趣乐读小说网

手机浏览器扫描二维码访问

2 2 2 Factors Affecting Listening Comprehension（第1页）

2.2.2factorsaffectinglisteningcomprehension

sincelisteningisacomplexactiveprocessinwhichlearnersdecodeandconstructthemeaningofatextbydrawingontheirpreviousknowledgeabouttheworldaswellastheirlinguisticknowledge，thereseemtobemanyfactorsthataffectlisteningcomprehension.twofactorsrelatedtothepresentstudy，i.e.，repetitionandschema，arereviewedinthissection.

2.2.2.1repetition

onepurposeofthisstudyistoinvestigatetheeffectsofdifferentlisteningtimes（one-timevs.three-timelistening）onlearners'listeningcomprehensionandincidentalvocabularyacquisition.repetitionisanimportantvariablethatcanaffectlearners'abilitytoprocesstheinformationinalisteningtask，foritprovidesmoreprocessingtimeandclarifiestherelationshipbetweenthesyntacticforms.ingeneral，researchconductedtodateontheeffectofrepeatedexposurehasshownthatrepetitionisalsoanimportantfactorfacilitatingl2listeningcomprehension.

lund（1991）examinedtheeffectsofrepetitionanddifferentcourselevels（proficiencylevels）onthelisteningandreadingcomprehensioningermanasaforeignlanguageof60universitystudentsintheirfirst，second，andthirdsemesters.hefoundlisteningcomprehensionperformance，asmeasuredbypropositionsandlexicalitemsrecalled，improvedafterasecondopportunitytolistentothepassage.resultsalsoindicatedthatthisimprovementwasgreaterforthird-semesterlearnersthanitwasforlearnersinthefirstandsecondsemesters.tobemorespecific，theimprovementofthestudents'listeningrecalltaskinthefirstandsecondsemesterswasabouthalfthatofthethird-semesterstudents，whereastherewasnodifferenceintheimprovementamongthestudentsatdifferentproficiencylevelsinthereadingrecalltask.therefore，hearguedthatthethird-semesterstudentsbenefitedfromtherepeatedexposureinthelisteningtask.theimprovementinthelisteningperformancewasaccountedforbywhatlundcalled“recursiveuseofthetexts”，whichprovidesthelearnerswith“ateststructureofmeaningtobefittothetextonthenextrepetition”.

toexaminetheeffectofinputmodification（includingrepetition）onlisteningcomprehensionofjapaneseuniversitystudents，cervantesandgainer（1992）conductedtwoexperimentsinvolvingabout80englishmajorsatauniversityinjapanthatcomparedtheeffectsoflisteningtosimplifiedinputonceversuslisteningtoadifficulttextwithorwithoutrepetition.resultsofthestudyshowedthatbothsimplificationandrepetitionfacilitatedmorecomprehensionthanunmodifiedtexts.thefirstexperimentshowed，unsurprisingly，thatthesimplifiedversionwaseasiertounderstandthanthecomplexone.inthesecondexperiment，nosignificantdifferencewasfoundbetweenthegrouphearingthesyntacticallysimplifiedversionandthegrouphearingthecomplexversionwithrepetition.thus，cervantesandgainerarguedthatalthoughsyntacticallysimplifiedlisteningtextsmayaidcomprehension，itmaynotbenecessaryifothermodification，suchasrepetition，isavailable.

berne（1995）investigatedtheeffectofmultipleexposurestoavideocliponcomprehensionperformanceof62nativeenglishspeakerslearningspanishinanamericanuniversity.beforeviewingthevideotwice，theparticipantswererandomlyputintothreegroupswithdifferentpre-listeningactivities:aquestionpreviewactivity，avocabularypreviewactivity，andafilleractivity.resultsrevealedthatscoresforallthreegroupsimprovedsignificantlyasaresultofviewingthepassageasecondtime.theresearcherthusconcludedthat“themosteffectivemeansofimprovinglisteningcomprehensionperformanceisthroughadditionalexposuretothepassage”（p.326）.

