A summary of one set of experiments over a week is shown in Figure 1.
There were four periods of English classes per week. Participants received instruction in the first three periods of English classes, with no intervals between periods. In the last period of English class for a week, students took the listening tests.
Figure 1. Summary of the experimental design over a week
The whole procedure had lasted for 10 weeks. After 10-week experiment, the participants were requested to complete a questionnaire. (see Appendix A) In addition, to probe into listeners’ perception of listening materials, four participants from each group were randomly chosen to have two interviews with the researcher.
UU group US group SU group SS group Class period
Unscripted materials Scripted materials
1 2 3 4
Instruction Testing
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS
The aim of the current study was to explore whether “unscripted text” was beneficial in terms of improving learners’ listening comprehension ability in the foreign language (FL) context. The statistical data of this study contained four mean scores of the four groups (UU, US, SU, SS)1. The mean pre-test score was the first score to be collected. The other three mean scores were taken from the post-tests completed in the subsequent 9 weeks. The regular interval between the three post-tests was 3 weeks. In order to make sure that the participants concentrated on the listening, the participants in each group were asked to take a quiz at the end of the lessons every week.
One-way ANOVA was conducted to test whether there were differences among the four groups. As shown in Table 4, the Scheffe method was employed, and no significant differences were identified between the four groups, suggesting that the scores of each group were nearly the same, if not identical, prior to the experiment (F(3,57) = 3.323, p = .026 < .05).
1 The UU and SU groups took unscripted listening tests following unscripted and scripted listening
Table 4. Summary of the results of one-way ANOVA at the first time point.
Two-way split-factor ANOVA was performed to explore the main effects of the un/scripted listening input and the time factor, and to examine whether there was an interaction effect between un/scripted listening input and the time factor on students’
listening comprehension ability. As shown in Table 5, the main effect of listening type yielded an F ratio of F(3, 171) = 2.602, df = 3, p > .05, indicating that the effect of listening type on listening comprehension was not significant. However, the main effect for the time factor yielded an F ratio of F(3, 171) = 4.368, df = 3, p < .05, indicating significant differences in listening comprehension between post-test 1, post-test 2 and post-test 3. The interaction effect was not significant, F(9, 171) = 1.494, df = 9, p > .05, suggesting that both listening types had no interaction with the time factor.
Table 5. Two-way split-factor ANOVA. which differences were found, a paired t-test was conducted.
As shown in Table 6, the results of one-way ANOVA indicated that there was a statistically significant effect of the time factor in the UU group, F(3,45) = 3.885, p
= .015, suggesting that the group that received unscripted listening input made progress in the unscripted listening tests in the subsequent three post-tests. A paired t-test was conducted, and it was found that there was a significant difference between the scores of the pre-test (M = 2.44, SD = .911) and post-test 2 (M = 3.13, SD = .975);
t = –2.300, p = .036. In addition, a significant difference was found between the
scores of the pre-test (M = 2.44, SD = .911) and post-test 3 (M = 3.59, SD = 1.255); t
= –3.306, p = .005. In summary, the students’ scores on the second and third post-tests were significantly higher than the score on the pre-test, meaning that the participants who received unscripted listening input made progress in the unscripted listening tests, starting from post-test 2. These results are summarized in Table 7.
Table 6. One-way ANOVA for the UU group.
A growing trend was observed in the UU group, which was also found in the SU group. Specifically, as shown in Table 8, a significant difference was found for the main effect of the time factor in the SU group (F = 3.815, p = .016), meaning that the group that received scripted listening input made progress in the unscripted listening tests in the subsequent three post-tests. A paired t-test was conducted, and it was found that there was a significant difference between the scores of the pre-test (M = 2.50, SD = 1.033) and post-test 1 (M = 2.94, SD = 1.209); t = –2.406, p = .016. In addition, a significant difference was found between the scores of the pre-test (M = 2.50, SD = 1.033) and post-test 2 (M = 2.94, SD = .834); t = –2.573, p = .021. Finally,
a significant difference was found between the scores of the pre-test (M = 2.50, SD = 1.033) and post-test 3 (M = 3.25, SD = 1.252); t = –3.770, p = .002. In summary, the students’ scores on the three post-tests were significantly higher than the score on the pre-test, which showed that the participants who received scripted listening input made progress in the unscripted listening tests starting from post-test 1. These results are summarized in Table 9.
