Second and Foreign Language Listening: Unraveling the Construct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying the variables which contribute to second and foreign language (L2) listening ability can provide a better understanding of the listening construct. This study explored the degree to which first language (L1) listening ability, L2 proficiency, motivation and metacognition contribute to L2 listening comprehension. 115 Persian-speaking English as a Foreign Language (EFL) university students completed a motivation questionnaire, the Language Learning Motivation Orientation Scale, a listening questionnaire, the Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire, and an English-language proficiency measure, as well as listening tests in English and Persian. Scores from all measures were subjected to descriptive, inferential, and correlational analyses. The results support the hypothesis that variability in L2 listening cannot be explained by either L2 proficiency or L1 listening ability; rather, a cluster of variables including L2 proficiency, L1 listening ability, metacognitive knowledge and motivation orientations can better explain variability in L2 listening ability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".