Paginated PDF Version
As we increasingly make use of materials that are non-linear, context-bound, recursive, and constructivist (Kramsch, 1993), a key challenge in our work as educators is to help students navigate new media and text types (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). Investigating the ways students navigate and make sense of texts is the basis for second language (L2) listening strategies research (e.g., Chamot, 1995; Goh, 2002; Graham, 2003; Gruba, 2004; Vandergrift, 2003a, 2003b). Narrow development of such work, however, may distance it from current trends in second language acquisition that emphasize computer-mediated ("electronic") L2 literacies that highlight authenticity, integrative approaches, social aspects, and media texts (Kern & Schultz, 2005; Kramsch, A’Ness, & Lam, 2000). Here, I argue that a media literacy perspective offers a basis to see interactions with videotexts as a form of play (Mackey, 2002) and brings work in L2 listening strategies new perspectives, fresh insights, and greater relevance.
To develop this argument, I first review L2 video-mediated listening, central aspects of media literacy, and a framework for play. Within a descriptive case study, I then use play as a central metaphor to describe learner interactions with digitized videotexts. The study concludes with a discussion of the implications of the results for teaching and research.
Differing conceptualizations of videotext interactions
To date, no single definition of video-mediated listening comprehension has become established; more importantly, no widely accepted model of listening comprehension has been developed (Lynch, 1998; Vandergrift, 2004). One key conceptual issue in defining the skill revolves around the role of visual elements. Riley (1981) suggested that "listening with the eye" best described learner use of video. Willis (1983) argued that "viewing comprehension" was the most accurate term. Tudor and Tuffs (1991) regard video comprehension as a "skill in its own right" (p. 80). Many prominent listening theorists, however, minimize the role of visual elements in comprehension (Kellerman, 1992) Many prominent listening theorists, however, minimize the role of visual elements in comprehension (Kellerman, 1992). Indeed, most theorists define the skill as a "process of receiving, attending to, and assigning meaning to aural stimuli" (Wolvin & Croakly, 1985, p. 74). In an important departure, Rubin (1995) embeds an awareness of video to define the skill as "an active process in which listeners select and interpret information which comes from auditory and visual cues in order to define what is going on and what the speakers are trying to express" (p. 7). Other researchers offer views that include "listening and viewing comprehension" (Hoven, 1999), "video comprehension" (Coniam, 2000), or "DVD video comprehension" (Markham, Peter, & McCarthy, 2003). If nothing else, researchers recognize there is a broad range of skills required to make sense of video. In line with Kramsch and Andersen (1999, p. 34) perhaps it is best to see the competent decoding of authentic digitized videotexts as part of "textual literacy." If we continue down this path and follow Livingstone (2003, p. 7) so as to reject the ahistorical position that "real" literacy refers to the acts of reading and writing, then videotext comprehension fits the definition of literacy as the "interpretation of any and all mediated symbolic texts." By arriving at a literacy perspective towards learning with electronic media, we open ourselves up to a wide range of possibilities (Table 1).
Now aware of these diverse possibilities, an investigation of videotext interactions could focus on images (visual literacy), on the role of technology in learning (computer literacy, technoliteracy), on educational policy and practice (technoliteracy, multiliteracies, ICT literacy), or on the widespread social implications of using online media (digital literacy, electronic literacies, cyberliteracy). By adopting a media literacy perspective, however, we could maintain our focus on "textual literacy" as well as on an ability to move across technologies, formats, and genres. Taking on this perspective would also land us in the midst of a large, diverse, and contested form of literacy (Hobbs, 1998).
Key concepts in media literacy
Though definitions of media literacy have been widely debated (Christ & Potter, 1998), perhaps the most commonly agreed view is that "media literacy is the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and communicate messages in a variety of forms" (Aufderheide, 1993, p. xx). Further, it is usually agreed that "a media literate person . . . can decode, evaluate, analyze, and produce both print and electronic media" (Aufderheide, 1997, p. 79). Livingstone (2003, pp. 6-14) explains these concepts. Issues of access touch on the digital divide and, as such, bring in an awareness of political and social processes. An ability to analyze lies at the heart of textual decoding, pleasure, and intellectual stimulation. Evaluation involves judgment and engages critical thinking. The knowledge of content creation provides students with insights into precisely how messages communicate effectively.
