Relationships between formal and informal input, listening motivation, and listening proficiency among young EFL learners in Hong Kong

1 Introduction

Due to limited classroom instructional time and the advocacy of ideologies such as self-directed, technology-supported, and contextual learning, target language exposure beyond the walls of classrooms has gained wide currency in the field of foreign language (FL) learning. The significance of exposure lies in the fact that input is one of the indispensable elements for learning a language (Krashen 1985; Saito and Hanzawa 2018; Tsang 2022a, 2023a, 2023b). Without exposure to a language, it is not possible to master it. Also, the amount of input matters. Many scholars have stated the need for language learners to be exposed to a language abundantly (e.g. Renandya 2013; Scheffler et al. 2021; Tsang 2023c; Webb 2015). However, FL learning is very different from first and second language acquisition in that FL input does not come naturally, as the word foreign implies. A FL learner does not often have the opportunity to receive extensive exposure to the target FL beyond the classroom since the FL is unlikely to be used widely in the learner’s environment. There is an exception to this: Some deliberate actions can be taken, by the learner themself or related persons (e.g. a young learner’s parents), such that the learner receives regular FL input even in an otherwise primarily first language (L1) environment. Examples of these actions include watching videos, listening to songs, reading books, and playing games in the FL (e.g. Sylvén and Sundqvist 2012; Tsang 2023b; Tsang and Lam 2024; see also Reinders et al. 2022).

Different from the above, FL input in the classroom tends to be more formal (e.g. teacher instruction and explanations). Apart from FL lessons in mainstream education, formal exposure can also take place when a learner receives supplementary education (e.g. tutorial classes; this can be considered a type of extracurrcular activity, see Sylvén and Sundqvist 2017), which is common in many places globally (e.g. Bray and UNESCO 2009; Ireson and Rushforth 2011; Smyth 2008; Tsang et al. 2019). In contrast, informal FL learning (some examples given above) often takes place outside FL lessons. This type of learning is described using a range of expressions, such as “autonomous, extracurricular, extramural, informal, naturalistic, non-formal out-of-school, and self-directed language learning” (Sundqvist and Uztosun 2024: 1639). In light of the crucial importance of input for successful mastery of the language and the dearth of studies comparing informal and formal FL exposure, the current study set out to investigate the relationships between these two general kinds of exposure and listening motivation and proficiency. There are subcomponents under each type of exposure, such as whether informal language learning is incidental or intentional (see Sundqvist and Sylvén 2016), but these were beyond the scope of the current study, which homed in on the amount of formal and informal exposure.

Language learning motivation has received substantial attention for decades in the field of L2/FL education. The term motivation is derived from movere, a Latin word denoting to move; it can generally be defined as “a driving force or forces responsible for the initiation, persistence, direction, and vigour of goal-directed behaviour” (Colman 2015: n.p.). Reading and listening constitute the two channels through which learners receive linguistic input. Compared with reading, listening has received much less attention in FL research and education; to date, very little is known especially about listening motivation, which is in stark contrast to reading motivation. Investigating sub-categories of motivation is important since learners naturally have different degrees of motivation to engage in different FL activities (e.g. reading a novel versus watching a TV program). In view of the above and given that listening is one of the four macro-language skills and one of two possible channels of linguistic input, the current study focused on listening-related variables. Although listening and reading are two fundamental channels of receiving input, it is not uncommon for learners to be exposed to multimodal input such as listening to characters speaking and reading captions simultaneously when watching movies. For a more thorough discussion of the different channels of multimodal input, see the multi-channel FL learning input framework in (Tsang in press).

In this article, it is important to distinguish between FL and second language (L2). Concisely, a FL can be understood as “[a] language not spoken in a learner’s environment” (Alderson et al. 2016: 853) while a L2 denotes a language that one is exposed to “in various everyday contexts” (Gilquin 2023: 1). It is controversial whether English is a L2 (ESL) or a FL (EFL) in Hong Kong. Although both English and Chinese are official languages used by the Government and different industries in Hong Kong, the locals are seldom naturally exposed to much spoken English on a daily basis unlike ESL contexts such as India, Singapore, and South Africa (Gilquin 2023). Scholars have defined EFL as English where it is not the primary spoken language (McArthur et al. 2018). Such a distinction has been adopted by researchers who conducted studies with both ESL and EFL learners (e.g. Taguchi 2008). Therefore, EFL generally fits the context of Hong Kong better, especially when considering spoken English. It is important to underscore that most EFL learners in Hong Kong do not have abundant opportunities to listen to spoken English in natural extramural contexts unless, as discussed, they deliberately choose to do so.

