Listening Comprehension and Listening Effort in the Primary School Classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the primary school classroom, children are exposed to multiple factors that combine to create adverse conditions for listening to and understanding what the teacher is saying. Despite the ubiquity of these conditions, there is little knowledge concerning the way in which various factors combine to influence listening comprehension and the effortfulness of listening. The aim of the present study was to investigate the combined effects of background noise, voice quality, and visual cues on children's listening comprehension and effort. To achieve this aim, we performed a set of four well-controlled, yet ecologically valid, experiments with 245 eight-year-old participants. Classroom listening conditions were simulated using a digitally animated talker with a dysphonic (hoarse) voice and background babble noise composed of several children talking. Results show that even low levels of babble noise interfere with listening comprehension, and there was some evidence that this effect was reduced by seeing the talker's face. Dysphonia did not significantly reduce listening comprehension scores, but it was considered unpleasant and made listening seem difficult, probably by reducing motivation to listen. We found some evidence that listening comprehension performance under adverse conditions is positively associated with individual differences in executive function. Overall, these results suggest that multiple factors combine to influence listening comprehension and effort for child listeners in the primary school classroom. The constellation of these room, talker, modality, and listener factors should be taken into account in the planning and design of educational and learning activities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".