Media literacy scholars have also generally agreed that (a) media both are constructed and construct reality; (b) texts carry commercial, ideological, and political implications; (c) formats each have unique aesthetics, codes, and conventions; and (d) receivers negotiate meaning (Aufderheide, 1997, p. 80). Potter (2004) develops a theory of media literacy with an emphasis on cognitive approaches. The ability to effectively negotiate meaning, according to Potter, depends on the breadth and depth of knowledge structures. At the lower levels of proficiency, weaker structures are small, superficial, poorly organized and, as such, impose limits on the interpretation of meaning (Kintsch, 1998). Visual media may foster macrostructure development by illustrating abstract concepts in a concrete way, assisting in the construction of mental models and thus "may offer some benefits to learners with lesser skills, abilities, or prior knowledge" (Wetzel, Radtke & Stern, 1994, p. 62). So how do literacy specialists conceptualize learner negotiations of meaning and the construction of knowledge structures?
Playing the (video) text
In Literacies Across Media, Mackey (2002) reports on a longitudinal investigation of learner interactions with a variety of texts. Over an eighteen-month period in the late 1990s, Mackey audio- and video-taped Canadian Grade 5 and Grade 8 student (10 and 13 year olds) responses to novels, picture books, short stories, video-based and digitized movies, computer games, electronic books, an encyclopedia, and a picture book on a CD ROM. At times, Mackey introduced novel media, formats, and texts that were new to the participants. As some of the 20 original participants left the study, more were recruited. Transcripts of semi-structured discussions and textual encounters as well as student diaries formed the core data set.
Early in the study Mackey signals her frustration with how to define engagement with contemporary texts. After describing the rich modalities of interaction that are offered by electronic media, Mackey (2002) disappointedly points out that "we still very often call it reading" (p. 3). Near the conclusion to her study, she abandons attempts to stretch the word read and adopts play as a "generic verb for text processing activities":
Mackey proposes a nascent framework for "playing the text" across a range of media (Table 2).
Mackey (2002) provides a link between media literacy perspectives and video-mediated L2 listening comprehension strategies. With that possibility in mind, I began to review previous work (Gruba, 2004) that I had done with L2 learners of Japanese attending to videotext. This time, I decided to approach the dataset not as listening comprehension research but rather using the frame of "playful media literacy."
Rationale and research questions
Three research questions guide this investigation of L2 student interactions with videotexts:
Aspects of the present study have been discussed elsewhere (Gruba, 1999, 2004). Here, rather than use a listening perspective based on reading theory (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995), my perspective is grounded in media literacy theory (Potter, 2004) with a view of textual interactions as play (Mackey, 2002).
Site of the investigation
This study was situated in the Japanese department of a large Australian research university. In the beginning levels, the focus of instruction is on the acquisition of Japanese syntax and vocabulary and the rote learning of three Japanese syllabaries (hiragana, katakana, and kanji). At the more advanced levels, cultural sensitivity and production skills are emphasized.
Computers are used by beginning and lower intermediate students to practice Japanese syllabaries and grammar. Students at the upper intermediate and advanced levels utilize computers to interact with native speakers through online chat groups, video conferencing, and website construction. Digitized Japanese television news broadcasts (NHK Japan) are a mainstay of computer-based listening instruction.
Born out of the word to see in Latin, video is perhaps best understood as a "whole message unit" that "communicates through orchestration and compounding within symbol systems and multiple-symbol-system episodes" (Salomon, 1979, p. 52) through the combination of dynamic visual and audio elements in close temporal sequence (Wetzel et al., 1994, p. 40). Of note, however, the way news broadcasts are constructed often results in visual and verbal mismatches that may cause their content to be poorly understood and/or retained (Graddol, 1994; Gunter, 1987). Using criteria found in Joiner (1990), I selected three short news clips out of 90 minutes of recorded satellite broadcasts.
Authentic Japanese news broadcasts contain an extensive amount of superimposed (non-diegetic) and embedded (diegetic) written print in three formats:
To map each videotext, a series of three-column tables were created that each consisted of (a) a screen shot captured at two-second intervals, (b) a transcription of the spoken Japanese, and (c) an English translation. (Table 3 provides an example; full maps of the videotexts are available in Gruba, 1999).
In the pilot study, four L2 learners of Japanese ranging from beginning to bilingual proficiency participated. The purpose of the original pilot study was to check the appropriateness of the news clips, refine data collection techniques, and create a preliminary framework of learner interactions (Gruba, 1999).
