dictation listening comprehension dictation promote listening

18
Language Education and Technology NII-Electronic Library Service LanguageEducation andTechnology --Does Dictation Dictation and Listening Comprehension Promote Listening Comprehension?-- Yasuhiko Sugawara Kokushikan University Dictation is widely used as a teaching technique in listening comprehension classes as well as a testing device in many experiments. Although the positive effect of this technique has been reported, specific explanation about its effbct is yet seen: How should itbe used?;For what Ievel is it effective? In order to have a clearer idea about the effbct of thislongused teaching technique, the author of this article carried out an experiment using Japanese university students: The subjects were divided into twe groups; dictation and control groups. They listened to two types of texts;elementary and intermediate levels. Each text was played three times; without any pause for the first and the third playings, and with 10 second pause after each sentence for the second. After the third playing, tiney were asked to write down what they thought they had understood from the text in their first language. The results were that the control group perfermed signi[Eicantly better than the dictation group for the elementary text (t = 2.67, p < O.O1), but forthe intermediate text,no sigriificant differences were fbund between the groups (t = O.72, n.s.). Regarding the relation between the dictation and recall test scores, a statistically significant correlation was found only for the dilficult text (r = O.7433, p < O.O1), but not forthe easy text in the dictation group although all the test scores correlated with each other in the control group. This article wil1 diseuss why such results were obtained and will reconsider whether dictation isa proper teaching technique to promote learner's listening comprehension. -33-

Upload: others

Post on 28-Dec-2021

49 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

--Does

Dictation

Dictation

and Listening Comprehension

Promote Listening Comprehension?--

Yasuhiko Sugawara

Kokushikan University

Dictation is widely used as a teaching technique in listening

comprehension classes as well as a testing device in many

experiments. Although the positive effect of this technique has been

reported, specific explanation about its effbct is yet seen: How should

it be used?;For what Ievel is it effective? In order to have a clearer

idea about the effbct of this long used teaching technique, the author of

this article carried out an experiment using Japanese university

students: The subjects were divided into twe groups; dictation and

control groups. They listened to two types of texts; elementary and

intermediate levels. Each text was played three times; without any

pause for the first and the third playings, and with 10 second pause

after each sentence for the second. After the third playing, tiney were

asked to write down what they thought they had understood from the

text in their first language. The results were that the control group

perfermed signi[Eicantly better than the dictation group for the

elementary text (t = 2.67, p < O.O1), but for the intermediate text, no

sigriificant differences were fbund between the groups (t = O.72, n.s.).

Regarding the relation between the dictation and recall test scores, a

statistically significant correlation was found only for the dilficult text

(r = O.7433, p < O.O1), but not for the easy text in the dictation group

although all the test scores correlated with each other in the control

group.

This article wil1 diseuss why such results were obtained and will

reconsider whether dictation is a proper teaching technique to promote

learner's listening comprehension.

-33-

Page 2: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

1 INTRODUCTION

Dictation has been widely used as a teaching technique in the Ianguage

teaching classroom. More than half oflanguage teachers use dictation either

regularly or occasionally in Europe (Davis and Rinvolucri 1988:1). Also,

textbooks for listening comprehension available on the market often contain

dictation exereises.

The effects of this teaching technique are supported by several studies:

Postovsky (1972) claimed that his subjects developed language proficiency

by using dictation before engaging in speaking exercises; Suenebu et al

(1986) reported that even when the listeners seemed to have reached a

plateau at whieh point they could not process any more meaningful

information, they could catch more words by the use of dictation; Yanagihara

(1995) also reported in her research which focused on shadowing that the

dictation group performed significantly better than the control group in

listening comprehension tests.

Several studies (Valette 1967, ORer 1971, Oller et al 1974) reported that

dictation scores correlated with overall language achievement.

Consequently, dictation has been used as a testing device not only for error

analysis CKakei et al 1979, Suenobu et al 1982, Kelly 1991) but also for

listening comprehensiQn (Henrichsen 1984, Kelch 1985).

