2001; 2013). For instance, research shows that vocabulary learning is
more likely when learners explain the words to each other during
speaking activities (Nation & Hamilton-Jenkins, 2000). Elley’s (1989)
research showed that when the teacher read stories to students and
briefly interrupted the story to comment on the meaning of a word, the
learning of that word increased significantly. Second, the critical role of
both L1 and L2 vocabulary suggests that an emphasis on overall liter-
acy development in both languages can foster L2 listening success
(Dufva & Voeten, 1999; Hulstijn, 2011). Finally, it appears that metacog-
nition plays a growing role as learners progress; this suggests that
paying attention to the process of listening through metacognitive
instruction at early stages will allow them to use these skills as they
gain language proficiency. Metacognitive instruction can take different
forms. Mendelsohn (1998) recommends going through a series of activ-
ities that emphasize the use of planning and monitoring strategies for a

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

96 Vandergrift and Baker

particular listening task. Vandergrift (2004) has argued that metacogni-

tive instruction is most beneficial if it is paired with learning listening
skills in a regular classroom. He further suggests that teachers train
their students about metacognition and its role in learning. With time
and practice the metacognitive strategies that underlie the process of
successful listening can become implicit task performance through a
repertoire of automatic listening skills. Future research is needed to
compare different metacognitive strategies and to determine if there is
a threshold before these strategies benefit language learners.
Correspondence should be addressed to Susan Baker, Psychology Program,
Grenfell Campus, Memorial University of Newfoundland, 20 University
Drive, Corner Brook, NL A2H 5G4; e-mail: sbaker@seaside.ns.ca.

References
Andringa, S., Olsthoorn, N., van Beuningen, C., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. (2012).
Determinants of success in native and non-native listening comprehension: An
individual differences approach. Language Learning, 62(2), 49–78. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00706.x
Bacon, S.M. (1992). The relationship between gender, comprehension, processing
strategies, and cognitive and affective response in foreign language listening.
Modern Language Journal, 76(2), 160–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
4781.1992.tb01096.x
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1736359
Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0267190505000073
Bloomfield, A., Wayland, S.C., Rhoades, E., Blodgett, A., Linck, J., & Ross, S.
(2011). What makes listening difficult? Factors affecting second language listening
comprehension. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
Bolitho, R., Carter, R., Hughes, R., Ivanič, R., Masuhara, H., & Tomlison, B. (2003).
Ten questions about language awareness. ELT Journal, 57(3), 251–259. https://
doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.3.251
Bonk, W.J. (2000). Second language lexical knowledge and listening
comprehension. International Journal of Listening, 14(1), 14–31. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10904018.2000.10499033
Bossers, B. (1991). On threshold, ceilings, and short-circuits: The relation between
L1 reading, L2 reading and L2 knowledge. AILA Review, 8, 45–60.
Bragg, M. (2006). The adventure of English: The biography of a language. New York,
NY: Arcade Publishing.
Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732959

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

 L2 Listening Comprehension 97

Chamot, A.U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P.B., & Robbins, J. (1999). The learning
strategies handbook. White Plains, NY: Addison, Wesley, Longman.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Dufva, M., & Voeten, M.J.M. (1999). Native language literacy and phonological
memory as prerequisites for learning English as a foreign language. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 20(3), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271649900301X
Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, L.M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.).
Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.
Dunn, L.M., Thériault-Whalen, C.M., & Dunn, L.M. (1993). Adaptation française du
Peabody picture vocabulary test-revised. Paris, France: Éditions du Centre de
Psychologie Appliquée.
Elley, W.R. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading
Research Quarterly, 24(2), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/747863
Gathercole, S.E., & Baddeley, A.D. (1989). Evaluation of the role of phonological
STM in the development of vocabulary in children: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Memory and Language, 28(2), 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-
596X(89)90044-2
Goh, C.C.M. (1998). How ESL learners with different listening abilities use
comprehension strategies and tactics. Language Teaching Research, 2(2), 124–147.
https://doi.org/10.1191/136216898667461574
Goh, C.C.M. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening
comprehension problems. System, 28(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0346-251X(99)00060-3
Goh, C.C.M. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening
development: Theory, practice and research implications. RELC Journal, 39(2),
188–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688208092184
Goh, C.C.M., & Kaur, K. (2013). Insights into young learners’ metacognitive
awareness about listening. European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 2,
5–26.
Goh, C.C.M., & Taib, Y. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young
learners. ELT Journal, 60(3), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl002
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: From theory to practice. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System,
34(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.11.001
Graham, S., & Macaro, E. (2008). Strategy instruction in listening for lower-
intermediate learners of French. Language Learning, 58(4), 747–783. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00478.x
Holm, A., & Dodd, B. (1996). The effect of first written language on the acquisition
of English literacy. Cognition, 59(2), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-
0277(95)00691-5

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

98 Vandergrift and Baker

Hulstijn, J.H. (2011). Explanations of associations between L1 and L2 literacy skills.