In the main study, 18 volunteer students from an upper-intermediate class participated. This level was chosen because participants at lower proficiency levels find it difficult to provide insights due to high cognitive processing demands; conversely, learners at the higher proficiency levels find verbalization difficult because their comprehension tends to be fairly automatic and unconscious (Ericsson & Simon, 1984/1993). The Australian participants had a range of profiles: although most were students in their early 20s, one student was 41 years old; 15 of the 18 students were female, and three were non-native speakers of English.
In each session, participants were prompted to talk aloud as much as possible in accord with current practices for immediately retrospective verbal reports (Cohen, 1994; Ericsson & Simon, 1984/1993; Kim, 2002; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Before the start of each audio-taped session, each participant attended to a trial videotext and was trained to manipulate the computer controls.
Sessions were completed in two stages for each of the three videotexts. In Stage One, participants verbalized throughout a single ‘front-to-back’ move through a videotext. That is, they were instructed to stop a clip whenever they wished but could only go forward to the end. Participants concluded Stage One for a videotext by providing a summary of their understanding.
At the start of Stage Two, participants were given a set of tasks and were allowed to stop, move, or replay a videotext as they completed their answers. Task design was based on categories proposed by Dunkel, Henning, and Chaudron (1993). The first category, orientation, is intended to highlight relationships, stated or implied settings of events, and the topic of the text. Details of simple lexical meanings or single propositions form a second category. A third category, main ideas, covers principal propositions. Implications derived from textual elements that draw upon a listener's background knowledge and inferences form a fourth category.
Each participant attended to three videotexts and completed each set of tasks. Once finished, they reflected on their interactions during a post-session, semi-structured interview (Fontana & Frey, 1994; Gillham, 2005).
In a review of audiotapes, I eliminated six of the 18 participants from further study because they talked very little. I was able to align each transcribed comment to a specific segment of a clip using the printed videotext maps as a guide.
In line with Miles and Huberman (1994), I decided to create an analytical matrix that would be efficient yet allow for breath (comments on all videotexts by several participants) and depth (multiple perspectives on a single incident). Accordingly, I transcribed the entire set of recordings for the three most articulate participants; for the other nine students, I set down only the comments related to the second videotext and their post-session interviews. My subsequent analysis was built upon established qualitative research guidelines (Richards, 2005; Flick, 2002). After constraining Mackey’s full set of aspects of play to a more manageable set, I used a provisional set of codes to begin analyzing the data (Table 6).
In actual practice, the initial set of seemingly tidy codes soon became unwieldy. Unlike my previous experiences of working with a relatively precise set of "constructively responsive" comprehension activities (Pressley & Afflerbach 1995), I found that working with Mackey’s set of aspects required that I continually sharpen boundaries amongst key concepts. For example, differences between performing and interpreting were difficult to ascertain as they both describe pathways to the construction of knowledge structures? During analysis, I differentiated the activities by focusing either on a learner's pursuit of ideas (performing) or a learner's pause to reflect on what was learned from a specific engagement (interpreting). Further conceptual difficulties arose between fooling around and not working. Here, I differentiated them by concentrating on the notion of risk rather than ‘not making a commitment.’
Not surprisingly, perhaps because the concept of play is so broadly conceived by Mackey (2002), each variant that I had selected from her framework was present in the dataset. Performing came through as a central aspect of play. Working effectively with the digital media, learners were able to move quickly across the electronic texts from one scene to another to build comprehension. Other prominent aspects of play included orchestrating, interpreting, and fooling around (Table 7).
In essence, much of the early stages of analysis confirmed the viability of Mackey's concepts. At this point, it is worth noting her wide-open literacy perspective on textual engagement allowed for a much less precise analysis of the transcripts than what is afforded in the work of Pressly and Afflerbach (1995). Having said that, however, the playful conceptualization of learner activities fostered insights into learner behaviors. Two new categories of play emerged during my continued analysis (Table 8).
Playing without advance preparation
In this study, the students were not given an opportunity ahead of the sessions to gain from the pre-teaching of vocabulary, cultural orientation, or the establishment of a wider context. Here the videotexts were just played without warm-up activities. The lack of preparation caused some frustration, as noted by Li-Ping, a Chinese native speaker learning Japanese:
The implication here, of course, is that pre-teaching is important. Students need to have some orientation to the videotext, know some of the ground rules, and have time to become familiar with the challenging symbolic environment.
