Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333

Learner Variables in Second Language

Listening Comprehension: An Exploratory
Path Analysis
Larry Vandergrifta and Susan Bakerb
a
University of Ottawa and b Cape Breton University

Listening comprehension plays a key role in language acquisition, yet little is known
about the variables that contribute to the development of second language (L2) lis-
tening ability. This study sought to obtain empirical evidence for the impact of some
of the learner variables and the degree to which they might predict success in L2 lis-
tening. The learner variables of interest included: first language (L1) listening ability,
L1 vocabulary knowledge, L2 vocabulary knowledge, auditory discrimination ability,
metacognitive awareness of listening, and working memory capacity. Data from 157
Grade Seven students in the first year of a French immersion program indicated a sig-
nificant relationship among most of the variables and L2 listening ability. A number
of path analyses were then conducted, based on hypothetical relationships suggested
by current theory and research, in order to uncover relationships between the variables
in determining L2 listening comprehension ability. The best fit to the data supported
a model in which general skills (auditory discrimination and working memory) are
initially important, leading to more specific language skills (L1 and L2 vocabulary) in
determining L2 listening comprehension. In positing a provisional model, this study
opens up useful avenues for further research on model building in L2 listening.

Keywords listening comprehension; L2 listening model; listening variables; learner

variables in listening; path analysis

We are especially grateful to teacher Jodi Kathron who so graciously opened up her two Grade
Seven classrooms for research three years in a row. She also helped us facilitate work with the
teachers of other subjects so that one-on-one data collection for the vocabulary and working
memory tests could continue with the students throughout the school day. We are also grateful to
Cara Jelly and Lucille Aubin for their expert management of the data collection process, as well
as data collection; and to Simon DesRoberts and David Davidson who helped them collect the
data for most of the one-on-one tasks. Finally, we are thankful for the input of three anonymous
Language Learning reviewers whose thoughtful comments, probing questions, and recommended
revisions attest to the power of the peer review process to significantly improve a manuscript for
publication purposes. The elicitation instruments used for this study can be accessed by readers in
the IRIS digital repository (http://www.iris-database.org).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Larry Vandergrift, University
of Ottawa—OLBI, 70 Laurier E Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada. E-mail: lvdgrift@uottawa.ca

Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416 390


C 2015 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan

DOI: 10.1111/lang.12105
Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

Introduction
Listening comprehension is a key component of language acquisition and an
important foundation for success in language immersion programs; yet little
is known about the listener characteristics that contribute to successful second
language (L2) listening comprehension. Given this clear gap in knowledge,
the primary objective of this study was to obtain empirical evidence for some
of the listener variables that might contribute to listening and the degree to
which these factors might predict success in L2 listening comprehension. A
more precise understanding of the learner variables involved in L2 listening
comprehension can potentially help to explain some of the difficulties faced by
L2 learners and, thereby, to inform listening instruction and potential remedia-
tion. The present study provides evidence for some of the learner variables that
might contribute to listening and proposes a provisional model that allows us
to observe how these variables might interact in L2 listening comprehension.
The theoretical motivation for this study is grounded in earlier research in
L2 reading, in particular, the body of research that began with an examination
of the relationships between L2 proficiency, L2 reading, and first language (L1)
reading. We present a brief overview of these areas and then link this body of
research with L2 listening, highlighting similarities and differences between
the comprehension processes underlying these two skills. We then review the
literature pertaining to the variables under investigation in the present study
and what we know about their relationship to L2 listening comprehension.
In order to determine the relationship between the variables of interest and
L2 listening comprehension ability, we first perform a correlational analysis.
Second, we perform a path analysis to test for theoretical causal relations
among the variables by determining if correlational data are consistent with the
imposed causal structure. We conclude with some pedagogical implications of
our findings.

Variables in L2 Reading Comprehension

An exploration of the variables that contribute to comprehension ability has
already received significant attention in L2 reading research. Rooted in the well-
known “language problem or reading problem” question posed by Alderson
(1984), this line of research focused on the causes of poor L2 reading ability.
The empirical studies that subsequently explored this question revealed that L2
reading appears to be a function of both L1 reading ability and L2 proficiency
(e.g., Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995; Bossers, 1991; Carrell, 1991; Lee & Schallert,
1997). In fact, all these studies arrived at surprisingly similar results: L1 reading

391 Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

ability contributes about 14%–21%, and L2 proficiency contributes about 30%

to L2 reading ability (Bernhardt, 2005). These results suggest that the transfer
of L1 reading skills to L2 reading is only possible when, understandably, readers
have acquired some L2 knowledge.
The relative contribution of additional variables—vocabulary knowledge
and metacognition—was investigated by Schoonen, Hulstijn, and Bossers
(1998), in their quest to identify the appropriate level at which to begin L2
reading strategy instruction with Dutch learners of English. With regard to vo-
cabulary knowledge, results demonstrated that L2 vocabulary is a strong pre-
dictor of L2 reading comprehension at the Grade-Eight level but decreases in
predictive power with increased language proficiency (Grade Ten). The results
for metacognition were reversed, with metacognitive knowledge accounting for
more of the common variance with increased language proficiency (Grade Ten).
These findings, according to the researchers, provide evidence for a threshold
of L2 proficiency at which L2 readers are able to transfer L1 reading skills
to L2 reading tasks. It appears that students need to attain a certain threshold
of L2 proficiency before they can transfer general reading skills to L2 reading
tasks.

L2 Listening Comprehension
For the purposes of this study, we operationalize L2 listening comprehension
the same way as Buck (2001, p. 114), that is, as
the ability to 1) process extended samples of realistic spoken language,
automatically and in real time; 2) understand the linguistic information
that is unequivocally included in the text; and, 3) make whatever
inferences are unambiguously implicated by the content of the passage.
This default construct is sufficiently flexible and broad to fit most contexts
and to allow listeners to demonstrate their comprehension ability in real-life
listening contexts.
As a comprehension process, listening shares many important characteris-
tics with reading (Bae & Bachman, 1998; Kintsch, 1998; Samuels, 1987). Both
require receptive language processing, which involves decoding and interpre-
tation. Both processes, therefore, use two basic knowledge sources: linguistic
knowledge (e.g., vocabulary and syntax) and world knowledge (e.g., topic, text
structure, schema, and culture) for purposes of text comprehension. Like read-
ing, listening also entails top-down and bottom-up processing to apply these
knowledge sources to the language input during comprehension. Both listening
and reading necessitate cognitive processing that is flexible and adaptable to

Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416 392

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

task demands in order to construct in memory a mental representation of what

has been comprehended. Finally, the success of both listening and reading is
influenced by additional factors, such as metacognition and motivation (Grabe,
2009; Vandergrift, 2005).
On the other hand, listeners, unlike readers, need to comprehend spoken
language. Therefore, listeners must attend to additional factors that compli-
cate the comprehension process, making it more cognitively demanding than
reading (Buck, 2001; Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). First, listening takes place in
real time and is ephemeral; the listener does not have the option of reviewing
the information presented and has little control over the speed of the input.
Second, in contrast to readers who have the luxury of spaces between words,
listeners must apply phonological knowledge to the comprehension process to
segment the sound stream (often indistinct) into meaningful units and process
them quickly. Given that listeners have neither the luxury of reviewing infor-
mation heard nor spaces between the words in a message, they have to hold
more information in working memory. This suggests that working memory
may be a more critical variable in listening than in reading. Third, listening
comprehension is more context sensitive, necessitating attention to prosodic
features such as stress and intonation, which can carry important information.
These factors add to the complexity of listening. Using the jigsaw puzzle as
a metaphor for the comprehension process, Lund (1991) noted that listeners
begin the comprehension puzzle with fewer pieces face up than readers: The
overall contours of meaning are often less clear to listeners when they begin,
and they have no stable visual text elements for reference. Therefore, given
the unique features of comprehension through the listening mode, the present
study will also examine the potential contribution of factors such as auditory
discrimination ability and working memory capacity.

Variables in Listening Comprehension

The variables explored in the present study will be limited to the following: (1)
those identified as important for L1 listening comprehension (i.e., auditory dis-
crimination, working memory, L1 vocabulary knowledge), (2) those identified
as transferable from L2 reading to L2 listening (L2 vocabulary knowledge),
and (3) those identified as important for L2 listening comprehension (i.e., audi-
tory discrimination, L2 vocabulary knowledge, and the metacognition essential
to self-monitoring and use of inferential strategies for unknown vocabulary).
The number of variables to be investigated is limited by the sample size and
the availability of valid and reliable instruments to measure a given variable.

393 Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

Although background knowledge is known to play a powerful role in L2 lis-

tening comprehension (e.g., Long, 1990), measuring this variable would be
very complex, necessitating the creation of a new listening test with a limited
number of topics to be measured and then measuring student knowledge of all
the topics covered in the listening test. Therefore, we limited our variables of
interest to L1 listening comprehension, L2 vocabulary knowledge, L1 vocabu-
lary knowledge, metacognition about listening, working memory, and auditory
discrimination.

L1 Listening Comprehension
In an initial exploration of Alderson’s (1984) ability/proficiency question for
L2 listening, Vandergrift (2006a) examined the relative contributions of L1
listening and L2 proficiency to success in L2 listening comprehension with 75
English-speaking students of French. Results indicated that together both L1
(English) listening and L2 (French) proficiency accounted for about 39% of the
common variance. L2 proficiency was the stronger factor, accounting for about
25%. L1 listening accounted for about 14%, surprisingly similar to the results
for L1 in the reading studies. Based on these results, we can posit a contributing
role for L1 listening comprehension ability to L2 listening comprehension.

L1 Vocabulary Knowledge
To our knowledge, the role of L1 vocabulary knowledge in L2 listening com-
prehension has not yet been investigated. However, given the high number of
cognates (about 40,000) shared by French and English (Bragg, 2006), the po-
tential 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 (1) languages are related, (2) the word occurs in similar contexts,
(3) the focus is on comprehension, and, (4) learners are in early stages of lan-
guage learning. Given these factors, we can hypothesize a potential effect of
L1 vocabulary knowledge on the L2 listening comprehension of Anglophone
learners of French.

L2 Vocabulary Knowledge
The contribution of L2 vocabulary knowledge to L2 listening ability was
investigated by Mecartty (2000) in a study examining the relative contributions
of vocabulary and syntactic (grammar) knowledge to L2 listening and reading
comprehension. Whereas grammar knowledge failed to emerge as a predictor
for both skills, vocabulary knowledge did emerge as a significant predictor,
explaining about 25% of reading ability and about 14% of listening ability.

Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416 394

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

Other factors such as auditory discrimination ability and working memory

capacity could potentially account for some of the differences in explained
variance between the two comprehension skills. As suggested by Field
(2003), listeners are not always able to identify the words they know in rapid,
concatenated speech.
A more recent study with a much larger sample found more impressive
evidence for the contribution of L2 vocabulary knowledge to L2 listening
comprehension (Staehr, 2009). Correlations between the listening test scores
of Danish learners of English and the measures of vocabulary size and depth
of vocabulary knowledge demonstrated their relationship to L2 listening to be
r = .70 and .65, respectively. Based on further examination through regression
analysis, Staehr observed that 51% of listening variance could be explained by
L2 vocabulary; of which 49% could be attributed to vocabulary size (breadth of
vocabulary) and the remaining 2% to depth of vocabulary knowledge (quality
of knowledge related to different aspects of a word and other words associated
with it).
Further evidence for the important role of vocabulary knowledge in L2
listening was noted by van Zeeland and Schmitt (2013). They observed that
lexical knowledge contributes to both L1 and L2 listening comprehension but
that there is more variation for L2 listeners, suggesting that some L2 listeners
cope better with unknown vocabulary than others. This finding also echoes the
findings by Staehr (2009) and Bonk (2000) who suggest that some L2 listeners
may be more strategic in compensating for a weaker linguistic base. 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. This may be related to their metacognition and
ability to regulate L2 listening processes.

Metacognition
Metacognition refers to listener awareness of the cognitive processes involved
in comprehension, and the capacity to oversee, regulate, and direct these pro-
cesses (Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Much of what we know about the relationship
between metacognition and successful L2 listening comes from research into
the strategies of skilled listeners. Using a think-aloud methodology (tapping the
thought processes of listeners while they are actually engaged in the listening
event) researchers record, transcribe, and analyze the think-alouds of skilled
and less-skilled listeners for evidence of strategy use (Goh, 2002; O’Malley,
Chamot, & Küpper, 1989; Vandergrift, 2003). Skilled listeners reveal using

395 Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

about twice as many metacognitive strategies as their less-skilled counterparts,

primarily comprehension monitoring. A qualitative analysis of the think-aloud
protocols further revealed that successful L2 listening appears to involve a
skilful orchestration of strategies to regulate listening processes and achieve
comprehension (Vandergrift, 2003). This finding was also observed by Graham
and Macaro (2008), who attributed the positive results to listener clustering of
strategies. Finally, in their validation of the Metacognitive Awareness Listening
Questionnaire (MALQ), Vandergrift, Goh, Mareschal, and Tafaghodtari (2006)
determined that self-reported metacognitive knowledge, as tapped by question-
naire responses, was able to explain about 13% of the variance in L2 listening
performance of university-level language learners. Although the evidence is
only preliminary, it is clear that a certain amount of variance in listening suc-
cess may be explained by metacognition; that is, learner knowledge and control
of their listening processes.

