Effects of Input Features on Difficulty Perception of Authentic Listening Comprehension Tasks

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2021.06.012

Abstract

CLC Number:

H319.1

PAN Zhixin, FAN Xue. Effects of Input Features on Difficulty Perception of Authentic Listening Comprehension Tasks[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 21(6): 119-131.

Figures/Tables 3

类别	文本特征	相关系数		分析工具
类别	文本特征	短消息	长特写	分析工具
语音特征	时长(秒)	0.142	-0.152	人工
	单词数	0.127	-0.146	Coh-metrix
	语速(词/分钟)	0.023	-0.002	人工
	语速(音节/分钟)	0.312**	0.232*
	口音	0.119	0.025
	说话人数	0.171	-0.020
词汇复杂度	词长(音节)	0.291**	0.259*	Coh-metrix
	词长(字母)	0.261*	0.219*
	词汇多样性MTLD	-0.138	0.353**
	实义词词频	-0.360**	-0.378**
	K1词汇比例	-0.324**	-0.294**	Vocabprofile
	K2词汇比例	-0.001	-0.051
	学术词汇比例	0.303**	0.303**
	表外词汇比例	0.159	0.201
句子复杂度	主动词前单词数	0.120	0.122	Coh-metrix
	名词词组修饰语数	0.318**	0.245*
	相邻句子句法相似度	-0.089	-0.119
	句子长度	0.134	0.279*	L2SCA
	T单位长度	0.177	0.281*
	子句长度	0.128	0.252*
	句子中子句比率	0.064	0.073
	T单位中动词词组数	0.172	0.087
	T单位复杂性比率	0.093	0.097
	从属句比率	0.165	0.146
	T单位从属句比率	0.159	0.128
	句子并列比率	-0.088	-0.026
	复杂T单位比率	0.133	0.188
	T单位中并列词组数	-0.092	-0.002
类别	文本特征	相关系数		分析工具
类别	文本特征	短消息	长特写	分析工具
	子句中并列词组数	-0.073	-0.041
	T单位中复杂名词词组数	0.123	0.270*
	子句中复杂名词词组数	0.089	0.248*
句子成分密度	名词词组密度	-0.234*	-0.052	Coh-metrix
	动词词组密度	0.066	-0.023
	副词词组密度	-0.138	0.021
	介词词组密度	-0.113	-0.001
	被动语态密度	0.249*	0.007
	否定词密度	0.120	0.032
	动名词密度	-0.174	0.074
	不定式密度	0.092	-0.066
指代衔接	邻句名词重叠句子比例	0.215	0.147	Coh-metrix
	邻句词干重叠句子比例	0.240*	0.133
	邻句实义词重叠句子比例	0.150	-0.299**
	邻句前指重叠比例	-0.053	-0.378**
	邻句LSA重叠句子比例	0.097	0.155
连接词	所有连接词	0.005	-0.207	Coh-metrix
	因果连接词	0.162	-0.181
	逻辑连接词	0.023	-0.089
	对比/转折连接词	-0.258*	0.035
	时间连接词	-0.035	0.036
	附加/递进连接词	-0.097	-0.159
情景模式	因果衔接	0.046	-0.083	Coh-metrix
	意向衔接	0.130	-0.044
	时间衔接	-0.121	-0.176
	LSA动词重叠	-0.046	-0.181
易读度	Flesch易读度	-0.340**	-0.315**	Coh-metrix
	Coh-Metrix二语易读度	-0.242*	-0.409**
类别	文本特征	相关系数		分析工具
类别	文本特征	短消息	长特写	分析工具
词汇语义特征	词汇密度	-0.012	0.200	Vocabprofile
	实义词具象度	-0.118	0.091	Coh-metrix
	名词上义度	0.084	-0.007
	动词上义度	0.133	0.224*
	名词与动词上义度	0.355**	0.199
	专有名词个数	0.244*	0.177	人工
	数字个数	-0.304**	-0.099
	专有名词密度	0.186	0.279*
	数字密度	-0.401**	-0.028
话题类别	健康	-0.128	-0.036	人工
	经济	0.101	0.217*
	科技	-0.044	0.023
	环境	——	0.009
	教育	——	-0.215*
	法律犯罪	0.244*	——
	事故灾难	-0.328**	——
	政治外交	0.112	——