Dictation has been Iong and widely used and recommended fbr use in the

listening classroom (Rivers & Temperley 1979, Savignon 1982, Ito 1984).

However, its effbcts have not been fully explained. For example, fbllowing

questions still need to be addTessed:

a. Is it an effective teaching technique for learners across all levels?

b. Do its effects change accor(ling to the Ievel of the material?

c. Is it efftictive for the teaching of such varied materials as non-fiction,

news and dialogues?

d. When or in what way should it be introduced?

e. Does it really promote listening comprehension in every situation?

Among the questions above, this article will concentrate on the second

question, or the level of the material and report the results of an experiment

on how diEEbrently Japanese learner listeners performed accor(ling to the text

level.

--

34-

Page 3: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

2. RESEARCHQUESTIONS AND METHOD

2.l RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The experiment carried out in this study addressed the following

questlons:

1. WM there be any dLfference in the effects of dictation according to

the level of difiiiculty of the text?

2. WM there be any correlation between dictation and xecall scores?

3. Wilt dictation promote listening comprehension?

2.2 SUBJECTS

A tptal of 74 English-major students at Kanagawara University were

involved in this study. 73 of them were in the second year of their studies

and one in the third year. The students were divided into two classes

according to their performance on 'the

entrance examination. All had signed

up for Language Laboratory 1 in 1997.

2.3 MATERIALS

Two stories were used in this study. One was from 'Introductory Stories

for Reproduction (Hlills 1980) ̀ and the other from 'Intermediate

Stories for

Reproduction a!Iills 1965)'. ' The stories were each 130 and 151 words in

length. The speech rates were 1.68 words per second (w.p.s> or 2.3 syllables

per second (s.p.s) and 2.68 w.p.s or 3.5 s.p.s., respectively. Based en Tauroza

and AIIizon's speech rate analysis (1990), the stories were classified as 'slow'

and 'moderately

slow' with the w.p.s. measure while 'very

slow' and 'average'

with the s.p.s measure. From the reasons above, the first story was regarded

as an easier text than the second. Therefore the first story will be called as

the easy text while the other the di Eficult.

2.4 TEST SHEET

The test sheet handed to the subjects centained test instructions about

the test, cloze passages for the experimental group and space for nete-taking

for the control group. On the back of the sheet, space was allowed fbr the

recall test,and evaluation of the texts.

35 ----

Page 4: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

2.5 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The subjects were divided into two groups using the university class

distinction: the control and experimental or dictation group$. The subjects

in both groups took 'JACET

Listening Test Form A' and there was no

significant difference in the scores between the groups (t-value = O.77 n.s.) as

shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Subjects

Number Variable of Cases hean SD SE of Mean

JTESTI Control Group 36 42,1111 31.518 5.253 Dictation Group 38 36,8421 27.076 4.392

Mban Difference = 5.2690

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances: F= .646 P= .424

t-test for Equality of Means Variances t-value df 2-Tail Sig SE of Diff CI

Equal .77 72 .442 6.819 (-12. Unequal .77 69.10 .444 6.847 (-12.869,

Dictation is classified into two types: complete dictation

dictation, or cloze dictation ato 198e. In this study, cloze

used to minimize their effbrt for writing while listening.

were made by eliminating every seventh or eighth word from

passages and replacing it with a parenthesis. The total

eliminated words was eighteen for each text (Appendix 1).

Both groups listened to the same tape on which stories were

three times each. The first and the thir

99% for Diff

773,23.311)

23.407>

and spot

dictation was

Dictation problems

the original

number of

recorded

d playings had no pauses while the

second playing contained 10-second pauses between sentences to provide the

subjects with ample time for cloze-filling or information processing.

In order to test comprehension, a recall test was employed for each text.

The subjects were asked to write down in Japanese what they thought they

had understood a[Eter listening to the text three times.