Table 7. Paired t-test for the UU group.
M SD t p
Pre-test 2.44 0.911 –.850 .409
Post-test 1 2.75 1.265
Pre-test 2.44 0.911 –2.300 .036*
Post-test 2 3.13 0.975
Pre-test 2.44 0.911 –3.306 .005*
Post-test 3 3.59 1.255
Post-test 1 2.75 1.265 –1.168 .261
Post-test 2 3.13 0.975
Post-test 1 2.75 1.265 –1.870 .081
Post-test 3 3.59 1.255
Post-test 2 3.13 0.975 –1.392 .184
Post-test 3 3.59 1.255
*p < .05.
Table 8. One-way ANOVA for the SU group.
Table 9. Paired t-test for the SU group.
M SD t p
In terms of the US group, no significant differences were found in the subsequent post-tests, F(3,45) = 0.899, p = .449 > .05, as shown in Table 10.
Table 10. One-way ANOVA for the US group.
Table 11. One-way ANOVA for the SS group.
Source of Variation Sum of
To briefly recapitulate the results reported above, the participants who took scripted listening tests did not benefit either from unscripted or scripted listening input.
In contrast, both scripted and unscripted listening input enhanced the participants’
performance in the unscripted listening tests. The participants’ performance implied a
potential influence of unscripted listening tests. In addition, the group who received scripted listening input (the SU group) made progress starting from post-test 1. The group who received unscripted listening input (the UU group) began to score more highly from post-test 2. In terms of improvement rate, scripted listening input began to facilitate an improved performance of the participants three weeks after the start of teaching.
Results of the questionnaire
After completing the 10-week experiment, the participants completed a 17-item questionnaire enquiring about the spoken texts used in the tests.( see Appendix B)
How did the participants evaluate the two listening texts? In terms of the difficulty of the listening texts and the length of the dialogues, the participants considered both scripted and unscripted texts appropriate (Q3 、 Q4). Speakers’
speaking speed in the unscripted texts was considered faster than that in the scripted texts (Q5). No participants thought that the speakers expressed the text unclearly in the scripted text, while a few considered that the unscripted text was unclear (Q7).
How did the listening texts influence the participants? In terms of how interesting the content was to the listeners, more participants considered the unscripted text interesting (Q8) and increased their motivation for listening (Q9、Q10).
In addition, more participants thought that the interaction between speakers in the
unscripted text was natural (Q13). More than half of the participants indicated that they did not lose patience when listening to both types of listening text.
Did the participants perceive any disparity between the scripted and unscripted text? Most participants were capable of distinguishing differences between the two listening texts (Q14、Q 15). More than half participants preferred the unscripted text to the listening text contained in their textbooks (Q16). And more participants
strongly agreed that the unscripted text was easier to comprehend than the text contained in their textbooks (Q17).
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to conduct regular tests to explore whether
“unscripted text” is beneficial in terms of improving learners’ listening
comprehension ability in the foreign language (FL) context, where scripted text is the mainstream teaching tool and native input is usually very limited beyond the classroom setting. The following section discusses how Taiwanese EFL learners perform in listening comprehension tests when presented with these two types of listening material (scripted vs. unscripted text).
5.1 Interpretation of the results based on TAP
Based on the hypothesis of transfer appropriate processing (TAP), the participants who were trained with scripted/unscripted listening input and took scripted/unscripted listening tests (SS/UU groups) were hypothesized to show an improved performance, while the participants who received scripted/unscripted listening input and took unscripted/scripted listening tests (SU/US groups) were not hypothesized to show significant progress in their performance. However, the results showed that only the groups who took unscripted listening tests (UU/SU groups) had made progress during the 10-week experiment, whereas the other groups who took scripted listening tests (SS/US groups) exhibited a constant level of performance.
Why didn’t these two specially-designed listening materials have significantly different effects on listeners’ performance?