Playing as joyfulness
In its purest form, play ignites feelings of joy, excitement, and liveliness. At some stage, successful L2 speakers come to realize that being understood, or understanding, is a sublime pleasure that often encourages them to keep trying to master the other tongue. Li-Ping expresses how she really likes interacting with the news clips:
Not all students, however, found joy in understanding. Many thought the tasks were burdensome, somewhat tiring, or tedious. Because I sat through participant sessions for each of the three videotexts, I had a clear sense of when the joy would leave the activity, and it would sour. On such occasions it struck me that comprehension, or the pursuit of meaning, would not be so much a matter of language proficiency but one of maintaining a positive attitude.
For those who found joy in understanding a second language, they reveled in the journey of the narrative. Some pursued vocabulary items with the skill and patience of practiced hunters. They maintained forward movement in the face of challenge and found thrill in the chase itself. They stayed on task regardless of the difficulties that lay ahead, and it was this determination that made them more successful than those who were easily dismayed. Pleasure and joy motivate playfulness.
In Stage Two of the verbal reporting sessions, participants were instructed to manipulate the videotexts any way they wished. During these extended viewings, they completed a series of small comprehension tasks (see Table 4). Three aspects of replay emerged in the analysis of repeated reviews of the videotexts.
Replaying to recover from comprehension failure
At its simplest, to replay, means to repeat a text or activity. If we do this successfully, we ignore what we have already learned and focus our attention on what we still need to know. We replay texts to examine specific points and thus recover from a flawed initial understanding. Several learners commented on aspects of recovery afforded by the digital media:
Oftentimes, learners would go over and over a particular word or phrase to spark a helpful association either in the context of the videotext itself or from personal background knowledge. Replay was a directed, goal-oriented activity often initiated to "hone in" on a very specific element. Replay contributes to eventual success.
Replaying to stall the need to make a decision
On occasion, learners replayed segments to stall the eventual need to make a decision. Here, failure would be first set in motion from the inability to set a clear goal. Or, perhaps, they would encounter something in the videotext (e.g., a dialect that was difficult to understand) that would require more advanced skills to understand.
Subsequently, failure would develop when the learner was unable to pinpoint elements that were needed to build a fuller understanding of the videotext. Clearly, they became frustrated as they were unable to form a coherent view of events but they would not move on. They would simply repeat. During replays, neither a focus on visual nor verbal elements would assist comprehension. In these instances, replay did not contribute to success; rather, it was one way to delay the need to make a decision or face up to a failure.
Replaying to establish signposts and boundary lines
A case study of Abby, perhaps the most proficient strategist of the group, illustrates how learners can use tasks and visual elements to establish signposts and boundary lines. Overall, Abby's success with the listening tasks is the result of being able to be both flexible yet remain focused. Although she adjusts her strategies to fit new challenges, she remains clear about what needs to be accomplished before moving on. When confronted by the difficulty of a videotext, for example, she markedly increased the length of segmentation and the number of times she non-sequentially accessed scenes containing relevant information. Despite this potentially confusing style of search, she rarely lost sight of immediate task demands. In post-session comments, Abby explains how task focus and the ability to replay the digital medium formed a powerful combination for her:
In these comments, note that Abby meets task demands through use of the technology at hand: the questions are "fine" because she is able to repeatedly replay the videotext until she is able to formulate an answer. Without this capability, she admits the task would have been much more difficult if a non-recursive medium was used as a mode of presentation.
Further, she points out how the tasks themselves highlighted aspects of detail that she may have well missed. Abby utilized the tasks to narrow searches and make her replayed searches more efficient. She is aware that visual elements do not necesarily correspond to aural elements. When they do not match, Abby makes use of key visual elements to signpost that task-relevant information is at hand. Once the signposts are established, they are then used as boundary markers to demarcate task-relevant sections that, in turn, make her searches more efficient. With these she remains on-task.
Another aspect of Abby's success can be attributed to her ability to differentiate between the role of visual elements as content (what they portray) and as signposts or boundary markers (their use in segmenting videotext). For instances in which the visual and aural elements matched, Abby was able to link them to achieve greater comprehension. At times elements did not match, however, Abby tended to ignore the visual elements during the replays and focused her attention on the aural elements. Importantly, during replay, elements in the aural track were used as key markers in the narrative. Visual elements took on the role of signposts, or boundary markers, to assist in search efficiency.