Working Memory
The role of working memory is receiving increased attention, particularly as a
variable for explaining individual differences in L2 learning and use (Bloom-
field et al., 2011; Juffs & Harrington, 2011). Working memory involves the
temporary storage and manipulation of information used in complex cognitive
activities such as language processing (Baddeley, 1992). We adopted the mul-
ticomponent model proposed by Baddeley because it is considered the most
influential in second language acquisition (SLA) research (Juffs & Harrington,
2011). This model proposes a central executive component for planning, co-
ordinating the flow of information and retrieving knowledge from long-term
memory. The actual work, however, is carried out by two subsystems: a phono-
logical loop to retain spectral information about the sounds currently being
processed and a visuo-spacial sketchpad to hold nonverbal (visual and spatial)
information. A fourth component, an episodic buffer, was later added to ac-
count for integration of information from all the systems (episodes) for transfer
to long-term memory (Baddeley, 2003).
Of particular interest for listening research are the phonological loop and
the central executive, both limited in capacity. The phonological loop plays
an important role in retention and manipulation of speech; information can
be stored in phonological short-term memory for only so long until it decays
and is replaced by new information. The central executive plays an important
role in (1) controlling the flow of information between the components and
other cognitive processes and (2) maintaining focus and inhibiting distracting
information, behaviors crucial to listening success.

Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416 396

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

Although there is a large body of research on the relationship between

comprehension (reading and listening) and working memory (for an overview,
see Andringa, Olsthoorn, van Beuningen, Schoonen, & Hulstijn, 2012) and
the relationship between working memory and certain aspects of SLA (for an
overview, see Kormos & Sáfár, 2008), there is very little research specifically
on any relationship with L2 listening comprehension. An early study by Miyake
and Friedman (1998) revealed that working memory contributes to L2 syntactic
listening comprehension in that listeners with larger working memory capacity
were more sensitive to cues that are important in L2 spoken discourse, as mea-
sured by a sentence stimulus and word recall task. Furthermore, these listeners
knew how to use these same cues to their advantage while listening. Kormos and
Sáfár (2008) investigated the relationship of a number of L2 skills with working
memory. For listening (using a discourse comprehension measure similar to the
one used in the present study), they found a significant, moderate-sized (.37)
relationship between backward digit span scores and listening achievement of
45 Hungarian beginner-level learners of English. More recently, working with
a larger sample of higher-level learners of Dutch, Andringa et al. (2012) were
able to go beyond establishing a relationship to actually exploring potential
causality between working memory and L2 listening ability (as measured by
L2 listening comprehension of five different conversations) . Working memory
was assessed using four digit span tasks and one nonword recognition task. Al-
though a weak correlation was observed between some of the working memory
tasks and listening achievement, when working memory was expressed as a
latent factor comprising all five tasks, it could not explain any unique variance
in L2 listening ability. The results of these studies suggest that, although there
may be a relationship between listening ability and working memory, this rela-
tionship may not be strong enough to explain any of the variance. In sum, the
role of working memory in L2 listening comprehension deserves much greater
research attention, particularly its role in real-life listening tasks.

Auditory Discrimination
Although auditory discrimination, the ability to receive, differentiate and pro-
cess information through the ear, has been shown to correlate significantly with
L1 development (e.g., Tsao, Liu, & Kuhl, 2004), there is very little evidence
available regarding the relationship between auditory discrimination ability,
L2 listening ability, and language development. A recent study by Wilson,
Kaneko, Lyddon, Okamoto, and Ginsburg (2011) demonstrated significant cor-
relations between auditory discrimination and several different L2 proficiency
tests with Japanese learners of English. The researchers observed a moderate

397 Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

relationship (r = .36) between auditory discrimination and the two general

language proficiency tests (as measured by an internal university test and a
standardized test). The relationship between auditory discrimination and L2
listening comprehension (as measured by the listening subtest in the standard-
ized test) was also at the .36 level. The relationship between L2 listening and the
ability to discriminate consonants was the highest for these learners (about r =
.37). As the authors suggest, these results indicate an interesting relationship;
however, this is not necessarily a causal relationship.

The Present Study

The present study investigated some of the cognitive learner variables that may
contribute to L2 listening comprehension. It builds on the promising results of
earlier exploratory research and will attempt to replicate, to a certain degree,
for L2 listening what Schoonen et al. (1998) investigated for L2 reading, in
addition to including a few more learner variables crucial to listening compre-
hension such as auditory discrimination ability and working memory capacity.
The research was conducted in a context where listening comprehension is the
foundation for L2 acquisition: the French Immersion (FI) classroom. In view
of these objectives, the first goal of the study was to examine the potential
relationship among L2 listening comprehension and learner variables (L1 and
L2 vocabulary, L1 listening comprehension, auditory discrimination, working
memory, and metacognition). Although text variables may also play an im-
portant role in L2 listening success (see Bloomfield et al., 2011) as well as
task variables (see Brunfaut & Revesz, 2013), this study will focus on learner
variables only.
The second goal of the study was to explore the relationships among the
learner cognitive variables under investigation through a path analysis test in
order to arrive at a provisional model of how these variables might interact in
L2 listening comprehension. A number of path analyses were conducted, based
on hypothetical relationships suggested by current theory and research, in order
to arrive at a model that best fits the data from our FI student population. In the
end, L1 listening comprehension could not be included in the analysis because
the sample size for this variable was too small.