Initially, the original focus of TAP was that learners might acquire effective learning if language instructors could narrow the gap between the encoding process in learning and the retrieval process while using. If the classroom environment only offers language learners teaching in a simplified language context, learners might have difficulty using language in complex communicative situations outside the classroom. To solve the problem of a mismatch between learning and using conditions, TAP suggests increasing the number of settings that are similar to real-life language conditions. Instead of implementing repetitive drills or imitating memorized dialogue, instructors have been advised to utilize form-focused instructions such as communicative language teaching and content-based instruction in language classrooms. To be more specific, comprehension training will improve comprehension ability, while speaking practice is necessary to cultivate speaking ability.
In this study, learners practiced listening with scripted and unscripted listening materials. No matter which type of listening input the learners were exposed to, listeners were offered opportunities to practice both encoding and retrieving information in the listening process. In other words, as long as students were trained using English input, progress was made in their listening comprehension ability. The
quantitative statistics did not give satisfactory results as previously assumed. The qualitative evidence from both participants’ feedback and the teacher’ teaching journal could explain the relationship between listening input and assessment in this study.
5.2 How unscripted text influences learners’ comprehension
5.2.1 The benefit of discourse features
Although the two types of listening had the same effect on learners’ listening comprehension, listeners had a varied performance when assessed using two types of listening test. The results indicated that the unscripted listening tests, which contained many discourse features, assisted learners’ listening comprehension during the experiment, which corresponded to the results of previous studies (Latifi, Youhanaee
& Mohammadi, 2013; Clark, 2014; Rahmani, 2015). In the questionnaire, the participants were asked to express their perception of the listening texts they were exposed to. According to the results of the survey, 71% of the participants were capable of distinguishing differences between the unscripted listening text and the scripted text that they used to listen to in the classroom setting. In addition, more than half of the participants preferred the unscripted text to the listening text contained in their textbooks, because they considered the unscripted text “much easier to follow.”
The hesitation phenomena were of crucial benefit to the listeners’ comprehension. The following comments are three quotes obtained in interviews with participants, which
show how the listeners benefited from the hesitation phenomena. Among the discourse features, “repetition” and “pauses” were the ones that caught the participants’ attention in this study.
A: “The way the speakers talked was quite funny. They stammered a lot! They would do like this….I…I…I…think the conversation was quite interesting!@@...”
B: “@@...Yes. They stammered or said the same words repeatedly…..Yes, it
helped me to focus on the listening more because you would like to know what she
was trying to say.”
C: “There was a period of time in which no one was speaking….I mean…yes, they paused and continued to speak……Yes, I thought it was helpful. I can stop and
think of the Chinese meanings of the words.”
Among the different oral discourse features, the most salient features that
participants became aware of were filled pauses, fillers, repetitions and redundancies.
What’s more, according to the feedback provided by the participants, speakers’
stressing of certain key words or repetition were the most helpful features that increased their listening comprehension. Among the answers to the short-answer questions on the questionnaire, the participants wrote that they had more time in which to contemplate the content of the dialogue owing to the presence of pauses, fillers or repetitions, which confirmed the results of Lam’s study (2002). ‘Hesitation
phenomena’ were considered to be of significance in improving learners’ listening comprehension in this study.
5.2.2 The time effect on listeners’ comprehension
The result that the participants acquired benefits from discourse features was also obtained in a previous study (Corley, MacGregore & Donaldson, 2007). Nevertheless, some studies found that discourse features in unscripted text were too difficult for the listeners to comprehend (Guarieno & Morley, 2001; Richard, 2006). Vandergrift (2007) indicated that learners might get too used to simplified scripted text in class, and may then have trouble decoding discourse features in unscripted text while listening. However, if there is enough time for learners to involve themselves in unscripted input, they might have more opportunities to acquire decoding skills in the listening process.
In Wagner and Toth’s study (2014), although the participants did not have a better performance in the unscripted tests, it was assumed that, given time, the learners might receive benefit from unscripted test. Before the 10-week experiment, the participants in this study had been taught using scripted text from textbooks in their listening training, so discourse features were a new experience that they had not previously encountered in class. The SU group showed improvement in the unscripted tests starting from post-test 1 in the fourth week of the experiment, while the UU
group scored increasingly higher starting from post-test 2, in the seventh week. With just a few weeks of training, the participants were capable of adjusting their decoding skills in their listening comprehension. The following comments are two quotes from interviews with some participants who had listened to the unscripted text for 10 weeks.