References 30

[1]	Bachman L. F. 2002. Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment[J]. Language Testing 19: 453-476. doi: 10.1191/0265532202lt240oa URL
[2]	Blau E. K. 1990. The effect of syntax, speed, and pauses on listening comprehension[J]. TESOL Quarterly 24 (4): 746-53. doi: 10.2307/3587129 URL
[3]	Brindley, G. & H. Slatyer. 2002. Exploring task difficulty in ESL listening assessment[J]. Language Testing 19: 369-394. doi: 10.1191/0265532202lt236oa URL
[4]	Brunfaut, T. & A. Revesz. 2015. The role of task and listener characteristics in second language listening[J]. TESOL Quarterly 49: 141-168. doi: 10.1002/tesq.2015.49.issue-1 URL
[5]	Buck, G. & K. Tasuoka. 1998. Application of the rule-space procedure to language testing: Examining attributes of a free response listening test[J]. Language Testing 15: 119-157. doi: 10.1177/026553229801500201 URL
[6]	Cervantes, R. & G. Gainer. 1992. The effects of syntactic simplification and repetition on listening comprehension[J]. TESOL Quarterly 26: 767-70. doi: 10.2307/3586886 URL
[7]	Cutler, A. & D. M. Carter. 1987. The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary[J]. Computer Speech and Language 2: 133-42. doi: 10.1016/0885-2308(87)90004-0 URL
[8]	Ellis R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[9]	Freedle, R. & I. Kostin. 1999. Does the text matter in a multiple-choice test of comprehension? The case for the construct validity of TOEFL's minitalks[J]. Language Testing 16(1): 2-32.
[10]	Hu Y. H. 2006. An investigation into the task features affecting EFL listening comprehension test performance[J]. Asian EFL Journal Quarterly 8(2): 33-54.
[11]	Graesser A. C., D. S. McNamara, M. Louwerse, M. Louwerse & Z. Cai. 2004. Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language [J]. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36(2): 193-201.
[12]	Graesser A. C., D. S. McNamara & J. M. Kulikowich. 2011. Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics[J]. Educational Researcher 40(5): 223-234. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11413260 URL
[13]	Kostin I. 2004. Exploring item characteristics that are related to the difficulty of TOEFL dialogue items[R]. Princeton, U.S.: ETS Research Report.
[14]	Lu X. F. 2010. Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing[J]. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(4): 474-496. doi: 10.1075/ijcl URL
[15]	Major R. C., S. M. Fitzmaurice, F. Bunta & C. Balasubramanian. 2005. Testing the effects of regional, ethnic, and international dialects of English on listening comprehension[J]. Language Learning 55(1): 37-69. doi: 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00289.x URL
[16]	McNamara D. S., M. M. Louwerse, P. M. McCarthy & A. C. Graesser. 2010. Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion[J]. Discourse Processes 47: 292-330. doi: 10.1080/01638530902959943 URL
[17]	Nissan S., F. DeVincenzi & K. L. Tang. 1996. An analysis of factors affecting the difficulty of dialogue items in TOEFL listening comprehension[R]. Princeton, U.S.: ETS.
[18]	Ortega L. 2003. Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing[J]. Applied Linguistics 24: 492-518. doi: 10.1093/applin/24.4.492 URL
[19]	Paquot M. 2010. Academic Vocabulary in Learner Writing: From Extraction to Analysis[M]. London: Continuum.
[20]	Quirk R., S. Creenbaum G Leech & J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language[M]. London: Longman World Publishing Corporation.
[21]	Renandya, W. & T. Farrell. 2011. Teacher, the tape is too fast! Extensive listening in ELT[J]. ELT Journal 65 (1) : 52-59. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccq015 URL
[22]	Rixon S. 1986. Developing Listening Skills[M]. London: Macmillan.
[23]	Revesz, A. & T. Brunfaut. 2013. Text Characteristics of task input and difficulty in second language comprehension[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35: 31-65. doi: 10.1017/S0272263112000678 URL
[24]	Rupp A. A., P. Garcia & J. Jamieson. 2001. Combining multiple regression and CART to understand difficulty in second language reading and listening comprehension test items[J]. International Journal of Testing 1(3-4): 185-216. doi: 10.1207/S15327574IJT013&4_2 URL
[25]	Skehan P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[26]	Teng H. C. 2001. Impact of speech modification on EFL listening[R]. Kitakyushu, Japan: Proceedings of the Third Pan-Asian Conference (PAC3) at JALT.
[27]	Yanagawa, K. & A. Green. 2008. To show or not to show: The effects of item stems and answer options on performance on a multiple-choice listening comprehension test[J]. System 36: 107-22. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2007.12.003 URL
[28]	何莲珍、陈大建、闵尚超. 2018. 英语听力测试中测试方法对任务难度的影响研究[J]. 现代外语 41(1):43-54.
[29]	桂诗春. 2000. 新编心理语言学[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社.
[30]	孙蓝、许秋敏、赵新红. 2006. 二语词汇提取模式效应研究[J]. 中国外语 11(3):45-53.