The subjects were also asked to evaluate the difliLculty of each story after

-36-

Page 5: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

2.6 PROCEDURE

Each subject was given a test paper mentioned above. On the front of the

test paper were explanations about the test. For the control group, space fbr

note-taking was allowed on the same page while the dictation group was

provided with two cloze passages.

The subjects were told to read the instructions and informed that the test

aimed at identifYing their listening habits and the results would not affect

their academic records. The dictation group was also told to complete the

cloze passage while listening to the tape. The control group was allowed to

take notes during the listening session. In order to see what they had

understood, both groups were told not to look at either the cleze passages or

their notes taken in the recall test.

Then the tape was played. After the subjects listened to the easy story

three times, they were asked to turn their test papers over and write down in

Japanese what they thought they had understood. Five minutes were

allotted fbr the recall test. Then they were also asked to evaluate the

difficulty of the text according to the following levels: 1 = very easy, 2 = easy,

3 = moderate, 4 = diMcult, 5 = very difficult.

Then tihe same procedure was repeated for the dillicult text.

Table 2 shows the experiment design according to the tasks the groups

engagedin.

Table 2 Experiment Design

tasksrectt11

groupsdifficult test

evaluation

easytexttext

DictationGreup

clozedictation alezedictation

writing

1=veryeasy

2=easy

protocols3=moderateNone Nene inSl 4=difiicalt

Control (note- (nete- (Japanese)5=veryGreup taking taking difficult

allowed) allowed)

-37

Page 6: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

2.7 SCORING AND DATA ANALYSIS

The recall test responses were scored by the author of this article and a

Japanese with a certificate ofteaching Japanese. The criteria fbr the scoring

were whether their responses were consistent with 15 idea units of each

story (Appendix 2). The interrater reliability was O.987 fbr the easy and

O.995 for the diflicult text. The inconsistent scores were corrected after

discussion by the raters.

The dictation test responses were scored on the exact word scoring basis.However, legible spelling errors were counted correct. The results were

computer-precessed with use of a statistical passage software, "SPSS

for the

Macintosh 6.1.F' and "Microsoft

Excel ver.5 fbr Macintosh."

3 RESULTS

The summary of the results is shown in Table 3. These results

underwent statistical treatment to find significant difft)rences and

correlations.

Table 3 Result Summary

Variables Mean SDVariallceMinimumMaximumN

PTDictationG36.8427,08733.11 .16.00 94.00 38

ContrelG 42.113152993,36 -22.00100.00 36

DictationG 7.47 3.49 12.09 1.00 1.3.00 38R'1・

(E)CQntrolG 9,33 2,39 5.73 5.00 14.00 36

DictationG 6.66 4,08 16.61 o.oo 13.00 38RT(D)ContrelG

5.91 3.6613.77 1.00 13,OO 36

DictatiollG 16.42 2.68 7.18 400 18.00 38Dic(E)ContrelG

DictatiollG 12.97 3.47 12.05 3.00 18.00 38Dic(D)ControlG

PT = pretest (JACET LISTENING TEST Form A), RT = Reeall Test,

Dic = Dictation Task, (E) = easy text, (D) = difficult text

--

38 --

Page 7: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

Table 4 [l]he Resultsof Recall Tests

Mean

test1groupDictationG

(N=38)ControlG

(N=36)

tValue

RecallTestfor

EasyText7.47 9.33 2.67t+

Reca!lTestfer

DifficultText6.66 5.91 O.72(n.s.}

(**P<O.O1)

T-tests were employed to see whether there were any significant

diffbrences in the recall tests between the groups. Table 4 shows the mean

scores and t-values for both tests. As it shows, there was a significant

diffbrence between the groups fbr the easy text (t = 2.67, p < O.O1) while no

difference was fbund fbr the (liflicult one (t = O.72, n.s.).

