Comparing the outcomes of online listening versus online text-based tasks in university level Italian L2 study

Abstract

In this paper, we describe an initial exploratory study designed to compare the outcomes of online listening and online text-based tasks in the context of the study of Italian at The University of Melbourne. Our findings allow us to characterise online listening and online reading as a qualitative difference between deep and surface approaches to learning. Online listening seems to promote an integrative orientation and heighten students' desire to deconstruct and understand texts. There also appears to be higher vocabulary acquisition and knowledge retention with online listening tasks. IntroductionRubin and Thompson (1994) assert that "[l]istening, quite possibly, is the most important of the language skills, since people spend approximately 60% of their time listening" (1994:85). While the cardinal position of listening as one of the key linguistic abilities is clearly recognised, this is not reflected in research on listening.Vandergrift (1997, 1999, 2006) has repeatedly called attention to this fact. He notes most recently, for instance, that "[t]he extent to which listening ability in a second language (L2) is a function of the transfer of first language (L1) listening abilities or of L2 proficiency has not heretofore been examined" (Vandergrift 2006:6). In an earlier contribution, he described listening, conceptualised as a reception strategy, as the "Cinderella of communication strategies; [it has] received little research attention" (Vandergrift 1997:494). Similarly, there is a notable lack of research which explores the effects online listening may have on L2 proficiency and, of particular relevance to the present study, cross-modality effects, i.e. effects of listening on other linguistic abilities such as writing or speaking. Clearly, this is due to relatively recent developments in technology which facilitate access to online audio materials and to tools which allow for straightforward creation of learning tasks (see Rizzi and Absalom 2007).Cross-modality effects on second/foreign language competency, which refer to the impact one type of task can have on difference linguistic abilities (e.g. how a reading task affects oral proficiency), have emerged as an issue in the last ten years with a strong focus on the relationship between online text-based activities (either synchronous -chatrooms or asynchronous -email exchanges) and face-to-face oral interaction. Studies have described the following positive types of effects of the online environment:

The Effect of Using Web-Cam Chat on the Undergraduate EFL Students’ Pragmatic Competence

“…This greater retention of information and vocabulary can lead to noticeable cross modality gains. However, these results are in line with the results reported by Absalom and Rizzi (2008) who aimed at comparing the effects of online listening and online text-based tasks. They concluded that online listening tasks in L2 required students to activate more learning resources than is the case with text-based tasks and adopted a deep integrative approach to learning.…”

The Effect of Using Web-Cam Chat on the Undergraduate EFL Learners᾽ Socio-Cultural Competence

“…Besides, online listening tasks in L2 could lead to greater retention of information and vocabulary, and this greater retention of information and vocabulary can lead to noticeable cross modality gains. These results are in line with the results reported by Absalom and Rizzi (2008) who emphasized on the importance of online learning in creating a a motivational environment that enables learners to acquire lexicons easier and faster than acquiring them traditionally.…”

L2 Learners’ Enhanced Pragmatic Comprehension of Implicatures via Computer-Mediated Communication and Social Media Networks

“…Asynchronous CMC, however, involves generating product-oriented higher quality linguistic outputs in which messages are composed as wholes being well thought out before they are released to their readerships (Absalom & Rizzi, 2008;Baron, 2000). Therefore, when communicating asynchronously, the learnerreceiver has more time to comprehend the message, because the sender of the message does not expect immediate responses (Blake, 2000).…”