Method
Participants
The 157 participants came from intact (late) FI classes, sampled from 3 different
cohorts reflecting the calendar year the particular students entered the program:

Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416 398

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

Table 1 Number of participants by gender and cohort year

Cohort Males Females Total

2008 25 22 47
2009 24 25 49
2010 29 32 61
Total 78 79 157

2008 (N = 47), 2009 (N = 49), and 2010 (N = 61). Late FI, in this school
jurisdiction, begins in Grade Seven, so participants were about 13 years old.
Late FI is a program of choice; that is, both students and parents agree to
enrolment. Proficiency in French is highly valued in the cultural context in
which this study took place since (French/English) bilingualism is considered
a distinct asset in securing employment in many work sectors and progressing
quickly within the ranks of the public service. Over 60% of the students in
the entire school jurisdiction are enrolled in FI at some point. There are three
different entry points at which students can begin FI instruction. Late immersion
(i.e., beginning in Grade Seven) is the last opportunity for students to begin
a FI program, and it largely enrolls students who have moved into the school
jurisdiction from other parts of Canada, immigrant children who now feel
comfortable in learning a third language (or more) and students who began FI
at an earlier entry point (Kindergarten or Grade Four) but dropped out and now
wish to try it again. All instruction is in French, except for Mathematics.
All three cohorts were taught by the same teacher and data collection took
place near the end of the school year. Although no L2 proficiency measure
was administered, it would be fair to assume that the language proficiency
attained by the students at this point in their FI program would be at the A2
level (Common European Framework of Languages, Council of Europe, 2001)
but definitely not yet at the B1 level. This is roughly the equivalent to the
Intermediate Mid-High ranges in the ACTFL Guidelines often employed in the
United States (Vandergrift, 2006b). Given that the L1 listening test was given in
English, students who did not complete all their schooling in English (Grades
One to Six) were excluded from the participant group. Students were deemed
to have English as L1 if they were either born in Canada or if they completed
all their schooling in English; that is, developing conceptual knowledge in this
language. With regard to gender, as can be seen in Table 1, the distribution
between males and females was virtually equal.

399 Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

Instruments
The data for the present study were collected using seven different instruments
to measure the cognitive variables of interest: L1 listening comprehension,
L2 listening comprehension, L1 vocabulary knowledge, L2 vocabulary knowl-
edge, auditory discrimination ability, metacognitive awareness of listening, and
working memory capacity.

L1 and L2 Listening Comprehension

The French listening comprehension test, developed from previously elaborated
tests for core French students (Lapkin, 1994; Wesche, Peters, & MacFarlane,
1994) consisted of 28 multiple-choice items. The test, requiring participants
to process extended examples of real-life speech and answer multiple-choice
questions, took about 45 minutes to complete. Cronbach’s alpha for internal
consistency of the test was .81. Both questions and answers were in the target
language. The English listening comprehension test, used with the second and
third cohorts, was based on short dialogues taken from previous versions of
the CanTest (Des Brisay, 1995). Texts were carefully chosen for their relevance
to the life experience of the participants. The test of 22 multiple-choice items,
which participants completed during a regular class, required about 30 minutes
to complete.
Both tests were similar with respect to a number of important criteria. First,
in line with our operationalization of listening comprehension ability, both
tests measured the ability of students to process extended samples of realistic
spoken language in real time (in contrast to individual sentence processing,
often used in L2 listening parsing research). Students listened to a number of
short authentic-type dialogues concerning topics related to their life experience
and they then demonstrated comprehension by completing multiple choice
questions. Second, for both tests, the question prompt was given orally for
about 50% of the questions. In the case of dialogues for which the question
prompt was oral, there was no repetition of the question. In cases for which
the question prompt was in written form, dialogues were not repeated. Because
both working memory (in the case of oral prompts) and reading ability (in
the case of written prompts) could be confounding variables, we divided the
types of question prompts for both tests (about 50% for each). None of the
dialogues incorporated sound effects. Both tests included a few questions of
which students demonstrated comprehension via a pictorial response, that is,
no reading was involved in verifying comprehension. While some questions
dealt with gist, most questions focused on important details. Each test also
included a number of designated inference questions (Vandergrift, 2006a).

Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416 400

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

Questions for both tests followed a similar pattern, as seen in the following
example:

Now listen to dialogue Number 2 and questions. (Students hear the

dialogue)
(Students hear the question)

(a) Visit some Canadian companies.

(b) Go to a Canadian trade show.
(c) Get his name on an exporter’s list.

L1 and L2 Vocabulary Knowledge

Vocabulary knowledge was measured using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test 4th ed. (PPVT; Dunn & Dunn, 2007) and its French adaptation, Échelle de
vocabulaire en images Peabody (Dunn, Theriault-Whalen, & Dunn, 1993). This
well-known, reliable instrument was chosen because it is a more valid measure
of oral receptive vocabulary than most vocabulary tests (e.g., Vocabulary Levels
Test; Nation, 1983) where students identify a stimulus word through reading.
The PPVT is a test of meaning recognition, assessing the breadth of a per-
son’s vocabulary. 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. Given that the PPVT
covers “a broad sampling of content areas and parts of speech across all levels
of difficulty” (Dunn & Dunn, 2007, p. 2) and the comprehension tests involved
oral texts on topics related to the life experience of the participants, one can
be confident that there was a reasonable overlap between the two measurement
instruments.
Both tests are organized by increasingly difficult sets of twelve panels each.
Administration of the PPVT begins with items that are in the student’s critical
range based on chronological age 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
ten seconds. The scoring system compensates for the effects of guessing by
subtracting the number of errors made before attaining the ceiling item from
the actual number of the ceiling item. 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 r = .92–.96 for the
English version (Dunn & Dunn, 2007, p. 56) and ranges of r = .80–.85 for the
French version (Dunn et al., 1993, p. 38).

401 Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

Auditory Discrimination Ability

Auditory discrimination ability was measured using two subtests of the Pim-
sleur Language Aptitude Battery (Pimsleur, Reed, & Stansfield, 2004), normed
and validated for students at this age. In the sound discrimination section,
participants are taught, through a CD, three sounds in an unknown language.
Participants then hear 30 sentences spoken using those newly learned sounds
and must indicate which one of the three sounds the sentence contains. In the
Sound-Symbol Association section, participants hear a two- or three-syllable
nonsense word and must then choose the correct printed version among four
printed alternatives, for example, nosfen, sonsfen, snosnef, sonsnef. The num-
ber of correct answers for each section were added to generate one combined
score that measured the auditory discrimination variable. Internal reliability
coefficients were not available but internal consistency for a similarly aged
group in New Zealand learning French produced a Cronbach’s alpha of .73.

