Understanding the Cognitive Processes Underlying Performance in the IELTS Listening Comprehension Test

مطالعات زبان و ترجمه

Article 5, Volume 49, Issue 2, July 2016, Pages 97-112   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/lts.v49i2.60030

Authors

Purya Baghaei Moghaddam^{* 1}; Zahra Zohoorian¹; Mohammad Ghahramanlou²

¹Department of English, Mashhad Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran

²Department of English, Imam Reza International University, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

1. Introduction
There is a consensus among listening researchers that listening comprehension includes a variety of subskills; though there is not yet a general agreement on their precise nature or exact number (Buck & Tatsuoka, 1998). Thus, it should be possible to define listening as complex skill operations which involve a number of subskills or constituent elements (Goh & Aryadoust, 2014). Psycholinguists have suggested several taxonomies and classifications based on theoretical speculation. One of the initial taxonomies was based on a two-stage process of extracting basic linguistic information and utilizing the information for a communicative purpose. In a study, Rost (1990) identified a set of macro and micro comprehension features for listening comprehension. Rost (2002) proposed the subskills related to perception, interpretation, and information transfer, arguing that there are some overlapping or parallel orientations. However, apart from this parallel model, other psycholinguists preferred to conceptualize the hierarchical model. In such a model, the underlying processes are conceived at various levels that are built on each other either from top to bottom or from bottom to top (Clark & Clark, 1977). Yet, other researchers mention the interactive model in which various levels interact simultaneously where general knowledge, contextual expectations, and predictions play a focal role (Rost, 1990).
2. Methodology
A sample IELTS listening test was administered to 300 undergraduate and graduate English students to elicit the data needed for the study. The test consisted of 40 items in four different sections. Furthermore, the following taxonomy of listening comprehension was proposed: (1) using syntactic knowledge, (2) using semantic knowledge, (3) understanding details and explicit information, (4) understanding reduced forms, (5) keeping up with the pace of the speaker, and (6) making inferences (Goh & Aryadoust, 2014). That is, it was assumed that these subskills underlie listening comprehension. The test items were examined by four experts in the field to build the Q-matrix involving the cognitive operations at work for each item. The data were analyzed using linear logistic test model (Fischer, 1973).
3. Discussion
In the present study, we aimed at finding the cognitive operations or subskills underlying listening comprehension in English as a foreign language. Findings showed that 'Keeping up with the pace of the speaker' was the hardest operation; that is, students found it very difficult to process the constant flow of words produced by the speaker when they were delivered with a fast pace.
'Understanding reduced forms' closely followed the 'keeping up with the pace’ operation. Due to the discrepancy between the spoken form of English and its written form, understanding what the complete form of the word is, seems to be a demanding task for foreign language learners of English.
The third most challenging operation was ‘inference making’. Students are required, in some stages of listening, to relate some pieces of information to either the previously stated information or their background knowledge or information outside the text. In some cases, they make an inference by referring to a previously mentioned piece of information in the text or they might be expected to make a prediction based on the preceding elements of the text.
The fourth place belongs to 'understanding details and explicit information'. It is the ability to find small pieces of information directly stated in the text, including names, numbers, etc. 'Using syntactic knowledge' stood in the fifth place. The easiest operation is using semantic knowledge. It seems that upper intermediate and advanced students of English do not seem to have major problems in dealing with the meaning of the words.
4. Conclusion
The concept of subskills (a set of cognitive abilities or processes that learners need to master and activate to perform on language tasks and communicate successfully) play an important role in the assessment and teaching of foreign language skills. Accordingly, the focus of teaching methods and curricula have largely been on the development of these subskills as applied linguists started to propose lists and taxonomies of subskills to aid language teachers and material developers in fostering the subskills (Munby, 1983; Richards, 1983). However, the psychological reality of these subskills, their independent existence, and discriminability, which altogether boil down to their empirical verifiability has always been a question. Correlational research including regression analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis have yielded contradictory results.
Dearth of research regarding the underlying cognitive operations of listening was the driving force for conducting this study. The findings indicate that 72% of the variance in item difficulty can be explained by the six operations studied. Well-designed prospective studies may ultimately shed light on the other operations that explain the remaining 28% of variance in IELTS listening item difficulties. Apart from the operations, the test format is another influential factor. The next step would be to study the impact of test formats on the students’ performance.