chang（1999）lookedatlearners'levelsofcomprehensionasthenumberofrepetitionsincreased，andherresultsshowedthatthenumberofrepetitionsrequiredforadequatecomprehensiondependedonthelisteners'proficiencylevelandthedifficultyofthelisteningtext.forhigh-proficiencylevellisteners，asinglerepetitionwassufficientifthelisteningtextwaseasy，butforlow-proficiencylevellisteners，theimprovementintheirlisteningcomprehensionwaslessnoticeableevenafterseveralrepetitions，particularlyifthetextwasdifficultorthelistenerswereunfamiliarwiththecontent.

changandread（2006）examinedtheeffectsoffourdifferenttypesoflisteningsupport（previewofthequestions，repetitionoftheinput，provisionoftopicknowledge，andvocabularyinstruction）onthelisteningperformanceof160chineselearnersofenglishatacollegeintaiwan.theyalsoinvestigatedtheirinteractionaleffectsbetweentypesoflisteningsupportandlisteningperformancewithproficiencylevelsbasedontheresultsofthelisteningsectionofthetestofenglishforinternationalcommunication（toeic）.resultsshowedthattheeffectsofthefourlisteningsupporttypesdifferedaccordingtoproficiencylevel.thehighlisteningproficiencygroupoutperformedthelowlisteningproficiencygroupintheconditionofrepetitionoftheinput，andforthehighlisteningproficiencygroup，repetitionoftheinputwasmoreeffectivethananyotherinstructionaltreatment.basedontheseresults，changandreadsuggestedthatthehighlisteningproficiencygroupwouldbenefitmorethanthelowlisteningproficiencygroupfromrepetitionoftheinput.

elkhafaifi（2005）studiedtheimpactofpre-listeningactivities（vocabularyprevieworquestionspreview）andrepeatedlisteningexposureonlisteningcomprehensionscoresof111intermediateafl（arabicasaforeignlanguage）learners.thestudentswatchedavideotapedlecturetwiceandweretestedontheircomprehensioneachtimewhentheyfinishedwatchingthevideo.resultsshowedthatalthoughvocabularyknowledgeplayedasignificantroleinlisteningperformanceandprovidingcomprehensionquestionspriortothelisteningalsohelpedthestudentsachievesignificantlybetterlisteningscores，“multipleexposurestothelisteningpassageservedasthebestpredictoroflisteningproficiency”（p.510）.thisledtheauthortoconcludethat“thesinglemostimportantfactorinimprovinglisteningcomprehensionisrepeatedexposuretothelisteningpassage”（p.510）.

o'bryanandhegelheimer（2009）usedamixed-methodapproachtoinvestigatetheuseandawarenessoffourintermediateeslstudents'listeningstrategiesoverthecourseofonesemesteratalargemidwesternresearchuniversityintheunitedstates.theyalsoinvestigatedtheimpactofrepetitiononlisteningstrategiesandonthedevelopmentofstudents'metacognitiveawareness.fourstudents，twoundergraduatesandtwograduates，receivedaninformalwarm-upwithcasualconversationbeforelisteningtotwopassages，andabriefreminderofwhattheyweresupposedtodowhilelistening.thiswasfollowedbyaverbalreportstagewhentheylistenedtothepassagesforthesecondtimeandvoicedtheirthoughts.theresearchersfoundadifferenceinthestrategiesusedandlevelofcomprehensionattainedbytheparticipantsinthesecondlistening，andthusclaimedthatthesecondlisteningallowedlearners“tobuilduptomorecomplexbottom-upprocessingstrategies，namelyusinglexicalandgrammaticalrelationshipstocomprehendtheinputandutilizetheinformationgainedfromthetexttomakemeaning.”theyarguedthat“havingtheopportunitytorepeatthetextiswhatfacilitatedthecreationofaframeworkthatresultedinamorecoherentsummarythesecondtime”（p.26）.