Table 5 Correlation between Tests for Dictation Group

N=38

Pre-test RT(E) RT(D) DIC(E) DIC(D)

Pre-test1,OOOOP=. 5061**

P=.OOI

.6380**

p=.ooo

.1589P..341 .6040**

p=.ooo

RT(E).5061**

p=.oot

1.0000P=. .580S**

p=.ooo

,2424P=.145 (.5261)P=.OOI

RT(D).6380**

p=.ooo

.5908**

p=.ooo

1.0000P=, (.2387)P=.149J433**

p=.ooo

DIC(E).1589P=.341 ,2424I)=.145(.2387)P=.1491.0000P=. .3316iP=.042

DIC(D) .6040**

PT.OOO

(.S261)P=.OOI.7433*.

p=.ooo

.3316.P=.042 1.0000P=.

" .

" is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

*deP>O.Ol

deP>O.05

Peason correlation measures were administered to measure correlation

between tests within each group. Table 5 shows the results fbr the dictation

group. There were significant correlations between the two recall tests and

the pretest at the p > O.Ol level. While the pretest had a significant

-39-

Page 8: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

correlation with the dictation scere fbr the diflicult text, no correlation was

obtained between the pretest and the dictation score fbr the easy text.

Regarding the relation between the dictation and recall test scores, a

statistically significant correlation was fbund only fbr the difficult text (r =

O.7433, p < O.O 1).

AIso, the same kinds of tests had correlations with one another across

the levels. For example, the dictation scores fbr the easy text correlated with

the dictation scores for the difficult text.

Table 6 shows the results of the statistical treatment fbr the control

group. [Vhe pre-test had correlations with the recall tests for the easy and

dilificult texts (r = O.38 11, p < O.05 and r = O.5833, p < O.O1, respectively).

Table 6 Correlation between Tests for Control Group

N=36Pre-Test RT(E) RT(D)

Pre-Test1.0000P=. .3811*P=.022 .S833**

p=,ooo

Rrr(E).3811*P=.022 1.0000P=. .5564**

p=.ooo

RT(D).5833*#

p=,ooo

,5564**

p=.ooo1.0000P=.

(Ceethcient 1 (Cases) 1 2-tailed SignMcance)" .

" is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed

*rkP>O.Ol

deP>O.05

Table 7 Evaluation for Easy Text

veryeasyeasy moderatediifieultverydifticultmissing

NlNlNsNsNlNs

CentrolGN=36

25.61336,11952.S25.6oooo

Dictetien

N=3B12.61334,21642.16IS.B12.612.6

-40-

NII-Electronic Mbrary

Page 9: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

ve=very easy, e=easy, m=moderate,

Figure 1 Evaluation

d=difllcult, vd=very diffieult

for Easy Text

Table 7 and Figure 1 show how the subjects evaluated the dilliculty of

the easy text. The subjects who evaluated the test moderate, easy or very

easy constituted 94.5 percent in the control grroup and 78.9 percent in the

dictation group. The control group appears to have seen the text as slightly

easier than its counterpart. The result is consitent with their perfbrmance

in the recall test.

Table8 Evaluation for Difficult Text

verveeByeasymederated ±tficultverydiffieultmtssing

NlNlN,NtN,Nl

ContrelGN=3612.Boo411.12261.1925oo

ictatiDnGN=38

oo37.94le.51847.41334.2oe

-41-

Page 10: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

ve=very easy, e=easy, m=moderate, d=diflricult, vd=very diffricult

Figure 2 Evaluation for Difficult Text

Unlike the results for the easy text, the differences were not so

distinctive for the difficult text. However, 81.6% of the dictation group

evaluated the text difficult or very difficult while 86. 1% did so in the control

group (Table 8 and Figure 2). This appears to reflect the results of tiheir

perfbrmance in the recall test. In other words, the control group found it

slightly more difficult.

