L2 Listening Comprehension: Is it a Language Problem or Listening Problem?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a foreign language environment, students typically have limited exposure to the language outside formal classrooms. Therefore, their ability to comprehend spoken English may be limited. To add to this problem, L2 learners often regard listening as the most difficult language skill to learn. On the other hand, it is noticeable that L2 listening remains the least researched of all four language skills. Accordingly, the present study is based on the commonly believed premises that (1) investigating the listening comprehension process can provide useful insights into teaching listening and (2) learners who learn to control their listening process can enhance their comprehension, and their overall proficiency may be highly developed.The present study reports on the results of an empirical study on forty-six L2 learners of English. The subjects were equally divided into two groups. The first group (N=23) represents first year students (Beginners) in the Department of English at the Faculty of Education, Menufia University, Egypt. The second group (N=23) represents fourth year students (Advanced) in the same department. The major question that this study attempts to answer is “whether listening comprehension a language problem or listening problem?” The instruments of this study consist of five tasks: pre-test, questionnaire, classroom instruction sessions, post-test, and interviews. The data analysis had a quantitative and a qualitative part. Results were obtained and conclusions were made.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it