Comparative Analysis of the Articles: Listening Comprehension

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Critique of the first study
Critique of the second study
Strengths and weaknesses
Socio-political context
Conclusion
Works Cited
Footnotes

Introduction

A great number of studies have been carried out in order to examine the factors, affecting listening comprehension of foreign language students. In this paper, we need to discuss two research articles which give us in-depth insights into this question. In their work The Effects of Listening Support on the Listening Performance of EFL Learners, Anna Chang and John Read alternate various methods of enhancing listening comprehension of ESL students; in particular, they use such techniques as: question preview, repeated input, providing topical knowledge, and vocabulary instruction (Chang & Read, 375). The purpose of their study is to assess the effectiveness of each of these aids. In turn, in her article How Much Do Learners Know about the Factors that Influence Their Listening Comprehension Christine Goh measures the extent of learners awareness about those conditions which influence their perception and understanding of oral speech. We need to critically evaluate these studies and identify their strengths and weaknesses by focusing on such aspects as sampling, research methods, paradigm, and socio-political context.

Critique of the first study

In their study Anna Chang and John Read use the so-called stratified sampling, which means that they subdivide participants into two major subsets according to their listening proficiency: HLP and LLP¹. Afterwards, scholars divide them into four parts: PQ (Preview question); RI (Repetition of the Input), TI (topic preparation), and VI (Vocabulary Instruction). Each of these groups corresponds to various methods of improving listening comprehension (Chang & Read, 382). This sampling approach is based on the idea that their subjects are at the same level of second language proficiency. Nonetheless, it seems that scholars overlook individual characteristics of learners, who may react differently to various types of support (Pring, 37). This is one of the limitations of this study. In fact, each of these support methods can be rather helpful, depending on linguistic competence of the learner, his or her educational background, erudition, physiological peculiarities like hearing acuity, and so forth. This is why we cannot generalize while assessing the efficiency of these listening comprehension aids. The evaluation, undertaken by Anna Chang and John Read could have been grounded only if a student had been given an opportunity to alternate different listening support aids.

The authors give preference to controlled experiment as the major method of acquiring data. The key objective of the experiment is to measure the effectiveness of different forms of support. In this case, the dependent variable is the result of the test, while the independent one is the listening support conditions. In order to measure the relations between these variables Anna Chang and John Read use generalized linear model (Chang & Read, 386). On the whole, this analysis technique is not quite appropriate. The problem is that students did not have an opportunity to use all of these listening comprehension aids. We need to set stress on the idea that such logical device as generalization is not fully applicable in this socio-educational study.

The experimental paradigm fully corresponds to the purposes of this research but its design does not ensure validity of the information. Probably, each of the subjects should have tested the helpfulness of each support method: PQ, RI, TI, or VI. In terms of research design, this study can be defined as explanatory as it strives to identify the causal relations between listening performance and various support methods. Nonetheless, at it has been noted earlier it overlooks the individual characteristics of the subject. So, we can say that the findings of this research are not conclusive.

Critique of the second study

In her study Christine Goh strives to discuss learners meta-cognitive knowledge about second language listening. Her major argument is that students, who are well aware of those factors that affect the perception of oral speech, are more likely to achieve higher level of performance. In order to substantiate this statement, she resorts to various techniques. At first, we need to speak about sampling strategy: as in the first case, it can be defined as stratified sampling: the students are subdivided into two major listening ability groups (Goh, p 19). The data were derived by such qualitative research techniques as: unstructured interview and analysis of learners diaries. This approach is quite prudent under the circumstances as it enables to better capture different shades of meaning, which the informant wants to convey. Yet, it should be borne in mind that interviews and analysis of diaries have a considerable drawback, namely we should speak about the so-called interviewers effect (Pring, 40). In other words, a subject may behave differently in the presence of the observer or interviewer.