4 DISCUSSION

'Ilie

first finding was that the control group perfbrmed sigriificantly

better than the dictation group for the easy text. This would show the task

of dictation intembred with the subjects' comprehension process, possibly

indicating that the listeners could not perfbrm two mental processes at the

same time. This is consistent with Hale and Courtney (1994) who reported

that the subjects urged to take notes had perfbrmed signMcantly poorer

than those who just listened. However, fbr the difficult text, there was no

significant dilirerence between the groups. The mean score showed the

dictation group was slightly better than the control group. This result

contradicts the interpretation above. lf two mental processes intembred with

each other for the easier text, a similar result, or more signtacant difference

should have been obtained fbr the difflcult text which was supposed to

require more mental effbrts.

-

42

Page 11: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

There are tWo possible intexpretations for this reuslt. One is that the text

was too dillicult and dil]6erences disappeared. The other is that the dictation

group concentrated more on the cloze passage, and then might have read and

remembered the content. As reading the written text was an easier and

reliable means to understand the text, they might have stopped making

extra mental efEbrts to extract meaning from the listening.

If they had switched to reading the text to extract the meaning, why

wouldn't they have done so fbr the easy text? A possible answer would be

that they might have switched their appreach to comprehension of the text

at a certain point of listening. When they found they could not understand

the text only by listening to the text, they would have decided to read the

cloze passage, or to use any clues available around them fer extracting the

meaning. In other words, a 'trade

off took place between listening and

rea(img for obtaining the meaning.

For the easier text, however, they might have concluded they could

understand the text by Iistening. Consequently they would have tried

completing the cloze passages only by listening for the missing words

without using syntactic, semantic, or other kno'wledge. They would have

fi11ed in the blanks without excessive mental effbrts of guess work which

would require their background and linguistic knowledge. In other words,

they would have minimized their mental work fbr gap-fiIling mainly by using

bottom-up proce$sing, or depending on incoming acoustic information in

order to allow their mental energy for obtaining the meaning of the text by

listening. However, as they could not afford to have two mental processes,

they failed to comprehend the text so much as the control group. This

suggests learners intuitively use the approach which requires less effort

than the other. This is why the trade-off took place. AIso in their Iearning

process, Iearners may want to be independent or competent learners who

understand without using hints. TherefoTe, learning takes place when they

want more to be independent learners than to understand messages in any

way. This would be an important factor which promotes learning in

Ianguage teaching. In other words, the level of text would play an important

role in order for leaming to take place.

Another finding was that ehere was a sigriificant correlation between the

-43-

Page 12: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

dictation and recal1 test scores for the difficult text while no correlation was

obtained for the easy text. As their pretest scores sigriificantly correlated

with their recall tests fbr both texts, the recal1 tests seem to refiect their

listening comprehension. Accordingly, dictation scores appeared not to

reflect their comprehension at least fbr the easy text. Furthermore, although

a correlation was found between the scores fbr the dillicult text, it is dubious

if dictation seores really showed their listening comprehension fbr the

difficult text for the reason mentioned above.

About the text evaluation, the control group considered the easy text

more understandable than the dictation group. Such a tendency nearly

disappeared foT the diflicult text and the control group eonsidered the text

slightly more dithcult. These resul.ts reflect their recall test scores. Hence,

the subjects seem to have evaluated the difliculty according to how much

they could understand not only from listeningbut also from reading or using

other clues, This implies that listeners would evaluate the text difficulty by

watching whether their overall comprehension process functions elllciently.

As reading eomprehension seems to have been involved when the text was

teo {lifficult, it would be difficult to decide how much the listeners had

understood by listening.