2 Input and FL proficiency

As obvious as it seems, it is impossible to learn a language without sufficient exposure to it. Multiple cognitive, linguistic, and psycholinguistic theories related to L2/FL learning such as the noticing hypothesis, the output hypothesis, and usage-based theory, all highlight the crucial role input plays (Lichtman and VanPatten 2021). Not only is exposure per se essential, it is also important to be exposed to the target language extensively in order to master the language (Ellis 2002; Renandya 2013; Tsang 2023b, 2023c). Ellis (2002), in his review article, discusses how frequency of input relates to multiple aspects of language learning (e.g. lexis, morphosyntax, phonology, and comprehension), concluding that “the knowledge underlying fluent use of language is … a huge collection of memories of previously experienced utterances’ (pp. 166). All these mark the centrality of linguistic input in language learning.

Unlike first language acquisition, learners face greater difficulties in FL learning since exposure to the target language in school (e.g. FL lessons) and natural exposure outside class can be rather limited. Despite the somewhat small number of studies, clear evidence has been presented to demonstrate the significant positive relationship between input and L2/FL learning (e.g. De Wilde et al. 2020, 2022; Leona et al. 2021; Puimège and Peters 2019; Tsang 2023b; Tsang and Lam 2024; Tsang and Lee 2023; ; ). For example, investigating 560 Dutch-speaking 10-to-12-year-old children in Belgium, Puimège and Peters (2019) found positive relationships between the participants' informal exposure to English through games, television, and songs and their performance on English vocabulary tests. Most noteworthy was that these participants had not received formal English instruction at that time; therefore, English was acquired through the various channels of informal exposure. Similar findings were reported by De Wilde et al. (2020), who conducted a study with 780 10-to-12-year-old English learners also in Belgium. Even before English was taught at school, the participants were found to have been able to acquire English informally such that a positive relationship was found between exposure to English through social media/games and overall English proficiency.

Very few relevant studies have been conducted in Asia where a large number of EFL learners reside. Tsang (2023b) conducted a mixed-methods study with Chinese-speaking EFL children in Hong Kong. Spoken input outside class (i.e. exposure through listening) was found to correlate more strongly with English proficiency than written input outside class did, although both modes of input significantly predicted proficiency. Unlike those in Puimège and Peters (2019), the children participants in Tsang (2023b) had received years of formal English instruction at school. Yet, large differences in proficiency levels were found between those receiving input outside class voluntarily versus those receiving little or no such input. The findings here corroborate those reported by De Wolf et al. (2017), who examined the oral fluency of 52 10-to-12-year-old English learners in the Netherlands. Using a picture description task and a questionnaire, they found that exposure to extramural English seemed to have a greater effect on oral fluency than early English instruction. This led to their conclusion that “early foreign language teaching will only be successful if out-of-school exposure complements EFL instruction in elementary schools” (348).

Much research is still needed in this burgeoning area before more definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the nature of out-of-class input for FL proficiency development. For instance, whether linguistic engagement, that is “the extent to which learners consciously focus on processing linguistic features and improving their language skills” (Arndt 2023: 1461), is essential for proficiency development when engaging with a FL outside class remains to be investigated. Nonetheless, the general patterns of findings reported in previous studies paint a rather clear picture of the usefulness of extramural input for language proficiency development.

3 Input, motivation, and FL listening

There are various motivational theories applied to the field of L2/FL education such as expectancy-value theory (Eccles-Parsons et al. 1983), the L2 motivational self system (Dörnyei 2009), and self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2017). Motivation is especially important in the context of FL learning since it does not naturally occur in learners’ environments, and deliberate effects often have to be made to engage with the FL (Tsang 2022b). Both intuitively and theoretically, the relationship between input and motivation can go either direction. A higher level of motivation is likely to propel learners to engage in wider exposure to the target language, but the influence in the other direction (input → motivation) is less studied. Receiving a large amount of input constantly enables one to become familiar with the target language, which in turn potentially results in the development of positive emotions and perceptions towards the language. This is known in psychology as the mere exposure effect, defined succinctly as “the tendency for repeated exposure to a stimulus to be sufficient to enhance an observer’s liking for it or attitude towards it” (Colman 2015: n.p.). According to Montoya et al. (2017), this effect has been substantiated in multiple empirical studies. Summarizing the literature, Montoya et al. (2017) state that processing an input fluently potentially leads to a positive affect due to (1) a decreased level of fear, (2) familiarity, and (3) one’s belief in their competence in handling the stimuli. Such positive affect and self-efficacy (Bandura 1997), as illustrated in many motivation theories such as expectancy-value theory (Eccles-Parsons et al. 1983) and self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2017), are key ingredients of motivation in language learning.