As they reflected after a session, what did students think about their own sense of play with the videotexts? Importantly, many students were aware of the game of working with authentic media within the context of the research study. A post-session comment by Catherine illustrates the point that she would have selected videotexts differently if she would have been outside of the classroom:
Catherine's point reminds us of the fragile nature of authenticity. Once a media text moves from its original purpose to a pedagogical one, it can lose luster. Nonetheless, many students remarked that that allowed them to pretend they were in Japan. Transported to the as if world allows students to have fuller experiences of the text (Mackey, 2002). Catherine articulates the feeling:
Finally, as Sandra reflects, many students reported that the visual medium reduced anxiety, increased motivation, and encouraged a connection with the culture:
In summary, analysis of the qualitative data confirm the presence of Mackey's (2002) key categories of play in L2 video-mediated listening. Other categories emerged that related specifically to playing videotexts, particularly during repeated viewings of segments that were marked by the use of elements such as signposts. In general, the use of a media literacy perspective operationalized through Mackey's notion of play informs work on L2 listening strategies. Implications of the results are discussed in the next section.
What does adopting a media literacy perspective, based in a sense of play, offer to the teaching and research of L2 listening strategies? Alternatively, what does L2 listening theory offer literacy? Combined, they offer us a way to extend our work with videotexts into the wider world of literacy studies. Discussion of the implications of the study can inform teaching, assessment, and research.
Implications for L2 teaching
Adopting a media literacy perspective can inform the way we teach environments. In addition to a focus on the content of videotext (that is, what it contains in terms of images, words, and sounds), a media literate L2 instructor would also draw attention to aspects of videotext production (who made it for which audience) and construction (why and how it generates meaning). Alongside listening skill development, the media literacy skills of analysis, evaluation, and communication would be promoted.
Those of us familiar with teaching reading and writing are at an advantage. Our skills in deconstructing printed texts, for example by showing how headlines signal topic and sentences make up paragraphs, can be transferred to working with digitized videotexts. With this framing, telling students that visual elements simply support aural comprehension would diminish an opportunity to encourage critical thinking amongst our students; a better presentation would inform students that visual elements offer potential opportunities for developing understanding in tandem with verbal elements. An ideal lesson would draw student attention to verbal and visual elements that have a particularly significant cultural meaning in context (Kramsch & Anderson, 1999). Extended discussion and activities would then draw out analysis and evaluation of the social, historical, and political implications of key elements. Pedagogical handbooks (e.g., Gruba, 2005; Potter, 2005; Silverblat, 2001) can be used to inform classroom practices.
Explicit strategy instruction no doubt has a role in our classrooms (Vandergrift, 2003a; 2003b). As Buck (1995) suggests, however, using our time in the classroom to motivate listening practice may be more effective with our students than trying to explain cognitive processes. By introducing media literacy concepts throughout our syllabus, we can encourage our students to play with videotexts and undertake a journey of discovery. As they come to develop understanding in a supported environment, they arrive at a place that is not overly inscribed with our own suggestions of what to do and how to do it.
As Mackey (2002, pp. 195-196), argues the most obvious place to consider the idea of playing the text is in the language classroom. Announcing that "we are going to play with this text today," Mackey points out, allows for opportunities to shift the boundaries of classroom discussions. The terms of engagement with the videotexts are less restricted. In my role as a teacher, whether I mean to or not, I sometimes imply that one meaning of the text is more correct than others. By introducing an element of play as I start a lesson, I highlight the very flexibility that is needed when handling dynamic, polysemous media from another culture. As Mackey observes, the idea of playing offers a sense of relative freedom for students.
Implications for CALL research
A change in perspective allows for a fresh look at data sets. Reinvigorated analysis leads to further insights and possibilities. By re-examining a dataset, my research skills grew by experiencing first hand how perspective influences the focus of interpretation and its results (Flick, 2002). Perhaps expected and trivial at one level, nonetheless the experience highlights the potential conflict between cognitive and literacy approaches to the study of L2 listening comprehension. Admittedly, cognitive views are more developed and precise but they run the risk of being divorced from notions of ecologies of text now being widely taken up in applied linguists (Kern & Schultz, 2005). Work by Potter (2004), particularly in regards to task development, sheds light on ways to bridge the gaps between perspectives.
