Developing a New Task to Measure Speech Perception Ability: Is the Word Count Task Valid and Reliable?

Toshihide O’ki
{"title":"Developing a New Task to Measure Speech Perception Ability: Is the Word Count Task Valid and Reliable?","authors":"Toshihide O’ki","doi":"10.20622/jltajournal.23.0_17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To become an advanced second language listener, a learner needs to have good speech perception ability. Previous research that focused on measuring this ability often utilized integrated-skills tasks (e.g., repetition tasks and dictation tasks), but their validity and reliability are questionable because learners’ productive skills affect their task performance. This study attempted to develop an original discrete-point task called the word count task, in which learners count and report the number of words in blanks. To evaluate the task’s validity and reliability, two comparable studies with dictation tasks were conducted with university students in Japan. The second study, which was revised based on the first study, revealed that the reliability coefficient of the word count task expressed by Cronbach’s (cid:302)(cid:3) reached .85, slightly exceeding the reliability of the dictation tasks. Moreover, correlations with dictation tasks were found to be significantly positive with moderate to strong relationships, meaning the word count task demonstrated sufficient criterion-related validity. Moreover, the listening strategy survey conducted to explore cognitive processes involved in the task showed that phonological processing is more dominant than meaning processing in the word count task. These findings seem to corroborate the applicability of the word count task to research and classroom assessment, but further research is necessary to reevaluate its validity using other methods mentioned in this study. The first study attempted to examine the validity and reliability of a prototype of word count task (WCT) and reveal how the task should be revised. As explained, there is no established task to measure speech perception ability; therefore, the validity of WCT was tested based on its relationship with a dictation task (DT). As already stated, DTs have shortcomings as a measure of speech perception ability, but due to their popularity in educational settings in Japan, using one is the best counterpart to the WCT.","PeriodicalId":249185,"journal":{"name":"JLTA Journal","volume":"306 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JLTA Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20622/jltajournal.23.0_17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To become an advanced second language listener, a learner needs to have good speech perception ability. Previous research that focused on measuring this ability often utilized integrated-skills tasks (e.g., repetition tasks and dictation tasks), but their validity and reliability are questionable because learners’ productive skills affect their task performance. This study attempted to develop an original discrete-point task called the word count task, in which learners count and report the number of words in blanks. To evaluate the task’s validity and reliability, two comparable studies with dictation tasks were conducted with university students in Japan. The second study, which was revised based on the first study, revealed that the reliability coefficient of the word count task expressed by Cronbach’s (cid:302)(cid:3) reached .85, slightly exceeding the reliability of the dictation tasks. Moreover, correlations with dictation tasks were found to be significantly positive with moderate to strong relationships, meaning the word count task demonstrated sufficient criterion-related validity. Moreover, the listening strategy survey conducted to explore cognitive processes involved in the task showed that phonological processing is more dominant than meaning processing in the word count task. These findings seem to corroborate the applicability of the word count task to research and classroom assessment, but further research is necessary to reevaluate its validity using other methods mentioned in this study. The first study attempted to examine the validity and reliability of a prototype of word count task (WCT) and reveal how the task should be revised. As explained, there is no established task to measure speech perception ability; therefore, the validity of WCT was tested based on its relationship with a dictation task (DT). As already stated, DTs have shortcomings as a measure of speech perception ability, but due to their popularity in educational settings in Japan, using one is the best counterpart to the WCT.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开发一种测量语音感知能力的新任务:字数统计任务有效可靠吗?
要成为一名高级的第二语言倾听者,学习者需要有良好的言语感知能力。先前的研究主要关注于测量这种能力,通常使用综合技能任务(例如,重复任务和听写任务),但它们的有效性和可靠性值得怀疑,因为学习者的生产技能会影响他们的任务表现。本研究试图开发一个原始的离散点任务,称为单词计数任务,在该任务中,学习者计数并报告空白中的单词数量。为了评估任务的效度和信度,我们对日本大学生进行了两项具有可比性的听写任务研究。第二项研究在第一项研究的基础上进行了修正,发现克朗巴赫(cid:302)(cid:3)表达的单词计数任务的信度系数达到了0.85,略高于听写任务的信度。此外,与听写任务的相关性被发现是显著的正相关,具有中等到强烈的关系,这意味着单词计数任务显示出足够的标准相关效度。此外,听力策略调查显示,在单词计数任务中,语音加工比意义加工更占优势。这些发现似乎证实了单词计数任务在研究和课堂评估中的适用性,但需要进一步的研究来重新评估其有效性,并使用本研究中提到的其他方法。第一项研究试图检验字数统计任务(WCT)原型的效度和信度,并揭示该任务应该如何修改。如上所述,没有既定的任务来测量语音感知能力;因此,基于其与听写任务(DT)的关系,测试了WCT的有效性。如前所述,DTs作为语言感知能力的测量有缺点,但由于它们在日本教育环境中的普及,使用DTs是WCT的最佳对应物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
AIを活用した英文ライティング自動評価採点システムのスコア予測精度の検証 Developing a New Task to Measure Speech Perception Ability: Is the Word Count Task Valid and Reliable? Assessing Functional Adequacy Using Picture Description Tasks in Classroom-Based L2 Speaking Assessment Evaluating Language Assessments From an Ethics Perspective: Suggestions for a New Agenda General correspondence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1