As discussed, an all-important first (and ongoing) step to mastering a language is receiving abundant linguistic input of the target language, and for humans, this is mostly possible through listening and reading. Therefore, the motivation to listen to and read a target FL is one of the indispensable ingredients for mastering the language. However, listening motivation has largely been neglected (Lau 2017; Qiu and Xu 2023; Tsang 2022b) even though we are currently in an era where opportunities for receiving spoken target FLs are abundant thanks to technology and the Internet. It is therefore important to investigate variables that are related to listening motivation.

The two major channels of input FL learners are exposed to (in the classroom and out-of-class settings) were hypothesized to relate differentially to listening motivation. Although no relevant studies have been conducted, the level of motivation is likely affected by the differences in the nature of the two categories of input. Applying the four dimensions of language-learning-beyond-the-classroom framework by Benson (2011), FL exposure taking place in FL classrooms (location) is mostly formal (formality), and is likely teacher-guided (pedagogy; locus of control). The other type of exposure occurs outside class (location), can be formal or informal (formality), is learner-driven and/or naturalistic (pedagogy), and often independent (locus of control). The levels of learner-centredness, autonomy, and relatedness are very likely to be higher in out-of-class input compared with that in the FL classroom. Making reference to self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2017), extramural input is thus likely to be more positively related to motivation. The current study set out to investigate the two types of input in relation to listening motivation.

4 The study

This study is part of a project about input, emotions, and FL learning among young children in Hong Kong. This part of the investigation set out to answer the following research questions: (RQ1) What are the correlational relationships between listening proficiency, listening motivation, and exposure to English? (RQ2) How does one-year of exposure to English predict listening proficiency and motivation?. The focus was timepoint two (T2), one year after the initial timepoint (T1) in this study. Three instruments were employed: a listening test, a questionnaire, and an individual interview.

Nonverbal intelligence, defined concisely by Lázaro-Ibarrola (2024: 6) as “thinking skills and problem-solving abilities that do not rely on verbal language production or comprehension”, was not a key variable in the study. However, for methodological rigour and in view of the close connection between intelligence and language learning and performance, it has been suggested to be included in studies as a covariate when measuring language-related outcomes (Lázaro-Ibarrola 2024; Nikolov and Csapó 2018). Indeed, nonverbal intelligence is a common individual difference variable investigated in language learning studies especially with young language learners (e.g. Tong et al. 2011; Tsang and Yeung 2024; Yeung and Chan 2013). This variable was hence examined as a covariate (an extraneous variable to control for) in the current study.

5 Methods

6 Results

7 Discussion

In this study, the relationships between listening proficiency, listening motivation, and exposure to English were investigated. Considering the importance of language exposure in FL learning, the investigation also focused on whether two kinds of exposure, namely extramural informal exposure (e.g. watching movies) and exposure through formal EFL instruction over a one-year period, were related to the outcome variables: listening proficiency and listening motivation. Answers to the two research questions are discussed, followed by a discussion of implications based on the findings.

With regard to RQ1 on the general relationships between the three variables, listening motivation was found to correlate moderately to strongly with listening proficiency. This is in line with what various motivation-related theories suggest. For instance, higher motivation is posited to be positively related to engagement, effort, persistence, and achievement, making reference to expectancy-value theory (Cook and Artino 2016; Eccles-Parsons et al. 1983). It should, however, be noted that a heightened motivation may not directly lead to higher attainment. An example is shown in Tsang 2022b, in which listening motivation was shown not to predict proficiency directly; rather, it did so indirectly via interest and confidence. Surprisingly, motivation was not found to be related to informal exposure in the current study. Contrary to the expectation that more motivated individuals would likely demonstrate greater informal engagement with the FL outside class, no such relationship was found. The lack of relationship between listening motivation and formal instruction exposure is easier to understand since such exposure is most often compulsory (English lessons at mainstream schools) or determined by parents/guardians (e.g. supplementary classes at tutorial schools). Informal exposure was found to be associated moderately with listening proficiency, corroborating previous studies (e.g. Leona et al. 2021; Puimège and Peters 2019). The positive relationship can be explained from at least two perspectives. Linguistically, extensive (and at times also repeated) exposure through reading and listening extensively facilitates the uptake of the language (Ellis 2002; Patterson 2021). Psychologically, as explained previously, receiving more input enables one to become more familiar with the language, which may lead to positive feelings and perceptions. These, in turn, can lead to higher engagement (e.g. Tsang 2023a; Zeng 2021) and perseverance of effort (Pawlak et al. 2024), ultimately resulting in higher attainment.