sakai（2009）examinedtheeffectsofrepeatedexposureinl2listeningtestsof36universitylearnersofenglishinjapan.theparticipantsweredividedintotwolisteningproficiencygroupsandwererequiredtowritewhattheyunderstoodafterlisteningtoasetofpassagestwice.alltherecallprotocolswerescoredbytheresearcher，whoreportedhighreliability.resultsshowedthatforbothgroupsoflearners，thesecondeffortwasbetterthanthefirsteffort，andthestudydidnotfindanyinteractionaleffectbetweenrepetitionandproficiencylevels.theresearcherthusconcludedthattheeffectsofrepetition，regardlessofproficiencylevel，facilitatedlisteningcomprehensionofthepassagetoasimilardegree.inanattempttoansweramoreinterestingresearchquestionabouttheeffectofrepetitiononidiosyncraticrecallprotocols（i.e.，additiveinformationthatdoesnotappearintheoriginaltext）andmisinterpretations（i.e.，incorrectrecallprotocols），resultsindicatedthatrepetitionhelpedbothgroupsoflearnersunderstandthetextfurtherandledtomoreprecisecomprehensionofthepassage.

regardingtheinteractionaleffectbetweenrepetitionandproficiencylevel，itcanbeclearlyseenfromtheresearchreviewedabovethattheresultsofthesestudiesaremixed.whereassome（e.g.，chang&read，2006;lund，1991）reportedaninteractionaleffectbetweenrepetitionandproficiency，otherstudies（e.g.，cervantes&gainer，1992;sakai，2009）didnot.inanattempttointerpretthemixedresultsthatthesestudieshaveproduced，sakai（2009）examinedtheresultsofchangandread'sstudyandnotedthatrepetitionmayinfacthaveimprovedtheperformanceofbothproficiencygroups（highandlowproficiencygroups），butthechangesforthelowproficiencygroupswerenotsufficienttoachievestatisticalsignificance.asforlund'sstudy，sakai'notedthatlundfoundastatisticallysignificantinteractionaleffectonlyinoneofthetwoanalysesoftherecallprotocol.inaddition，sakaibelieved“themixedresultsofthepreviousstudiesmaybeduetodifferentanalysismethods”（p.369）.also，themixedresultsofthesestudiescanbeaccountedforbythefactthattheyuseddifferenttaskstoassesslisteningcomprehension（e.g.，afreewrittentask[lund]，amultiple-choicetest[chang&read]，apartialdictationtask[cervantes&gainer]，andafreewrittenrecalltask[sakai]），whichonlyrequiredtesttakerstolistentopartofthepassages.

oneresearchpurposeofthepresentstudyistoinvestigatetheeffectsofdifferentlisteningconditions，i.e.，ofsingleexposuretoalisteningpassage（listeningonetime）versusrepeatedexposuretoalisteningpassage（listeningthreetimes），onlearners'listeningcomprehensionandincidentalvocabularyacquisition.aquestionofconsiderableinterestistheextenttowhichrepetitionassistsbothvocabularyacquisitionandlisteningcomprehension.whilethereisclearevidencetosuggestthatrepetitionaidslisteningcomprehension，littleiscurrentlyknownaboutwhetherandhowrepetitionaidsvocabularyacquisition.

2.2.2.2schema

listeningisacomplex，activeprocessofinterpretationinwhichlistenersmatchwhattheyhearwithwhattheyalreadyknow（vandergrift，2002）.backgroundknowledgeplaysacrucialroleinunderstandingalanguage.itisoftentheabsenceorincompletenessofbackgroundinformationthatresultsinnon-comprehensionorincorrectcomprehensionthatl2listenersexperience.inotherwords，“wherethelanguageelementinfactpresentsnoobstacle…itisthelackofsharedcontextualinformationorschemathatmakescomprehensiondifficultorimpossible”（anderson&lynch，1988，p.154）.

firstusedincognitivepsychology，theword“schema”hasbeenadoptedinanumberoffields.inthecontextoflistening，“schema”refersto“amentalstructureconsistingofrelevantindividualknowledge，memory，andexperience，whichallowsustoincorporatewhatwehearintowhatweknow”（anderson&lynch，1988，p.139）.peoplehavethousandsofschemasintheirmemoryandtheseschemasareinterrelatedwithoneanother.everytimeweareengagedinreading，listeningto，orobservingsomethingnew，byrelatingonefacttoanotherthroughlogicallinks，wecreatenewschemasandourexistingschemasareupdated.

