Dictation Listening Comprehension Dictation Promote Listening
Transcript of 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-
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-
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 ----
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-
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
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 --
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-
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
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-
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
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-
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-
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
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
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
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
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-
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