The results of this experiment would be summarised by pointing out,

fiTstly, that dictation appeared to have hindered the subjects listening

comprehension at least while listening to the texts. Secondly, dictation did

not seem to pTedict their listening comprehension. Thirdly, the listeners

seemed to have used written passages as help only when they fbund the

texts were too diflicult. A possible explanation for the results is that

listeners could not afford to engage in two tasks at the same time, or in a

short period of time, especially when the two tasks were different in nature:

dictation taps the subjects' syntactic knowledge while message

comprehension activates their semantic knowledge (Conrad 1985). As they

concentrated more on extracting the meaning of the text and had few mental

resources for the other task, they only depended on the accoustic information

fbr gap-filling. This is why tihe dictation group perfbrmed more poorly than

the control group. On the other hand, for the difficult text, tlie dictation

group used their various knowledge to fill in the gaps when they 'traded

off

-44-

Page 13: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

listening against reading the cloze passage.

This is, hQwever, inconsistent with previous research which showed

dictation promoted listening comprehension. To find out a possible

explanatien, let us examine the previous research more closely. The previous

research done by Suenobu et al (1986), Yanagihara (1995) used dictation

after the subjects listened to the texts several times. For example, Suenobu

et al (1986) had their subjects Iisten to the text repeatedly until they

seemed to have reached a plateau at which point repeated exposure to

aceustic infbrmation no longer Ied to comprehension. In other woTds, they

seemed to have comprehended the text to some extent but to have had too

much information to build up any more meaningful recall. Then dictation

was introduced. Concentrating more on words, the listeners caught more

words. With werds newly picked up and written down, the subjects weuld

have synthesised them with what they had previously understood about the

text. This is to say, the listeners reviewed the words written down to build

up a new idea about the text. Thus, dictation may have helped the listeners

who reached a plateau to catch more words, which led them to a furtiher

understanding of the text. Therefore, dictation appeared to have promoted

listening comprehension, but it only helped the listeners to concentrate on

accoustic information by setting them free from building up the meaning of

the text. In other words, the listeners usedbottom-up processing in dictation,

and then used top-down processing on reviewing the words written. It was

only when the listeners read the words written down that they worked out

more meanings of the text. Other researchers sueh as Yanaihara (1995)used a similar procedure. This is consistent with the results of experiments

on note-taking (Annis & Davis 1975, Carter & Van Matre 1975). [Vheir

subjects perfomed signiliicantly poorly when they were urged to take notes

while listening. From the results, they concluded that listeners understood

messages not when writing down words, but when reviewing the words

written down.

5 CONCLUSION

The results obtained in this experiment were dili6erent flrom of the

previous research. Te conclude the article, let us Iook at the research

-45

Page 14: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

questlons:

1. Will there be any diiElrerence in the effects of dictation according to

the level of dlfficulty of the text?

2. Will there be any correlation between dictatien and reeall scores?

3. Will dictation promote listening comprehension?

About question 1, there was a signiflcant difEerence, but the difference was a

negative one. For the easy text, dictation interfered with listening

compTehension, or at least had on a negative efEect on recall test scores,

while ne signdieant effect was found for the difliLcult text. About the second

question, there was a singificant correlation for the difficult text, but no

correlation for the easy one. A possible interpretation is that the subjects

eould not afEbrd to engage in two mental processes simultaneously. Hence,

at least while listening to the text, dictation could not promote listening

comprehension. This is the answer to the third question.

The results show listeners do not seem to understand messages while

they are writing down words. As several researchers (Annis & Davis 1975,

Carter & Van Matre 1975) claim, listeners seem to understand messages

not when writing down words, but when reviewing the words written down.

It may be too early to decide that dictation is not a valid device of testing

listening comprehension. However, more caution should be taken when

employing it. At Ieast, when introducing listening texts, teachers should let

their students listen without imposing any excessive mental tasks on them

like dictation. This would give them more chance to understand messages.

Then, teachers can introduce dictation, if necessary, as Suenebu et al (1986)

did. Thus, the students can synthesise new words written down with what

they have understood. Consequently, this leads to a further understanding

of the text.