Keywords

Listening Comprehension; Subskills; Validity

References

Aitken, K. G. (1978). Measuring Listening Comprehension. English as a Second language. TEAL Occasional Papers, Vol. 2, Vancouver: British Colombia Association Of teachers of English as an Additional language. ERIC Document No. ED 155 945.

Alderson, J. C., & Lukmani, Y. (1989). Cognition and reading: Cognitive levels as embodied in test questions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 5, 253–270.

Anderson, A., & Lynch, T. (2003). Listening (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baghaei, P., & Ravand, H. (2015). A cognitive processing model of reading comprehension in English as a foreign language using the linear logistic test model. Learning and Individual Differences, 43, 100-105.

Baghaei, P. & Kubinger, K. D. (2015). Linear logistic test modeling with R. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20, 1-11.

Barta, E. (2010). Test takers’ listening comprehension sub-skills and strategies. WoPaLP, 4, 59-85.

Benson C. P. & Hjelt. C. (1978). Listening Competence: A Prerequisite to Communication. Southern Illinois University.

Boyle, J. (1984). Factors affecting listening comprehension. ELT Journal, 38. pp. 34-38.

Buck, G., & Tatsuoka, K. (1998). Application of the rule-space procedure to language testing: Examining attributes of a free response listening test. Language Testing, 15(2), 119–157.

Carroll, J. B. (1972). Defining Language Comprehension: Some speculations. In Language

Chastain, K. (1976). Developing second-language skills: Theory to practice. Rand McNally College Pub. Co.

Comprehension and the Acquisition of Knowledge, (Ed.). J. B. Carroll & R. O. Freedle. Washington, D.C.: Winston.

Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and Language, p.43, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, INC. New York.

Field, J. (1997). Notes on listening: Variability and assimilation. Modern English Teacher.

Field, J. (1998). Skills and strategies: towards a new methodology for listening. ELT Journal, 52(2), 110-118.

Field, J. (2008). Listening in the language classroom. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Fischer, G. H. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37, 359-374.

Goh, C. C. M., & Aryadoust, V. (2014). Examining the notion of listening subskill divisibility and its implications for second language listening. International journal of listening, 28, 1-25.

Grognet. A., Van Duzer. C. (2002). Listening Skills in the Workplace. Spring Inst. for International Studies, Denver, CO.

Henrichsen, L.E. (1984). Sandhi-variation: A filter of input for learners of ESL. Language Learning, 34(3), 103-126.

Kim, J. (2002). Affective Reactions to Foreign Language Listening Retrospective Interviews with Korean EFL Students. Language Research 38, 117-151.

Kubinger, K. D. (2005). Psychological test calibration using the Rasch model: some critical suggestions on traditional approaches. International Journal of Testing, 5(4), 377-394.

Mair, P., Hatzinger, R., & Mair, M. J. (2014). ERm: extended Rasch modeling [Computer software]. R package version 0.15-4. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=eRm.

McCarthy. J. (2000). Learning to Listen: Teaching an Active Listening Strategy to Preservice Education Professionals. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 27(4), 223-231.

Morley, J. (1999). Current Perspectives on Improving Aural Comprehension. Retrieved from http://www.eslmag.com/MorleyAuralStory.htm.

Munby, John. (1983). Communicative Syllabus Design, Cambridge: CUP.

Osgood, C. E. (1986). Mondatok megertese es letrehozasa. In Cs. Pleh (Ed.), Szöveggyőjtemeny a pszicholingvisztika tanulmanyozasahoz (pp.136-168). Budapest: Tankönyvkiado.

Pleh, Cs. (1998). A mondatmegertes a Magyar nyelvben. Budapest: Osiris Kiado.

R Core Development Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

Rasch, G. (1960/1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Rayner, K., & Clifton, Jr. Charles. (2002). In D. Medin (Ed), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology, memory and cognitive processes. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Richards, Jack. C. (1983). Listening Comprehension: Approach, Design, Procedure, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 219-240

Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (1985). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. New York, NY, USA.

Rivers, Wilga M. (1976). Speaking in Many Tongues (Expanded 2nd Edition). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Rose K. R. & G. Kasper (eds.) (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rost, M. (1990). Listening in language learning. Longman: London.

Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching listening. London: Longman.

Valette, R.M. (1977). Modern language testing (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Willis, J. (1981). Teaching English through English, London: Longman.