A Longitudinal Study of Listening Perception in Adult Learners of English: Implications for Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This study is intended to help ESL (English as a second language) instructors make evidence-based decisions based on second language (L2) listening-development findings when selecting features for pronunciation instruction. In a longitudinal study of listening perception, we examined five common problems to determine which were most likely to improve in the absence of explicit instruction and which ones did not improve over time. Twenty Mandarin and 20 Slavic language speakers completed 5 tasks at 2-month intervals over a period of 10 months; we measured their listening perception of word stress, sentence stress, intonation, can/can’t, and -teen/-ty number distinctions. We also compared the participants’ scores at the final testing time to native speaker scores on the same tests. The L2 learners’ perceptions of sentence stress, intonation, and -teen/-ty number distinctions improved while their perceptions of word stress and can/can’t did not. When the L2 speakers’ performance on the tests at the 10-month point was compared to that of the native speakers, there were no significant differences for word stress, intonation, and -teen/-ty number distinctions. However, the native speakers significantly outperformed the Slavic speakers on sentence stress and outperformed both the Slavic and Mandarin speakers on can/can’t distinctions. Implications for pronunciation teaching within general adult ESL classes are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".