While analyzing the information, collected in the course of the study, Christine Goh paid attention to the statements which reveal the types of meta-cognitive knowledge: person, task and strategy (Goh, 19). Therefore, we can say that this research represents the so-called interpretive paradigm. This allowed the scholar to avoid over-generalization. It should be pointed out that this study is more descriptive in its nature. This research design is quite suitable as it gives a clear picture of students knowledge about the listening to a foreign language.

Strengths and weaknesses

Overall, it is rather difficult to assess the strengths and weaknesses of these studies. Certainly, both of them throw light on a very important question, which has been thoroughly examined by linguists and psychologists. The article, written by Anna Chang and John Read can be of great assistance to those educators who develop listening comprehension tests. Their findings should be utilized by those who tailor listening exercises (Hammersley, 13). Nonetheless, it has to be admitted that this study has a considerable drawback it does not provide an objective assessment of various forms of listening support. As it has been noted before previewing questions, repeated input, topic preparation and vocabulary instruction can be equally helpful. The outcome can be shaped by many determinants: cultural background, hearing acuity, characteristics of the speech etc. Still despite this imperfection, the results of this work can lay the foundation for further research of this issue.

As far as the article by Christine Goh is concerned we may say that the author provides valuable insights into the psychology of learners who need to listen to the native speakers of the English language. On the basis of this work, educators can mark out a set of criteria for the assessment of listening comprehension tests. Furthermore, we need to say that this article should be taken into by those people, who learn English as a second language. They will get a better idea of the listening processes and its challenges. Naturally, one cannot argue that this research is flawed in any way; however, this study is mostly based on qualitative research methods like observation and interview, which eventually lead to biased interpretation of facts.

Socio-political context

Social-political context of the reported studies lies in the following: the authors view the research question from the point of view of native speaker of English. This language has become lingua franca² nowadays, and people throughout the world try to master it. Unfortunately, this influences educational policies and research strategies (Gilborn, 507). For example, while discussing the factors that affect listening comprehension, scholars practically overlook the differences between the two languages and this immensely downgrades their efforts. The thing is that every learner of English has certain linguistic background (Chinese, Tai etc) and this linguistic background impacts his or her ability to perceive speech in English. This is one of the major limitations in both these articles.

Conclusion

In this paper we have critically evaluated the studies, dedicated to listening comprehension and the factors which shape the outcome of this process. Christine Goh makes considerable efforts to achieve the best results in the chosen sphere and represents 12 factors, which play a very important role in listening comprehension. Background knowledge and environment becomes the most significant concepts because each participant gets a chance to improve environment and enlarge the level of knowledge to achieve the necessary effect. The investigation of Chang and Read helps to recognize how repetition of input may influence communication and listening abilities. Finally, all of them come to the conclusion that it is obligatory for listeners not only to identify the influential factors but also to comprehend what factors, when, and how may change the way of information perception.

Works Cited

Biesta, Gert and Burbules, Nicholas, C. Pragmatism and Educational Research. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing, Inc., 2003.

Chang, Anna, C-S., and Read, John. The Effects of Listening Support on the Listening Performance of EFL Learners. TESOL Quarterly 40 (2006): 375-397.

Gilborn, D. Education policy as an act of white supremacy: whiteness, critical race theory and educational reform, Journal of Education Policy, 2005 , 485-507.

Goh, Christine. How Much Do Learners Know about the Factors that Influence Their Listening Comprehension? Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 4.1 (1999): 17-41.

Hammersley, Martyn. Education Research, Policymaking and Practice. London: Paul Chapma, 2002.

Hammersley, Martyn. Social Research Today: Some Dilemmas and Distinctions. Qualitative Social Work, 2.1 (2003): 2544.

Phillips, Denis, C. and Burbules, Nicholas, C. Postpositivism and Educational Research. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 2000.

Pring, Richard. Philosophy of Educational Research. New York: Continuum, 2000.

Footnotes

High Listening Proficiency and Low Listening Proficiency.
Commonly used language.

Click Here To Order Now!