Several researchers, on the other hand, reported that dictation scores

correlated with overa]1 language achievement (Valette 1967, Oller 197I,

Oller et al 1974). This can be interpreted that their claim only shows it is

more possible that those who have understeod messages performed better in

dicttition. In other words, proficient Ianguage Iearners have more chance to

perform better in dictation, but not vice versa. Accordingly, to improve

dictation scores would not develop one's language proficieney ineludmg

46

Page 15: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

listeningcomprehension.

As the present study examined only a small aspect of dictation, the

results might be confined within the conditions employed here. To have

more understanding of dictation, this approach should be replicated under

the foIlowing conditions:

i. diffbrent text types (news, dialogues etc.)

ti. subjects of intermediate or advanced level

iii. ful1 transcriptions, phrase transcriptions

AIso, further research should be carried out to answer the following

questlons:

i. When would the listener ascertain that the Ievel of the text is beyond

his comprehension ability and start using hints available?

ii. What type of hints or information should be provided to promote

listening comprehension?

As teaching Iistening was once neglected, long used teaching techniques

such as dictation and comprehension questions have not been fully

examined. Further studies should be done to examine old techniques and to

find new insights fbr developing new ones.

References

Anis, L., & Davis, J.K. (1975}. "The effect of encoding and

an external mernory device on not taking" Journal of

Experimental Education, Vol 44: 44-46

Cartert J.F, & Van Matre, N.H. (197S>. "Note taking versus

not having" Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 67:

900-904

Conrad, L. (1985). "Semantic

Versus Syntactic Cues in

Listening Cornprehension" Studies in Second Language

Acquisition. Vol 7: 59-72

Davis, P. & Rinvolucri, M, {1988). "Dictation"

Cambridge:

Cambridge Univers ±ty Press

Hale, A.G. & Courtney, R. (1994). "The

Eftects oE Note-

Taking on Ustening CompTehension in the Test of English , as a Forelgn Language" Language Mesting. Vol 11. No. 1:

29-47

Henrichsen, L.E. (1984). "Sandhi-Variation:

A filter of .

input ior learners of ESL" Language Learning. Vol 34,

No 3: 55-88

--

47

Page 16: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

Hill, L.A..(1965). "Intermediate

Stories fer Reproduetion"

Oxford: Oxford University Pyess

----------- {1980). "Introductory Stories for Reproduction"

Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ito,H.{1984),"Dictation"in!ttl.s!gulLgg-l-p-E-gg-!-l-El},t Elsh

{Yoshida, K. eds.): 76-91 Tokyot Taishukan

Kakei, S., Suenobu, M., Nomat S.t Kanzaki, K. & Yamane, S.

{1979)."An Analysis of Perceptual Error" JACET Bulietin.

No 10: 1-19

Kellyr P. (1991). "Lexical

Ignorance: The main obstacle to

Listening Comprehension with Advanced Foreign Language

Learners" IRAL Vol 24, No 2: 13S-149

Kelch, K. (198S). "Medified

Input as an Aid to

Comprehension" Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

Vol 7: Bl-90

Oller, J,W. (1971). "Dictation

as a Device for Teaching

Foreign Language Proficiency" ELT Journal. Vol 25, No

3: 254-259

Oller, J.W., Irvine, P. & Atai, P. (1974). "Cloze,

Language Learning. Vol 24. No 2: 151-158

Postovsky, L. {1974), "Effects of Delay in Oral Practice at

the Beginning of Second Language Learning" Modern

Language Journal. Vol

'58: 229-239

Rivers, W.M. & Temperley. M.S. {1979). "A Practical Guide to

the Teaching of English" New York: Oxford University

Press

Savignon, S.J. (1982}. "Dictation as a Measure of

Comrnunicative Competence in French as a Second Language"

Language Learning. Vol 32. No 1: 33-51

Suenobu, M., Youngt R., Kanzakif K, & Yamane, S. {1982).

"An Analysis of Perceptual Error - Effeet of Learning and

Mechanism of Hearing" JACET Bulletin, Vol 13: 83-97

Suenobu, M., Kanzaki, K., Yamane, S. & Youngt R. {1986).