Situating L2 listening within a media literacy framework allows for the outcomes of research to be placed in a much wider context. Nascent work in social semiotics, for instance, can be explored particularly in the areas of genre, discourse, and modality (van Leeuwen, 2005); Machin and van Leeuwen (2003) show ways to work across multi-national texts; and Piller (2003) shows how advertising can be a rich site of language contact. Accessible sources of textual analysis techniques include work by Berger (1998), Hoey (2001), McKee (2003), and Stokes (2003).
In this article, we have seen how adopting a ‘playful’ approach to making sense of L2 digitized videotext can be informed by adopting a media literacy perspective. Perspective frames pedagogy. If we see students as listeners, then we need to expand our definition of the construct (skills perspective?) and yet stay in dialogue with concepts used in formal language assessment. If we see students' behaviors as strategic, we must look for ways to guide, direct, and nurture their actions so that they grow into effective users of these texts. Finally, if we take a media literacy view and see learner interactions as multi-layered aspects of play, then we are in a frame of mind to promote students' intuitive and creative use of the complex medium. Each of these perspectives varies slightly, yet differences in their primary characteristics are significant: we see what we want to see, and from that view, we teach. Bringing in a literacy perspective (or, indeed, literacies) to our classrooms opens up refreshing possibilities for teaching and research with video-mediated L2 listening.
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editors for their kind, generous and patient assistance throughout the production of this article. Many thanks also to members of the Listening Group in the School of Languages at the University of Melbourne, led by Tim McNamara and Luke Harding, for a series of stimulating discussions that continually motivated me to work on the ideas here.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Paul Gruba is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Languages, University of Melbourne. After studying journalism in Alaska, Paul taught in Mali, Japan, the United States, and Australia before earning graduate degrees in applied linguistics. His research interests include L2 listening, academic writing, and educational software development.
Aufderheide, P. (Ed.) (1993). Media literacy: A report of the national leadership conference on media literacy. Aspen, CO: Aspen Institute.
Aufderheide, P. (1997). Media literacy: From a report of the National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy. In R. Kubey (Ed.), Media literacy in the information age (pp. 79-86). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Berger, A. A. (1998). Media analysis techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Buck, G. (1995). How to become a good listening teacher. In D. J. Mendelsohn & J. Rubin (Eds.), A guide for the teaching of second language listening (pp. 113-131). San Diego: Dominie Press.
Chamot, A. U. (1995). Learning strategies and listening comprehension. In D. J. Mendelsohn & J. Rubin (Eds.), A guide for the teaching of second language listening (pp. 13 – 30). San Diego: Dominie Press.
Christ, W. G. & Potter, W. J. (1998). Media literacy, media education, and the academy. Journal of Communication, 48, 5-15.
Cohen, A. (1994). Verbal reports on learning strategies. In A. Cumming (Ed.), Alternatives in TESOL research: Descriptive, interpretive, and ideological orientations. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 678-682.
Coniam, D. (2000). The use of audio or video comprehension as an assessment instrument in the certification of English language teachers: A case study. System, 29, 1-14.
Cope, B & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. South Yarra, VIC: Macmillan.
Corbel, C. (1997). Computer literacies: Working efficiently with electronic texts. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
Curtis, D. P. (2004). The oldest literacy. Journal of Visual Literacy, 24(2), 121-128.
Dunkel, P., Henning, G., & Chaudron, C. (1993). The assessment of an L2 listening comprehension construct: A tentative model for test specification and development. The Modern Language Journal, 77(2), 180-191.
Educational Testing Service (2005). ICT Literacy Assessment. Retrieved January 22, 2006, from http://www.ets.org/ictliteracy/
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984/1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. London; Sage.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 361 - 376). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Press.
Gillham, B. (2005). Research interviewing. London: Open University Press.
Goh, C. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns. System, 30(2), 185-206.
Graddol, D. (1994). The visual accomplishment of factuality. In D. Graddol & O. Boyd-Barrett (Eds.), Media texts: Authors and readers (pp. 136 - 157). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Graham, S. (2003). Learner strategies and advanced level listening comprehension. Language Learning Journal, 28, 64-69.
Gruba, P. (1999) The role of digital video media in second language listening comprehension. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, University of Melbourne. Retrieved March 31, 2006 from http://eprints.unimelb.edu.au/archive/00000244/
Gruba, P. (2004). Understanding digitized second language videotext. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17 (1), 51-82.
Gruba, P. (2005). Developing media literacy in the L2 classroom. Sydney: Macquarie University, National Centre for English Teaching and Research.