Metacognition
Metacognitive awareness of listening was measured using the MALQ (Vander-
grift et al., 2006), an instrument previously validated with adults and secondary
school students. The MALQ, a self-report instrument, consists of 21 randomly
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 tapping the factor of Directed Attention:
I try to get back on track when I lose concentration.
A global score was created for each participant by adding up the scores for each
of the 21 items. Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency of this scale was .62.
Validation data for the MALQ revealed internal reliability coefficients ranging
from .74 to .78 for four of the factors and .68 for the fifth (Directed Attention)
factor (Vandergrift et al., 2006).
Working Memory
Working memory capacity was measured using the Working Memory Test Bat-
tery for Children (WMTB-C; Pickering & Gathercole, 2001), an instrument
normed and validated for 5-to 15-year-olds. Due to time constraints related to
the one-on-one nature of the subtests, only the Backward Digit Recall (BDR;
tapping the work of both the Central Executive and the Phonological Loop)

Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416 402

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

and the Nonword List Recall (NLR, tapping the Phonological Loop only) sub-
tests were administered. For the BDR, participants must maintain a forward
sequence of digits while recalling them in reverse order (last one first), imme-
diately after spoken presentation of the sequence by the research assistant. The
test progresses from presentation of a two-digit span to as many as seven. A
score is established by adding up the number of correct items in each block of
six. The test ends once the participant makes three errors in a given block. For
the NLR, participants must recall a sequence of one-syllable sounds in exactly
the same order in which it was heard. It progresses in much the same way
as the BDR and also stops once the participant makes more than three errors
in a block. The BDR subtest, in particular, is widely used in working memory
research (Juffs & Harrington, 2011; Kormos & Sáfár, 2008). By using digits
and nonsense one-syllable words, both subtests avoid the problem of using an
overt meaningful language component. Both are appropriate tests of working
memory capacity because they avoid the possibility of covert rehearsal by en-
gaging both the storage and processing components as participants execute the
task (Juffs & Harrington, 2011). Scores of the two sub-tests were combined
to generate one score to measure the Working Memory variable. Historical
internal reliability coefficients for the WMTB were not available.

Procedure
Participation was voluntary and both parents and students signed the consent
form. All participants completed a short demographic questionnaire requesting
information concerning previous French instruction, language(s) spoken at
home and language of schooling from senior kindergarten to the present. The
listening tests, auditory ability subtests and metacognition questionnaire were
administered to each intact class. The vocabulary and working memory tests
were conducted one-on-one with a research assistant outside the classroom.

Results
The first goal of this study was to examine the relationship between L2 listen-
ing comprehension and some important learner variables (L1 listening com-
prehension, L1 and L2 vocabulary, auditory discrimination, working memory,
and metacognition). The means, standard deviations and minimum/maximum
scores for each variable are provided in Table 2. The second goal was to explore
the relationships among the variables through a path analysis test in order to
arrive at a model of how these variables might interact in leading to L2 listening
comprehension. A path analysis is essentially a regression procedure where the

403 Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

Table 2 Means, standard deviations and minimum/maximum scores for the listening
variables

Variable Min-Max Mean SD

L2 vocabulary 9–160 61.12 42.55

L1 vocabulary 135–225 186.57 14.86
Auditory discrimination ability 22–49 35.63 6.36
Working memory 24–63 38.28 7.50
Metacognition (global) 43–105 79.59 10.84
L2 listening comprehension 6–26 17.52 4.67

Table 3 Relationship between L2 listening comprehension and listening variables for

Grade-Seven LFI students

Variable Cohort 2008 Cohort 2009 Cohort 2010 Combined cohorts

L2 vocabulary .42∗∗ .47∗∗ .54∗∗ .51∗∗

L1 vocabulary .47∗∗ .30∗ .15 .23∗∗
L1 listening ability —a .40∗∗ .14 .16
Auditory discrimination .36∗ .42∗∗ .07 .22∗∗
ability
Working memory .37∗ .27 .07 .20
Metacognition (global) .15 .25 .21 .23∗∗
Note. ∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; a pilot test for that year proved to be unreliable. N = 157
(First published as Table 4.1 in Vandergrift & Goh, 2012, and reproduced here with
permission of the authors and Routledge.)

predicted pattern of causal relationships is illustrated as arrows from causes

to effects. The path coefficient is like the standardized regression coefficient
in multiple regression and it shows the direction and degree of the predicted
effect. Although researchers can impose a causal structure, due to the nature of
these statistics, they cannot make strong causal statements.
In order to assess the relationship between L2 listening comprehension
and the learner variables observed, a correlational analysis was performed. As
anticipated, the predictor variables all have a positive relationship to L2 listening
comprehension. The results of the analysis, as presented in Table 3, show
coefficients that range from weak to moderate (Cohen, 1988). Although they
follow the same pattern, the results of the 2010 cohort do not very well match the
magnitude of the results of the two earlier cohorts. However, for the combined
cohorts, four relationships (L2 and L1 vocabulary, auditory discrimination,

Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416 404

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

.21 .28
L1 Vocabulary
Auditory Working L2 L2
Discrimination Memory Vocabulary Listening

Metacognition .49
.42 ns
.29

Figure 1 Provisional model of L2 listening comprehension.

and metacognition) are significant. Thus, the correlational results for these
grade-seven late FI students generally indicate that increases in the variables of
interest are associated with increases in L2 listening comprehension, with the
strongest and most consistent association being with L2 vocabulary.
The positive relationships, however, do not imply causation. For that reason,
the data were further explored for a potential causal relationship between the
predictor variables and L2 listening comprehension. In particular, we wanted
to test for a model that could encapsulate the relationship among the predictor
variables, in order to gain greater insight as to how these variables might interact
in the process leading to L2 listening comprehension.
Table 4 Goodness of fit statistics related to the provisional L2 Listening Comprehension
Model

Model X2 df CFI GFI RMSEA

Final 10.83 10 .98 .96 .03

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness of fit index; RMSEA = root mean
square error of approximation. Final model = nonsignificant path deleted.

Therefore, in order to explore what would be a plausible model of L2

listening comprehension, several path analyses were conducted, using EQS 5.7b
(Bentler, 1998) so as to arrive at a model with acceptable goodness of fit indices.
In addition to providing goodness of fit indices, EQS 5.7b provides parameters
guiding the modification of a model until it achieves the best possible fit.
Specifically, the Lagrange multiplier test reveals which paths should be added
to the model while the Wald test identifies paths to be deleted.
The model producing the best fit to the data is represented in Figure 1 and
the goodness-of-fit indices are presented in Table 4.
Examination of the modification indices, which were obtained using the
Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test, indicated that no new paths were suggested
to improve the final model. The Wald Test for dropping parameters was then
performed.