For RQ2, I attempted to answer if one year of exposure to English predicted current listening proficiency and motivation. Since it has been shown that (1) formal EFL instruction exposure was not significantly related to any other variables investigated and (2) listening motivation was not significantly associated with extramural informal exposure, these variables were not considered in the regression analysis. The one-year extramural informal exposure was shown to positively predict listening test scores and self-rated listening abilities even after nonverbal intelligence was controlled for. As explained previously, extensive and perhaps repeated exposure is likely to benefit FL learners linguistically and psychologically. To illustrate some concrete examples, the details of three participants with very high and another three with no extramural informal exposure respectively are shown in Table 5. Although listening motivation was found to be related to listening test scores or self-rated proficiency, it is interesting why listening motivation was not predictive of extramural informal exposure. For instance, in Table 5, it is intriguing why #WA13 had rather low motivation (1.667/5) even though the child was exposed to 1144 h of English outside class informally. Likewise, a high listening motivation does not guarantee any extramural informal exposure, as is the case with #TA4. Although there is a paucity of studies in FL listening motivation, the unexpected absence of such a relationship here echoes some negative findings reported in the FL reading literature. For instance, investigating EFL university learners in Italy, Crawford Camiciottoli (2001) found the participants typically held a positive attitude but engaged little with FL reading. In the context of the current study, one reason for the absence of a relationship could be related to the precise types of exposure learners reported having. As discussed, there are two fundamental channels of input, listening and reading, but there are also a number of multimodal ones such as listening and reading simultaneously. Therefore, it could be the case that a participant was adequately exposed to written but not spoken English because the participant demonstrated low listening motivation. Similarly, as shown in studies about FL reading, learners’ perceptions of reading can differ rather substantially depending on reading material genres (e.g. Duncan and Paran 2017). An important implication is that the findings here do not seem to chime in with the general understanding of the mere exposure effect (e.g. Montoya et al. 2017). This is because prior abundant informal (and also formal) input to the target language over a one-year period does not necessarily show association with higher intrinsic motivation to listen to the language. Instead, a more nuanced perspective needs to be taken. For example, rather than considering the overarching construct of listening motivation, specific types of motivation associated with different listening materials may need to be scrutinized.

8 Conclusions

Various limitations in this study need to be considered. First, despite the one-year-period of exposure, the study could not be considered a rigorous longitudinal study. A three-timepoint longitudinal study, for instance, could reveal how different variables interact and may uncover causal relationships. Second, a larger sample size could have given the study greater power to analyse the subcategories under informal and formal exposure. The subcategories were not examined since many had small counts. Researchers in future studies can consider recruiting a larger pool of participants and investigate more closely different kinds of exposure. Third, the lack of qualitative data made interpretation of some quantitative findings difficult, especially the absence of relationship between listening motivation and informal exposure. In-depth interviews with participants can likely yield useful insights. For instance, researchers can elicit learners’ thoughts on and experiences in how prior abundant informal and formal target language input relate to their listening motivation. Based on the findings, it is also worthwhile conducting further research that expounds on the absence of a link between higher listening motivation and voluntary behavioural engagement with listening to the target language.

Despite the aforementioned limitations, the study generally illustrates that extramural informal exposure and listening motivation are positively related to listening competence (both test scores and self-ratings). In terms of implications, FL educators and learners are encouraged to focus more on language input beyond the classroom rather than merely on formal instruction. Formal instruction (including supplementary tutorial sessions), in the current study, was not found to be related to listening test scores or self-rated listening competence. As scholars such as Sundqvist and Sylvén (2016) have discussed, teachers may design homework that gives learners freedom to choose their FL input that is in line with their interests. FL researchers and educators should also pay heed to listening motivation, an under-researched and under-discussed construct in FL education. Its relationship with listening proficiency, as substantiated in the current study, and overall proficiency underscores its important role in FL learning. Addressing how it or different sub-types of listening motivation are related to extramural voluntary informal exposure constitutes an important line of inquiry in future research. The absence of a significant relationship between listening motivation and out-of-class FL listening engagement promotes our better understanding that motivation may not immediately result in higher degrees of behaviour, even if relevant. This seems to challenge our common sense and motivates a more nuanced perspective of motivational theories and the mere exposure effect.