A1: “…Speakers would say the word ‘like.’ And to be honest, I didn’t know that the word ‘like’ meant nothing when the speakers said it until the last few weeks…but it
helped a lot after I realized that the word ‘like’ doesn’t mean ‘enjoy’ or something.”
B1: “After taking several tests, I began to understand that the speakers
sometimes used the word ‘say’ as a functional word in order to pause or to try to
present some examples.”
Following 10 weeks of unscripted input, the participants became able to ‘notice’
discourse features. Although they had misinterpreted fillers at the beginning, they soon corrected their mistakes, and consequently benefited from these hesitation phenomena.
5.3 Comparison of the two types of listening text 5.3.1 Learners’ positive perception of unscripted text
Aside from the advantages that ‘hesitation phenomena’ in the unscripted texts brought to learners, the learners’ positive attitude towards unscripted text also fostered
improvement in listening comprehension. Comparing the scripted text to the unscripted text, the speakers’ voices in the unscripted text were more ‘intriguing’, and the interaction between the speakers was more ‘natural’ to the learners. 37% of the participants stated that the way in which the speakers talked in the unscripted text raised their interest in the teaching, and only 16% of the participants held the same view towards the scripted text. More than half of the participants strongly agreed that the interaction between speakers made the unscripted text vivid and close to real life.
Rather than being bored by the simplified text, the EFL learners attempted to conquer the challenges presented in the unscripted listening text.
The participants derived great pleasure from the discourse features contained in the unscripted listening input. The distinguished essence of the unscripted text successfully maintained the students’ passion for listening. They enjoyed the dialogue and were motivated to pay attention to details. Even those students who were at a lower proficiency level were patient enough to listen to details without complaining about the length of the listening text. Their motivation to listen did not decrease owing to difficulties in comprehending the unscripted text, though they did not benefit as much from unscripted listening input. In addition, these students seemed to gain impetus to carefully listen to details when decoding the oral discourse features present in natural dialogue. This phenomenon differed from that observed in the study of
Kmiecik and Barkhuizen (2006), in which it was demonstrated that listeners were frightened by the difficulties that oral discourse features presented.
5.3.2 Learners’ negative perception of scripted text
The participants’ perception of the scripted text was quite negative in the experiment. Some studies indicated that learners had a more positive attitude towards scripted text because the more ‘writerly’ and well-structured listening text contained fewer discourse features, which possibly hinder learners’ comprehension (Kmiecik &
Barkhuizen, 2006; Guarieno & Morley, 2001). However, the participants in this study held a different view. In the interviews, the participants were able to describe how the scripted texts were created. They stated that the speakers just ‘read out the script line
by line’, and the well-organized script seemed to make this listening text ‘dull’ and
‘flat.’ Without the assistance of discourse features, the learners thought that the
interaction between speakers was unnatural, and the way they talked was not attractive. The following are quotes from interviews with participants in the SS group, which show their dislike of the scripted text.
A:”…Actually, I fell asleep in this week’s test. I don’t know why; I just couldn’t
concentrate on the tests. The speaker’s voice was so flat…; though their speaking
speed was slow, it was hard for me to catch the key words.”
B: “I could follow each line and almost comprehend the whole content, but I
think that you have got to try very hard to push yourself to stay focused. The topic of
each week was quite interesting, but the way they spoke was not different from what
we heard from the textbooks. Anyway, the tests were boring.”
C:”The speakers spoke quite fluently. I thought their speaking speed was
acceptable, but there were no chances for us to rest. To be honest, I was interested in
what they were going to say at the beginning of the dialogues; however, I somehow
lost focus in the middle and took a guess in the test.”
The participants readily lost interest in the listening tasks because the scripted text contained fewer features that could raise the listeners’ attention. The speakers did not stress important words or accidentally repeat any crucial information while recording. The fluent speech offered no opportunities for listeners to process the content, which corresponded with the results of Vandergrift’s study (2007). Scripted text seemed to harm listeners’ motivation to listen in class.
To sum up, according to the results of this study, most participants preferred the unscripted text to the scripted text, and were interested in the discourse features contained in the unscripted text. Some of the participants took advantage of these
To sum up, according to the results of this study, most participants preferred the unscripted text to the scripted text, and were interested in the discourse features contained in the unscripted text. Some of the participants took advantage of these