405 Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

The results suggested removing the nonsignificant path from working mem-
ory to metacognition. When the nonsignificant path was dropped, there was no
significant improvement to the fit of the model, X2 (1) = 0.05, p = ns. The final
solution suggested no further deletion or addition. Although the relationships
are only weak to moderate, the final version depicts auditory discrimination
positively influencing working memory, which positively impacts L1 vocabu-
lary (but not metacognition). Both L1 vocabulary and metacognition positively
influence L2 listening comprehension through L2 vocabulary, which is a di-
rect precursor to L2 listening comprehension. Thus, the final result suggests a
(provisional) model where more general skills like auditory discrimination and
working memory are important to the development of more specific language
skills leading to L2 listening comprehension. As mentioned above, L1 listen-
ing was not included in the analysis because of the limited sample size for this
variable.

Discussion
Variables Related to L2 Listening Comprehension
The first goal of this study was to explore the relationship between L2 listening
comprehension and the cognitive learner variables chosen for this investigation.
All variables were positively related to L2 listening ability. However, it is
somewhat perplexing that the results of the third cohort do not echo the more
positive results of the first and second cohorts, even though all three simply
represent the same student population sampled at three different calendar times,
2008, 2009, and 2010 but the same curricular time: the beginning of late FI in
grade seven. Even though data collection for the third cohort was directed by a
different research assistant, a careful review of the data collection protocol with
the assistant and the classroom teacher (the same person for all three cohorts)
revealed no discrepancies. Compared to the other two cohorts, the variance in
working memory was slightly higher in the third cohort, while the variance
for L1 vocabulary was lower. Considering the high consistency in correlations
across the first two cohorts, the differences in the third cohort may simply
represent an anomaly. Although the coefficients are smaller, the nature of the
relationships between the cognitive variables and L2 listening comprehension
is the same as the other two cohorts.
The robust role of L2 vocabulary in L2 listening comprehension is cer-
tainly the most significant finding. This reinforces the results obtained by
Staehr (2009) who found a very high correlation between listening success
and vocabulary size (r = .70). Staehr observes, however, that the measurement

Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416 406

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

tool he used assessed the written form of the word only, noting that the relation-
ship between vocabulary and listening should be based on a measurement tool
that involves an auditory presentation (hearing) of a word rather than a visual
presentation (reading) of its orthographic form. The present study has compen-
sated for this shortcoming by using a measure of oral receptive vocabulary. At
the same time, it should be noted that recognition of an individual word out of
context, as measured by the PPVT, does not necessarily mean that the word is
recognized in rapid, concatenated speech. Nevertheless, recognition of the oral
form of a word is a more valid measurement of word recognition for purposes
of listening, rather than reading and understanding the word.
The significant finding for L2 vocabulary lends credence to the possibility
of a threshold for L2 listening, similar to an L2 reading threshold. A threshold
for L2 listening assumes a relationship between L2 vocabulary knowledge
and listening comprehension success; listeners need to attain a certain level
of vocabulary knowledge before they can efficiently transfer L1 skills to L2
listening tasks. Although there is some evidence for a threshold for L2 reading
(Bossers, 1991; Lee & Shallert, 1997; Schoonen et al., 1998), the existence
of a threshold for L2 listening remains to be explored. The results of the
present study provide further motivation for exploring the possibility of such a
threshold.
Our results provide support for the hypothesis that L1 vocabulary is posi-
tively associated with L2 listening comprehension success. Given the overall
strong relationship between English and French vocabulary, it is not surprising
that these listeners, who are in the early stages of learning French, can transfer
this L1 knowledge to facilitate their L2 listening efforts. However, this finding
needs to be explored for other languages as well, particularly for languages that
are not very cognate rich such as, for example, Chinese and English.
The relationship between L1 listening ability and L2 listening comprehen-
sion is somewhat tenuous in this study. We could not include L1 listening ability
in the first cohort due to the lack of reliability of the measurement instrument
used with that group. There was a moderate relationship with L2 listening
ability in the second cohort, but this relationship was weak in the third cohort.
Thus, there is not enough evidence in this study to confirm earlier findings
on the potential contribution of L1 listening ability to L2 listening success
(Vandergrift, 2006a).
Our proposition about the potential role of auditory discrimination appears
to be confirmed for the overall participant group. This finding supports the
significant role for auditory discrimination observed by Wilson et al. (2011).
Based on the strength of the relationship of auditory discrimination with L2

407 Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

listening comprehension in their study, they suggest that consciousness rais-

ing at the sound-segment level may be warranted at lower levels of language
proficiency in order to enhance L2 listening success.
The results for working memory show that it appears to be related to L2
listening comprehension but not strongly enough to obtain significant results
with the current sample size for each cohort, even though a significant relation-
ship was observed for the first cohort. Kormos and Sáfár (2008) also observed
a significant relationship (r = .37) with a sample size of 45, which is equivalent
to the sample size of 47 for the first cohort of the present study (see Table 1).
Andringa et al. (2012) observed an even weaker relationship of r = .21. This
weaker relationship may be due to the fact that participants were prompted and
then completed the BDR in their L1. Although the researchers suggest that this
may be due to the language used for the task, Osaka, Osaka, and Groner (1993)
found that, using a reading span test, measures of working memory for L1 and
L2 were strongly related, at levels as high as .80. Would the same be true for
listening? This may need to be verified through further research.
Finally, the link between metacognition and L2 listening success was also
demonstrated. Although the relationship with L2 listening for each individual
cohort was not significant, taken together, the result for metacognition for the
entire (larger) participant group was significant. As in the earlier findings by
Vandergrift et al. (2006), this significance is largely accounted for by the Per-
son Knowledge factor, that is, learner perceptions of their ability to regulate
or control listening processes, gauged by their perceptions of the difficulty of
listening compared to the other skills and the anxiety associated with listen-
ing tasks. For one cohort, the Problem Solving factor (the ability to monitor
comprehension and to solve difficulties as they arise) proved to be significant
whereas the Directed Attention factor (the ability to sustain careful attention
while listening) was significant for another cohort. However, when pooling the
results for all three cohorts, only the Person Knowledge factor was significant.
This finding is in line with the finding by Vandergrift et al. (2006) that metacog-
nition (accounted for largely by the Person Knowledge factor) could explain
up to 13% of variance in L2 listening comprehension.
In sum, the correlational analysis provides new information about the
learner variables that is positively related to L2 listening comprehension. Al-
though the relationships are only moderate (or even weak) at best, the relation-
ships are significant and they do provide empirical evidence for some of the
learner variables underlying the listening construct not previously explored.
Furthermore, given that these factors are all examined within the context of a

Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416 408

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

single study, we can then explore any possible interaction effects between those
variables.