researchintotheeffectsofschematicknowledgeonl2comprehensionhaspredominantlyfocusedonreading，ratherthanlistening.carrellandeisterhold（1983）explainthatbackgroundknowledgeinthereaders'mindcanfacilitatel2readingcomprehension.similarly，listeningisaninteractiveprocessandsuccessfullisteningcomprehensionrequiresaninteractionbetweenthelisteningcontextandthelistener'sexistingbackgroundknowledgewhichprovidesthemwithaframeofreferencewheretheycancombinethenewincominginputwiththeknowledgetheyalreadyhave.

comparedwithl2readers，l2listenersfaceadditionaldifficultiesinmakingsenseofwhattheyhear，especiallyatlowerlevelsofproficiency，becauseinmostcasesspeechistemporary，lessclearlyproducedandmoreimplicitthanwrittenlanguage.forthisreason，theroleofschematicknowledgehasbeenrecognizedasanimportantfactorthataffectslisteningcomprehension.brownandyule（1983，p.248）describeschemaas“organizedbackgroundknowledgewhichleadsustoexpectorpredictaspectsinourinterpretationofdiscourse”.theyexplainthatlisteners'backgroundknowledgeandpriorexperiencespredisposethemtoconstructexpectationsaboutsevenareas:speaker，listener，place，time，genre，topic，andco-textinordertointerpretthediscourse.long（1989）furtherexplainsthatlearnersconstructmeaningduringthecomprehensionprocessthroughsegmentingandchunkingtheauralinputintomeaningfulunitsandthenactivelymatchingtheresultswiththeirexistinglinguisticandworldknowledge，aprocessthatenableslistenerstomakeinferences，whichisacognitivestrategyusedbylistenerstofacilitatecomprehension.rost（1990，p.70）definesthebaseorschematicmeaningofatextas“theculturalandexperientialframeofreferencethatmakesatextinterpretablebyalistener”.

toaddresstheroleofschematicknowledgeinfacilitatingl2listening，long（1990）exploredtheeffectofbackgroundknowledgeonl2listeningcomprehension.studentsofspanishlistenedtotwopassages，onefamiliarandtheotherunfamiliar.comprehensionwasassessedbyarecallprotocolinenglishandarecognitionmeasure.althoughnosignificantdifferenceswerefoundbetweenthefamiliarandunfamiliarpassages，longattributesthisresulttothecontentofthechecklist，whichwaslessdifficultcomparedtotherecallmeasureandthuscouldhaveenhancedtheprobabilityofcorrectanswers.similarly，inanattempttoexaminetheeffectoftopicfamiliarityonl2listeningcomprehension，schmidt-rinehart（1994）carriedoutastudyofuniversitystudentsofspanishwholistenedtotwopassages，oneaboutafamiliartopicandtheotheraboutanoveltopic.theresults，obtainedthroughanativelanguageimmediaterecallprocedure，showedthatthelearnersscoredconsiderablyhigheronthefamiliartopicthanonthenewone.thestudyrevealsthatschematicknowledgeintheformoftopicfamiliarityisapowerfulfactorinfacilitatinglisteningcomprehension.

tyler（2001）comparedtheresponsesofl1andl2listenerstospokentextswithorwithoutadvancedknowledgeoftopic.hefoundthatpriorknowledgeofthetopicdidnotresultinanysignificantdifferencebetweenthetwogroupsinthedemandsplacedonworkingmemory.nevertheless，whengivennopriorinformationaboutthetopic，thedemandsplacedonworkingmemoryweresignificantlyhigherforthel2groupthanforthel1group.tylerthusconcludedthatbackgroundknowledgeassistscomprehensionbyfreeingupthelisteners'mentalresources，allowingmoreattentiontobedirectedatprocessingthelanguageinput.