In M.S. Schmid & W. Lowie (Eds.), Modeling bilingualism: From structure to
chaos (pp. 85–112). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins. https://doi.org/
10.1075/sibil.43.07hul
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning.
Language Teaching, 44(2), 137–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444810000509
Kormos, J., & Sáfár, A. (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory
and foreign language performance in intensive language learning.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1366728908003416
Lang, J.M. (2012, January). Metacognition and student learning. Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/
MetacognitionStudent/130327
Lapkin, S. (1994). Grade 8 core French test package. Toronto, ON: Modern Language
Center, OISE.
Lee, J.-W., & Shallert, D.L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language
proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the
threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31(4), 713–739.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587757
Leeser, M.J. (2004). The effects of topic familiarity, mode and pausing on second
language learners’ comprehension and focus on form. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26(4), 587–615. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0272263104040033
Long, D.R. (1990). What you don’t know can’t help you: An exploratory study of
background knowledge and second language listening comprehension. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 12(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0272263100008743
Lund, R.J. (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading
comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 75(2), 196–204. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05350.x
Mecartty, F. (2000). Lexical and grammatical knowledge in reading and listening
comprehension by foreign language learners of Spanish. Applied Language
Learning, 11, 323–348.
Mendelsohn, D.J. (1998). Teaching listening. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
18, 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500003494
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N.P. (1998). Individual differences in second language
proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A.F. Healy &
L.E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training
and retention (pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nation, P. (1983). Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines, 5, 12–25.
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

 L2 Listening Comprehension 99

Nation, P. (2013). Vocabulary learning and teaching. In P. Robinson (Ed.),

Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 682–686). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Nation, P., & Hamilton-Jenkins, A. (2000). Using communicative tasks to teach
vocabulary. Guidelines, 22, 15–19.
O’Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781139524490
Pickering, S., & Gathercole, S. (2001). Working memory test battery for children
(WMTB-C). Harcourt Assessment.
Ringbom, H., & Jarvis, S. (2009). The importance of cross-linguistic similarity in
foreign language learning. In C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of
language teaching (pp. 106–118). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9781444315783.ch7
Rost, M. (2004). Research in second language processes and development. In
E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research on second language learning and teaching
(pp. 503–528). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schoonen, R., Hulstijn, J., & Bossers, B. (1998). Metacognitive and language-specific
knowledge in native and foreign language reading comprehension: An
empirical study among Dutch students in Grades 6, 8 and 10. Language
Learning, 48(1), 71–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00033
Stæhr, L.S. (2009). Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension
in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4),
577–607. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990039
Tsao, F.-M., Liu, H.-M., & Kuhl, P.K. (2004). Speech perception in infancy predicts
language development in the second year of life: A longitudinal study.
Child Development, 75(4), 1067–1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2004.00726.x
van Zeeland, H. (2014). Lexical inferencing in first and second language listening.
Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 1006–1021. https://doi.org/10.1111/
modl.12152
van Zeeland, H., & Schmitt, N. (2013). Lexical coverage in L1 and L2 listening
comprehension: The same or different from reading comprehension? Applied
Linguistics, 34(4), 457–479. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams074
Vandergrift, L. (1997). The strategies of second language (French) listeners: A
descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 387–409. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb02362.x
Vandergrift, L. (1998). Successful and less successful listeners in French: What are
the strategy differences? French Review, 71, 370–395.
Vandergrift, L. (2002). It was nice to see that our predictions were right:
Developing metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. The Canadian
Modern Language Review, 58(4), 555–575. https://doi.org/10.3138/
cmlr.58.4.555

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906

100 Vandergrift and Baker

Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled

second language listener. Language Learning, 53(3), 463–496. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1467-9922.00232
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 24, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000017
Vandergrift, L. (2006). Second language listening: Listening ability or language
proficiency? Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1540-4781.2006.00381.x
Vandergrift, L., & Baker, S.C. (2015). Learner variables in second language
listening comprehension: An exploratory path analysis. Language Learning,
65(2), 390–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12105
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C.C.M. (2012). Teaching and learning second language
listening: Metacognition in action. New York, NY: Routledge.
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C.C.M., Mareschal, C., & Tafaghodtari, M.H. (2006). The
metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire (MALQ): Development and
validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9922.2006.00373.x
Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M.H. (2010). Teaching learners how to listen does
make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60(2), 470–497.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00559.x
Wesche, M., Peters, M., & MacFarlane, A. (1994). The “bain linguistique”: A core
French experiment. Ottawa, ON: Curriculum Services Department, Ottawa
Board of Education.
Wilson, I., Kaneko, E., Lyddon, P., Okamoto, K., & Ginsburg, J. (2011). Nonsense-
syllable sound discrimination ability correlates with second language (L2)
proficiency. In W.-S. Lee & E. Zee (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International
Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 2133–2136). Hong Kong: City University of
Hong Kong.

© CMLR/RCLV, 74, 1, (February/février), 79–100 doi:10.3138/cmlr.3906