Extensive Listening in ESP: An Experiment in the Course of “English for Tourism 2” at Dalat University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the results of an experimental study on the practice of extensive listening strategy (EL) for the third-year students at the Faculty of Tourism, Dalat University, when studying the course of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) “English for Tourism 2”. The students of the experimental group spent eight weeks conducting searching listening materials, listening outside the classroom independently and with their team, taking weekly listening tests designed by other teams before taking the final listening test; the results of which would be used to compare with the English listening results of the control group performing traditional listening practice activities. The results of the final listening test, survey and interview responses revealed a statistically significant positive correlation between the application of EL during the course period with the English listening competence of the students, researchers also investigated the perception of these students about the application of this listening strategy. This study implies improvements in the design for future implementations of EL, including the length of practising EL activities and the enhancement of students participation in these listening activities Keywords English for Specific Purposes (ESP); Extensive listening (EL); Listening skills References 1. Bruce, I., Introduction to EAP: Key issues and concepts, in Theory and concepts of English for academic purposes2011, Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire, UK. p. 3-14.2. Field, J., Special issue: Listening in EAP. Journal of English for academic purposes, 2011. 10(2): p. 73-78.3. Beall, M.L., et al., State of the context: Listening in education. International journal of listening, 2008. 22: p. 123-132.4. Bommelje, R., J.M. Houston, and R. Smither, Personality characteristics of effective listeners: A five factor perspective. International Journal of Listening, 2003. 17: p. 32-46.5. Conaway, M.S., Listening: Learning tool and retention agent., in Improving reading and study skills, A.S. Algier and K.W. Algier, Editors. 1982, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA. p. 51-63.6. Ridgway, T., Listening strategies - I beg your pardon? ELT Journal, 2000. 54(2): p. 179-185.7. Brown, S., Teaching listening2006, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.8. Ediger, M., Listening in the integrated curriculum. Reading Improvement, 2012. 49(1): p. 3-5.9. Richards, J.C. and R. Schmidt, Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. 3rd ed2002, Harlow, England: Pearson Education Ltd.10. Bruce, I., The EAP and teaching the listening skill, in Theory and concepts of English for academic purposes2011, Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire, UK. p. 154-176.11. Flowerdew, J. and L. Miller, in Second language Listening: Theory an practice2005, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England.12. Harmer, J., Listening., in The practice of English language teaching2007, Pearson Education: Essex, England. p. 303-322.13. Thiele, A. and G. Scheibner-Herzig, Listening comprehension training in teaching english to beginners. System, 1983. 11(3): p. 277-286.14. Chang, A.C.S., Gains to L2 listeners from reading while listening vs. listening only in comprehending short stories. System, 2009. 37(4): p. 652-663.15. Brett, P., A comparative study of the effects of the use of multimedia on listening comprehension. System, 1997. 25(1): p. 39-53.16. Brown, R., Extensive listening in English as a foreign language. Language Teacher, 2007. 31: p. 15.17. Ferrato, T. and M. White, Ring the bell - It's time for EL! ETJ Journal, 2009. 20: p. 20-21.18. Siegel, J., Thoughts on L2 listening pedagogy. ELT Journal, 2011. 65(3): p. 318-321.19. Harmer, J., Teaching language skills., in The practice of English language teaching2007, Pearson Education: Essex, England. p. 265-282.20. Mayora, C.A., Extensive listening in a Colombian university: Process, product, and perceptions. HOW, 2017. 24(1): p. 101-121.21. Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison, Tests., in Research methods in education2011, Routledge: Oxon, England. p. 476-495.22. Richards, J.C., Listening Comprehension: Approach, Design, Procedure. TESOL quarterly, 1983. 17(2): p. 219-240.23. Foddy, W. and W.H. Foddy, Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires: Theory and practice in social research1994: Cambridge university press.24. Kiany, G.R. and E. Shiramiry, The effect of frequent dictation on the listening comprehension ability of elementary EFL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 2002. 20(1): p. 57-63.25. Harding, K. and P. Henderson, High Season2000, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.26. Walker, R. and K. Harding, in Tourism 12006, Oxford University Press: Oxford, England. p. 93.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".