Gunter, B. (1987). Poor reception: Misunderstanding and forgetting broadcast news. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gurak, L. J. (2001). Cyberliteracy: Navigating the internet with awareness. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hobbs, R. (1998). The seven great debates in the media literacy movement. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 16-32.
Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction. London: Routledge.
Hoven, D. (1999). A model for listening and viewing comprehension in multimedia environments. Language Learning & Technology, 31 (XX), 88-103. Retrieved April 3, 2006 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num1/hoven/index.html.
Joiner, E. G. (1990). Choosing and using videotexts. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 53-64.
Kern, R. & Schultz, J. M. (2005). Beyond orality: Investigating literacy and the literary in second and foreign language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 381-392.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C., A’Ness, F., Lam, W.S. E. (2000). Authenticity and authorship in the computer-mediated acquisition of L2 literacy. Language Learning & Technology, 4(2), 78-104. Retrieved April 3, 2006 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num2/kramsch.
Kramsch, C., & Andersen, R. (1999). Teaching text and context through multimedia. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 31-42. Retrieved April 3, 2006 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num2/article1.
Kellerman, S. (1992). 'I see what you mean': The role of kinesic behavior in listening and implications for foreign and second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 13, 239-258.
Kim, J. (2002). Affective reactions to foreign language listening retrospective interviews with Korean EFL students. Language Research, 38, 117– 151.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Kubey, R. (1997). Media literacy in the information age. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Lankshear, C. & Synder, I. (2000). Teachers and technoliteracy: Managing literacy, technology and learning in schools. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Livingstone, S. (2003). The changing nature and uses of media literacy. London: Media@Ise, London School of Economics.
Luke, C. (1997). Technological literacy. Melbourne: Adult Literacy Research Network, Language Australia.
Lynch, T. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on listening. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 3-19.
Machin, D. & van Leeuwen, T. (2003). Global schemas and local discourses in Cosmopolitan. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 493-512.
Mackey, M. (2002). Literacies across media: Playing the text. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Markham, P., Peter, L., & McCarthy, T. (2001). The effects of native language vs. target language captions on students’ DVD video comprehension. Foreign Language Annals, 34, 439-445.
McKee, A. (2003). Textual analysis: A beginner’s guide. London: Sage.
Meskill, C. (1996). Listening skills development through multimedia. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5(2), 179-201.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mishan, F. & Strunz, B. (2003). An application of XML to the creation of an interactive resource for authentic language learning tasks. ReCALL, 15(2), 237-250.
Moore, D. M., & Dwyer, F. M. (Eds.). (1994). Visual literacy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Piller, I. (2003). Advertising as a site of language contact. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 170-183.
Potter, W. J. (2005). Media literacy (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Potter, W. J. (2004). Theory of media literacy: A cognitive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data. London: Sage.
Riley, P. (1981). Viewing comprehension: “l’oeil ecoute”. ELT Documents. Special issue: The teaching of listening comprehension 1981.
Riley, P. (1981). Viewing comprehension: “l’oeil ecoute.” In The teaching of listening comprehension. ELT Documents.
Rubin, J. (1995). An overview to A guide for the teaching of second language listening. In D. J. Mendelsohn & J. Rubin (Eds.), A guide for the teaching of second language listening (pp. 7 - 11). San Diego: Dominie Press.
Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Silverblatt, A. (2001). Media literacy: Keys to interpreting media messages. (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Stokes, J. (2003). How to do media and cultural studies. London: Sage.
Synder, I. (2002). (Ed.) Silicon literacies. London: Routledge.
Tudor, I., & Tuffs, R. (1991). Formal and content schemata activation in L2 viewing comprehension. RELC Journal, 22, 79-95.
Tuman, M. C. (1996). Literacy online. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 16, 26-45.
Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.
van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.
Vandergrift, L. (2003a). From prediction through reflection: Guiding students through the process of L2 listening. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 425-440.
Vandergrift, L. (2003b). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning, 53(3), 463-496.
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3-25.
Warschauer, M (1999). Electronic literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wetzel, C. D., Radtke, P. H., & Stern, H. W. (1994). Instructional effectiveness of video media. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Willis, J. (1983). The role of the visual element in spoken discourse: Implications for the exploitation of video in the EFL classroom. In J. McGovern (Ed.), Video applications in English language teaching (pp. 29-42). London: Permagon Press.
Wolvin, A. D., & Croakley, C. G. (1985). Listening (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Contact: Editors or Editorial Assistant
Copyright © 2006 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501.
Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.