		N	极小值	极大值	均值	标准差
语篇理解难度评价	短消息	82	2.67	4.22	3.44	0.31
语篇理解难度评价	长特写	82	2.84	4.18	3.54	0.25

语篇特征	复相关系数R	R²	调整后R²	F值	B值	标准误差	值	t值	显著性
短消息 (Constant)					3.469	0.488		7.106	0.000
数字密度	0.427	0.183	0.171	16.298	-5.282	1.996	-0.253	-2.646	0.010
Flesch易读度	0.525	0.275	0.255	13.662	-0.010	0.003	-0.310	-3.288	0.002
名词词组密度	0.579	0.335	0.307	11.913	-0.002	0.001	-0.282	-3.076	0.003
语速(音节/分钟)	0.634	0.403	0.368	11.793	0.004	0.002	0.260	2.809	0.006
学术词汇比例	0.664	0.441	0.401	10.905	0.021	0.010	0.206	2.190	0.032
长特写 (Constant)					3.967	0.098		40.304	0.000
Coh-Metrix易读度	0.409	0.167	0.157	15.892	-0.022	0.007	-0.343	-2.999	0.004
邻句前指重叠比例	0.459	0.211	0.190	10.402	-0.569	0.235	-.276	-2.423	0.018

Effects of Input Features on Difficulty Perception of Authentic Listening Comprehension Tasks

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 3

References 30

Related Articles 11

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	ZHAN Shuangjuan. The Development of Ideological and Political Education of College English Curriculum: Advantages, Missions and Approaches [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(6): 68-75.
[2]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 21(4): 35-41.
[3]	FENG Zhiwei. Conducting Vocabulary Studies on Blogs [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015, 15(02): 3-7.
[4]	LV Jun. A Self-taught Approach to the Academic Pursuits [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(10): 1-4.
[5]	HU Gengshen. My Academic Pursuit of Originality [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(08): 1-7.
[6]	LIU Runqing. Big Data and Research in L2 Education [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(07): 1-6.
[7]	ZHOU Shanshan. Review of Why Translation Matters [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(05): 73-75.
[8]	YE Xingguo. The Beginning, Evolution and Development Trend of Business English Teaching in China [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(05): 1-6.
[9]	HUANG Yuanshen. It Is Advisable to Seek both Temporary and Permanent Solutions [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(04): 4-7.
[10]	XUAN Jialu, WANG Xuemei. A Comparative Study on Curricula for English Doctoral Education Programs in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(01): 25-30.
[11]	WANG Zhengsheng. Internationalization, Localization and Globalization: On Course Design and Arrangement of English Major in China [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(01): 31-35.