The Provisional Model

Our second goal was to explore causality in L2 listening comprehension by
conducting a number of path analyses to probe for a model that best fits the
data for the learner variables under investigation. Initial iterations began with
L1 vocabulary, based on evidence in the think-aloud protocols of successful
listeners that pointed to the salient role of cognates in triggering meaning for
Anglophone learners of French (Vandergrift, 2003), and with L2 vocabulary,
based on the strength of L2 vocabulary in the current study and in earlier
research (e.g., Staehr, 2009). The final iteration of the model, although limited
by paths that range in strength from weak to moderate, is supported by excellent
goodness of fit indices. This provisional model suggests that general skills
(auditory discrimination and working memory) are initially important and that
these skills lead to more specific skills (L1 and L2 vocabulary) in determining
L2 listening comprehension success.
This provisional model suggests that the comprehension process begins
with auditory discrimination and leads, through a moderately strong path (.42),
to working memory. Auditory discrimination provides the crucial bottom-up
information to trigger the comprehension process. Although it could be ar-
gued that the process might begin with working memory, given the role of
its central executive in controlling information flow, the listener must first be
able to perceive the acoustic signal. Only what is perceived can be processed.
Perception can be affected by hearing deficits or by listener (in)ability to dis-
criminate sounds that may not be salient in the L1 sound system, for example,
the perception of English/r/versus/l/by the Chinese or perception of vowels
versus consonants by the Japanese (Wilson et al., 2011) or the (non)perception
of tones by speakers of languages where those tones are not salient.
The influence of L2 proficiency and L1 may be reflected in the path from
working memory to L1 vocabulary. The proximity of the two languages for
these research participants, coupled with the conceptual language they have
already acquired in L1, allows them to identify many cognates that trigger
meaning in L2. Ringbom and Jarvis (2009) suggest that this potential for
transfer is particularly strong at the beginning stages of language learning.
In addition, a longitudinal study of Finnish primary school students learning
English (Dufva &Voeten, 1999) may provide further support for the role of L1
vocabulary in development of L2 proficiency. Using a number of L2 proficiency
tasks (including listening comprehension) the researchers found that L1 literacy

409 Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

skills (L1 word recognition in particular) could explain up to 58% of the variance
in L2 proficiency. They concluded that L1 word recognition formed the basis
of L2 learning. Although the path to L2 vocabulary in our model is relatively
weak (.28), this suggests some evidence of L1 vocabulary influence.
Whether working memory impacts L2 listening ability only through L1 and
L2 vocabulary is still a matter of speculation. The path in our model is relatively
weak (.21) and a possible, additional path to metacognition was not significant.
Temporary storage, manipulation, and coordination of information involved
in problem solving, which all happens in working memory, should influence
the awareness of cognitive processes. However, our model appears to suggest
that metacognition is an executive function that, on its own, is an important
determinant of L2 vocabulary and L2 listening comprehension, highlighting the
importance of knowledge and control of the L2 listening process on L2 listening
ability. Nevertheless, the lack of a significant path between metacognition and
working memory remains puzzling. Another explanation may be a function of
the instrument used to measure metacognition. Whereas the instruments used
to measure the other variables provided actual performance data, the MALQ
asked listeners to self-report their awareness of listening processes. Given that
the data for metacognition was not based on actual performance, these data
may not represent actual metacognitive activity, resulting in a nonsignificant
path from working memory. By the same token, the path from metacognition
to L2 vocabulary could be either more or less positively related.
L2 vocabulary appears to be influenced by separate, but relatively weak,
paths from L1 vocabulary (.28) and metacognition (.29). The cognates argument
discussed earlier may explain the path from L1 to L2 vocabulary. The role of
metacognition is not totally clear, however. What may be operating here is that
listener metacognition triggers the inference of unknown vocabulary, based on
knowledge sources such as L1, other L2 knowledge, and world knowledge (Lee
& Cai, 2010). Finally, L2 vocabulary leads to L2 listening via a moderately
strong path (.49), reflecting the strength of the relationship in the correlational
analysis.
In sum, the most important contribution of this provisional model is the
proposition that general skills influence more specific language skills. This
evokes the role of aptitude, an important construct in examining what is involved
in the process of language learning and elucidating the nature of that process.
After falling out of favor for a few decades, the role of language aptitude in SLA
is receiving increased interest, with a greater emphasis on the interplay between
aptitude and context (Dörnyei, 2005). Although there is more debate today about
the components of aptitude, DeKeyser and Koeth (2011) suggest that most

Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416 410

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

cognitive psychologists today would agree that analytical ability (verbal ability
and general intelligence), memory, and phonetic sensitivity would be deemed
the most important. Although we did not measure general intelligence in the
present study, results from our measures for memory and phonetic sensitivity led
to the inclusion of both auditory discrimination and working memory as initial
determinants in our model. In short, our provisional model suggests aptitude as
a precursor to language-specific skills in L2 listening comprehension success.

Conclusion
Claims to be made in this study are limited by the variables under investigation.
First, some learner variables, such as background knowledge and particularly
topic familiarity, which have a discernible role in L2 listening comprehension
success (see, e.g., Leeser, 2004; Long, 1990), were not included in this study.
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, that is,
French learned by students in an English-speaking school context and their
level of L2 proficiency. Results for languages that are more distant would likely
be different as would the results for more advanced proficiency levels. Third,
our results are limited to the age group examined; results for adults, who have
much more life experience or language learning experience, might be quite
different. Finally, due to the lack of sufficient data for the first cohort, the role of
L1 could not be included in the analysis and, given the low reliability of the
initial L1 listening test, future research using a more reliable test (such as the
one used with the second and third cohorts) will be needed; specifically, a test
would be desirable that matches the task- and question-types of the French test.
Although provisional, our model has implications for pedagogy. First of all,
the role of L2 vocabulary listening comprehension achievement is important
information for teachers. Time spent in L2 vocabulary development should bear
fruit and research has established several useful guidelines for the teaching
of vocabulary and efficient learning (e.g., Nation, 2001; 2013). Second, the
nascent role of auditory discrimination in L2 listening success suggests that
some attention to consciousness-raising at the sound segment level would be
useful, particularly with learners at lower levels of language proficiency (e.g.,
Wilson et al., 2011). Third, the critical role of both L1 and L2 vocabulary
suggests that an emphasis of overall literacy development in both languages
can foster L2 listening success (e.g., Dufva &Voeten, 1999; Hulstijn, 2011).
Finally, given that metacognition appears to play a determining role in listening