"Listening Comprehension and the Process of information

Aequisitien by Non-・native Speakers of English" IRAL.

Vol 24, No. 3: 239-248

Valette, R.M. {1967). "Modern

language Testing: A Handbook"

New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Yanagihara, Y. (1995). "A

Study of Teaching Metheds for

Developing English Listening Comprehension" Language

Laboratory. No 32: 73-B9

48

Page 17: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

!t!Rl!.e!!.!ta!m!d 1 cl Ttp*The eliminated words for the tests are shown in the

parentheses.

TL!h!g-ggEy-!!g2C!,eeastet

Many years ago, Wonder Air was ( A ) small,

very new company. It had { A ) little money and

its aeroplanes were ( VERY ) old. Mr. Black flew byWonder( AIR }once. That day, he went to( THE )airport, got on the Wonder Air ( AEROPLANE } and waited.

After a few minutes there was { A } lot of

noise, and then the ( CAPTAIN } came out and

shouted,'I'm not

{ GOING ) to take th ±s aeroplane upl One ( OF }the engines is broken, and ( THEY } aren't going to geta new(

ONE ).' The passengers got out, and then, ( AN } hour

later, an airhostess said,'The ( PLANE'S ) ready again

now,' The passengers walked ( PAST ) her to the

aeroplane again.

'Did

( YOU ) get a new engine?' Mr, Black

{ ASKED ) the air--hostess.

'No,

we got a{ NEW } captain,'she answered,

The difficult text

Two rich ladies were sharing a{ TAXI ) and talking

about the high cost ( OF ) going anywhere by taxi.

One of the ladies said,'Taxis { ARE ) terribly

expensive these days. The owners get { A ) lot of

money for nothing.'

'Yes,'

said the other lady,'and ( THE )drivers get such big tips that ( THEY ) soon become

rich. They ought to C BE } ashamed of themselves.'

One oi the ladies was smoking( A }cigarette. After a minute or two ( SHE } said te

the other lady,'Can

( YOU ) see an ashtray in thi$ taxi?

( THERE ) isn't one on my side.'

iNo,'

said the other,'there isn't ( ONE } on

this side either. Driver! Where ( IS ) the

ashtray in this taxi? Why ( DON'T ) you got one?'

The driver, who had heard everything ( THE }ladies had said, answered,'Oh, just { DROP ) the

-49-

Page 18: Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening

Language Education and Technology

NII-Electronic Library Service

LanguageEducation andTechnology

ashes on the

in and

( CLEANS

lt!Rl![g!!gi2LZtendx2

Tltghg-ggEjE-!g!!stet

carpet--I( HAVE )a

} three days in the weekt'

15 rdea Units for Each

servant who comes

Text

The

1. Wonder Air was small and new,

2. It had a little money.

3. The p!anes were old.

4. Mr. Black flew by Wonder Air.

5. He got on the planelwaited, 6. There was lots of noise.

7. The captain came out.

8. He shouted he was not go±nt to take the plane up.

9. one of the engine was borken.

10. They aren't goint to get a new one.

11. The passengers got out.

12, The airplane is ready an hour later,

13. The passengers got in the plane,

14. Black asked an airhostess if you had got a new

. englne,

15. We got a new captain.

diificult text

1. Two rich ladies were in a taxi.

2, They were talking about the expensive taxi fare.

3, The taxi owner get$ lots of money ior nothing.

4, The drivers get tips.

5. The drivers will become rich.

6. They ought to be ashamed oi themselves.

7. 0ne of the ladies was smoking.

8. She asked the other if there was an ashtray.

9, There is no ashtray on her side.

10. There is not any on the other side either.

11. She asked the driver where an ashtray was,

12. The driver heard what they had said.

13. The driver said to drop the ashes on the carpet.

14. The driver has a servant.

15. The servant cleans three days in the week.

- 50

NII-Electronic Mbrary