astudycarriedoutbysadighiandzare（2006）examinedtheeffectofbackgroundknowledgeonsomeupper-intermediate-to-advanced-leveliranianefllearners'listeningcomprehensioninpreparingfortheirtoeflexatheexperimentalgroupworkedonthetopicsbyusingdifferentresourcessuchastheinternetbeforecomingtotheclass.thecomprehensiontestresultsrevealedasignificantdifferenceinfavoroftheexperimentalgroup，whichlendsfurthersupporttotheimportanceofschematicknowledgeinlisteningcomprehension.

besidesthestudiesinvestigatingtheroleofgeneralbackgroundknowledgebyexploringtheinfluenceoflearners'contentschemata，somestudies（e.g.，hohzawa，1998;chang&read，2006）alsoincludedpre-listeningactivitiesoradvanceorganizerstopreparestudentsbyactivatingtheirbackgroundknowledgeaboutunfamiliartopics.invirtuallyeverylisteningsituation，itisclearlyadvantageoustocomprehensionforlistenerstocallonknowledgefromtheirstoredprototypes.oncetheknowledgeisactivated，additionalinformation，storedasrelatedschemata，becomesavailabletothelistener.meanwhile，wheneveraknowledgestructureisactivated，thelisteneralsoexperiencesanaffectiveresponsewhichfurtherinfluencesconnectionswiththespeaker'sownideas，andelicitsanempathicresponse.

activationofpriorknowledgehasbeenshowntohavesalutaryeffectsonl2listeningsuccess（e.g.，long，1990;schmidt-rinehart，1994）.researchintopre-listeningactivitieshasdocumentedpositiveeffectsonlisteningperformanceforadvanceorganizers（chung，2002;herron，cole，york，&linden，1998），questiontype（flowerdew&miller，2005），andquestionpreview（elkhafaifi，2005）.thesestudieshavedemonstratedthatitishelpfultoprovidelearnerswithacontextbeforetheybegintolisten.

mendelsohn（1995，p.140）identifiestheimportanceofpre-listeningactivitiesinfacilitatingl2listeningcomprehensionasthey“activatethestudents'existingknowledgeofthetopicinorderforthemtolinkwhattheycomprehendandtousethisasabasisoftheirhypothesis-information，prediction，andinferencing”.providinglistenerswiththeknowledgeorcontextualsupportrequiredforthetaskcanorientthemtowhattheyareabouttolistento，thusdirectingtheirattentiontothetaskratherthanhavingthemlistenaimlessly.

hohzawa（1998）foundthatprovidinglistenerswithachancetoactivatetheirpriorknowledgeaffectedcomprehensionandthekindofprocessingl2listenersdid.hetestedthecomprehensionof58lowintermediatejapanesestudentsinanintensiveenglishprogram，wherethestudentswereassignedto“backgroundinformation”and“nobackgroundinformation”groups.studentstookaproficiencytestandweretestedontheirfamiliaritywiththetopicsofthreenewsstories.thentheylistenedtothestories，wroterecalls，tookacomprehensiontest，andre-tookthefamiliaritymeasure.inaddition，thestudentsinthe“backgroundinformation”groupheardtheintroductiontothenewsstoriesanddiscussedthecontentofthestoriesbriefly.hohzawafoundthatstudentswhoestablishedbackgroundinformationtendedtousemoretop-downprocessesandthattheircomprehensionwasgreaterthanthestudentsinthe“nobackgroundinformation”group.

changandread（2006）investigatedtheeffectivenessofprovidingfourtypesoflisteningsupporttoefllearners:topicpreparation，vocabularyinstruction，questionpreview，andrepeatedinput.theresultsofthestudyshowedthatthemosteffectivetypeofsupportwasprovidingpriorinformationaboutthetopic.inaddition，thefactthatmeanscoresofthehighandlowlevellanguagelearnersinthetopic-preparationgroupwerequitesimilarshowedthatprovidingbackgroundknowledgeaboutthetopicenabledthelowlevellearnerstocompensatefortheirlimitedlanguageknowledge.