411 Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

success, some attention to the process of listening, particularly metacognitive

instruction at early stages of language proficiency, can help sensitize students
to the process of listening. With time and practice, the metacognitive strategies
that underlie the process of successful listening and can become implicit task
performance through a repertoire of automatic listening skills (e.g., Vandergrift
& Tafaghodtari, 2010).
Although we may still have a long way to go, this study makes an impor-
tant theoretical contribution to knowledge by examining the relationship of a
number of hypothesized learner variables with L2 listening comprehension and
exploring causality through a path analysis. The resulting provisional model, al-
though not very robust, allows us to observe how the variables might interact in
L2 listening comprehension. Clearly there are additional variables at play here
that need to be explored. Although limited by the languages, learners, learning
context, and variables involved, this study also opens up useful avenues for
further research in elucidating the listening construct. This provisional model
serves as a starting point for others who may wish to explore the causal rela-
tionships among learner variables related to L2 listening comprehension.

Final revised version accepted 25 June 2014

References
Alderson, J. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or language
problem? In J. Alderson & A. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language
(pp. 1–24). New York: Longman.
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(S2), 49–78.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of
Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208.
Bae, J., & Bachman, L. (1998). A latent variable approach to listening and reading:
Testing factorial invariance across two groups of children in the Korean/English
two-way immersion program. Language Testing, 15, 380–414.
Bentler, P.M. (1998). EQS: Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA:
Multivariate Software.
Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133–150.
Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2
reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence
hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16, 16–34.

Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416 412

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

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: University of Maryland.
Bonk, W. (2000). Second language lexical knowledge and listening comprehension.
International Journal of Listening, 14, 14–31.
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:
Arcade Publishing.
Brunfaut, T., & Revesz, A. (2013). Text characteristics of task input and difficulty in
second language listening comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
35, 31–65.
Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency?
Applied Linguistics, 12, 159–179.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Council of Europe. (2001). A common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. M., & Koeth, J. (2011). Cognitive aptitudes for second language
learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and
learning, 2 (pp. 395–406). New York: Routledge.
Des Brisay, M. (1995). Practical considerations in the construction of program specific
ESL tests: The CanTEST story. In R. Courchêne, S. Burger, C. Cornaire, R.
LeBlanc, S. Paribakht, & H. Séguin (Eds.), Twenty-five years of second language
teaching at the University of Ottawa (pp. 260–268). Ottawa, Canada: Second
Language Institute.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in
second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Dufva, M., & Voeten, M. J. (1999). Native language literacy and phonological memory
as prerequisites for learning English as a foreign language. Applied
psycholinguistics, 20, 329–348.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.).
Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.
Dunn, L. M., Theriault-Whalen, C. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1993). Adaptation française
du Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-revised. Paris: Éditions du Centre de
Psychologie Appliquée.
Field, J. (2003). Promoting perception: Lexical segmentation in second language
listening. ELT Journal, 57, 325–334.
Goh, C. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction
patterns. System, 30, 185–206.

413 Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.
Graham, S., & Macaro, E. (2008). Strategy instruction in listening for lower-
intermediate learners of French. Language Learning, 58, 747–783.
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. 85–111). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning.
Language Teaching, 44, 137–166.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Kormos, J., & Sáfár, A. (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory
and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 11, 261–271.
Lapkin, S. (1994). Grade 8 core French test package. Toronto, Canada: 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, 713–739.
Lee, P. H., & Cai, W. (2010). The effects of language proficiency on unfamiliar word
processing in listening comprehension. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics,
12(2), 61–82.
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, 587–615.
Long, D. R. (1990). What you don’t know can’t help you. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 12, 65–80.
Lund, R. J. (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading
comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 75, 196–204.
Mecartty, F. (2000). Lexical and grammatical knowledge in reading and listening
comprehension by foreign language learners of Spanish. Applied Language
Learning, 11, 323–348.
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: Erlbaum.
Nation, P. (1983). Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines, 5, 12–25.
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Stuttgart, Germany:
Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Nation, P. (2013). Vocabulary learning and teaching. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Routledge
encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 682–686). New York: Routledge.

Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416 414

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., & Küpper, L. (1989). Listening comprehension

strategies in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 10, 418–437.
Osaka, M., Osaka, N., & Groner, R. (1993). Language-independent working memory:
Evidence from German and French reading span tests. Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society, 31, 117–118.
Pickering, S., & Gathercole, S. (2001). Working memory test battery for children
(WMTB-C). London: Psychological Corporation UK.
Pimsleur, P., Reed, D. J., & Stansfield, C. W. (2004). Pimsleur language aptitude
battery: Manual 2004 edition. Bethesda, MD: Second Language Testing.
Ringbom, H., & Jarvis, S. (2009). The importance of cross-linguistic similarity in
foreign language learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of
language teaching (pp. 106–118). Madden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Samuels, S. J. (1987). Factors that influence listening and reading comprehension. In
R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language
(pp. 295–325). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
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, 71–106.
Staehr, L. S. (2009). Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension in
English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31,
577–607.
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, 1067–1084.
van Zeeland, H., & Schmitt, N. (2013). Lexical coverage in L1 and L2 listening
comprehension: The same or different from reading comprehension? Applied
Linguistics, 34, 457–479.
Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled
second language listener. Language Learning, 53, 463–496.
Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive
awareness and proficiency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics, 26, 70–89.
Vandergrift, L. (2006a). Second language listening: Listening ability or language
proficiency? The Modern Language Journal, 90, 6–18.
Vandergrift, L. (2006b). Proposal for a common framework of reference for languages
for Canada. Retrieved February 10, 2015, from http://elp-implementation.ecml.at/
Home/IMPEL/Documents/Canada/ProposalofaCFRforCanada/tabid/122/language/
en-GB/Default.aspx#Chapter6
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening:
Metacognition in action. New York: Routledge.
Vandergrift, L., Goh, C., Mareschal, C., & Tafaghodatari, M. H. (2006). The
metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire (MALQ): Development and
validation. Language Learning, 56, 431–462.

415 Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416

Vandergrift and Baker L2 Listening Comprehension

Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching learners how to listen does
make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 65, 470–497.
Wesche, M., Peters, M., & MacFarlane, A. (1994). The “Bain linguistique”: A core
French experiment. Ottawa, Canada: 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.

Language Learning 65:2, June 2015, pp. 390–416 416