alalili（2009）designedastudytodeterminewhetherlearners'listeningcomprehensionofanunfamiliartextwouldvaryasafunctionofdifferentadvancedorganizerstoactivatethebackgroundknowledge.threegroupsofarabic-speakingefllearnerswereinvolvedinthestudy.inoneexperimentalgroupthecontentschema（knowledgeaboutthetopic）wasactivated，andtheformalschema（knowledgeabouttextstructureanddiscourseorganization）ofanotherexperimentalgroupwasactivated，andthecontrolgroupreceivedneithertypeofadvancedorganizer.theresultsofalisteningcomprehensiontestindicatedthatlearnerswhosecontentbackgroundknowledgewasactivatedscoredslightlyhigherthanthosewhoseformalbackgroundknowledgewasactivated.statisticalanalysis，however，showednosignificantdifferences.nevertheless，basedonresponsestoapost-studyquestionnaire，thestudentsintheexperimentalgroupsperceivedthepre-listeningactivitiestobeveryhelpfulinenhancingtheirunderstandingandpredictionofthelisteningtext.theresultsofthisstudysupporttheimportanceofhelpinglearnersmakeconnectionsbetweentheirexistingknowledgeandtheincomingauralinput.

becauseofthedemandsoflistening，l2listenersarelikelytobeforcedtorelyontheirbackgroundknowledgetointerpretthetextmorethanl2readersare（lund，1991）.itmaybethatpriorknowledgeactuallyprimeslinguisticformsandtheirmeaningsandallowslistenerstotakeabroaderviewofatextandmakepredictions（conrad，1989）.inotherwords，itmaybethatpriorknowledgeallowslistenerstodevotelessworkingmemorytoprocessingtheinputlinguistically，andsotocomprehendmorewithlesseffort（tyler，2001）.

tosumup，theresultsoftheresearchreviewedabovewerenotunanimousconcerningtheroleofschematicknowledgeinfacilitatingl2listening.ontheonehand，schmidt-rinehart（1994）andsadighi&zare（2006）foundsignificantl2listeningdifferencesinfavoroftheexperimentalgroupwithschematicknowledge，andtheythuslentfurthersupporttotheimportanceofschematicknowledgeinlisteningcomprehension.ontheotherhand，long（1990）andtyler（2001）couldnotfindsignificantdifferencesbetweenthegroupswithandwithoutpriorinformationontopic，thoughtylercommentedthatbackgroundknowledgeassistedcomprehensionbyfreeingupthelisteners'mentalresources，allowingmoreattentiontoprocessingthelanguageinput.regardingtheroleofpre-listeningactivityinfacilitatingl2listeningcomprehension，schema-raisingactivitywasprovedtobeaneffectivetypeoflisteningsupportinenhancinglearners'understandingandprediction，foritbothhelpedthehigherlevellearnerstousemoretop-downprocessesandenabledthelowlevellearnerstocompensatefortheirlimitedlanguageknowledge.however，thesestudiesmadenoattempttoinvestigatetheeffectsofschemaraisingasatypeofpre-listeningtrainingonlearners'incidentalvocabularyacquisitionfromlisteningactivitiesandnoneofthestudieswasadministeredinachinesecontext.

oneoftheresearchpurposesconcerningthisstudyistoinvestigatetheeffectsthataschemaraisingactivitypriortolisteninghasonlearners'listeningcomprehensionandincidentalvocabularyacquisition.aquestionofconsiderableinterestistheextenttowhichaschemaraisingactivityassistsbothvocabularyacquisitionandlisteningcomprehension.whilethereisclearevidencetosuggestthatitaidslisteningcomprehension，littleisknowntodateaboutwhetherandhowaschemaraisingactivitypriortolisteningaidsvocabularylearningthroughlistening.

古色古香  苏家三少爷  超凡神医  云胡不喜【全本+出版】  爹地，您的娇妻请签收  先追到的人是我（GL）  美女的妖孽保镖  缠绵不休：坏蛋老公别乱来  太古至尊  玄魔黑刀  同时被系统和夺舍大佬选中  公主撩夫攻略  橙汁分你一半（1v1）  诸天最苟龙套  幼麟传  贡品皇后：暴君圈宠  第一神医  抗战之火线精英  错爱成婚：这个老公不是我的  邢二少隐婚要翻车