Notetaking as validity evidence: A mixed-methods investigation of question preview in EAP listening assessment

IF 3.1 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of English for Academic Purposes Pub Date : 2024-01-29 DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101346
Rebecca Yeager , GoMee Park , Ray J.T. Liao
{"title":"Notetaking as validity evidence: A mixed-methods investigation of question preview in EAP listening assessment","authors":"Rebecca Yeager ,&nbsp;GoMee Park ,&nbsp;Ray J.T. Liao","doi":"10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recent scholarship has questioned the cognitive validity of listening tests with preview, in which test-takers can see test questions before listening. This study mined student notes for evidence of cognitive processes in listening tests with and without preview, using a mixed-methods design that explored the effect of test format on notetaking behaviors. Qualitative analysis indicated that students who previewed items were more likely to systematically omit information, highlight previewed keywords, and engage in shallower structural representation. Conversely, Kruskal-Wallis tests revealed that students who listened without preview took more notes, especially of main ideas and details, and had better coverage of the lecture. However, correlation and hierarchical linear regression analyses found these notetaking achievements did not predict higher scores in the no-preview condition, while in the preview condition, only note quantity and focus on minor ideas predicted scores. Both strands of data suggest that students' cognitive processes were shaped by the format of the exam they experienced. These findings may bear on validity arguments for listening assessment and inform the way that language instructors prepare their students for academic listening.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of English for Academic Purposes","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158524000146","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent scholarship has questioned the cognitive validity of listening tests with preview, in which test-takers can see test questions before listening. This study mined student notes for evidence of cognitive processes in listening tests with and without preview, using a mixed-methods design that explored the effect of test format on notetaking behaviors. Qualitative analysis indicated that students who previewed items were more likely to systematically omit information, highlight previewed keywords, and engage in shallower structural representation. Conversely, Kruskal-Wallis tests revealed that students who listened without preview took more notes, especially of main ideas and details, and had better coverage of the lecture. However, correlation and hierarchical linear regression analyses found these notetaking achievements did not predict higher scores in the no-preview condition, while in the preview condition, only note quantity and focus on minor ideas predicted scores. Both strands of data suggest that students' cognitive processes were shaped by the format of the exam they experienced. These findings may bear on validity arguments for listening assessment and inform the way that language instructors prepare their students for academic listening.

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
记笔记作为有效性证据:EAP 听力评估中问题预览的混合方法调查
最近有学者对带有预览功能的听力测试的认知有效性提出了质疑,因为在这种测试中,考生可以在听之前看到测试题。本研究采用混合方法设计,探讨了测试形式对记笔记行为的影响,从而挖掘了学生在有预览和无预览听力测试中的认知过程。定性分析显示,预览题目的学生更有可能系统性地省略信息、突出关键词,以及进行较浅的结构表征。相反,Kruskal-Wallis 检验表明,不做预览的学生做的笔记更多,尤其是主要观点和细节,对讲座的覆盖面也更广。然而,相关分析和分层线性回归分析发现,在无预览条件下,这些笔记成绩并不能预测更高的分数,而在预览条件下,只有笔记数量和对次要观点的关注能预测分数。这两组数据都表明,学生的认知过程是由他们所经历的考试形式决定的。这些发现可能会对听力评估的有效性产生影响,并为语言教师如何帮助学生准备学术听力提供参考。
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
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
81
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of English for Academic Purposes provides a forum for the dissemination of information and views which enables practitioners of and researchers in EAP to keep current with developments in their field and to contribute to its continued updating. JEAP publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges in the linguistic, sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic description of English as it occurs in the contexts of academic study and scholarly exchange itself.
期刊最新文献
Noun phrase complexity in English integrated writing placement test responses Developing advanced citation skills: A mixed-methods approach to corpus technology training for novice researchers Writing a successful applied linguistics conference abstract: The relationship between stylistic and linguistic features and raters’ evaluations From words to senses: A sense-based approach to quantitative polysemy detection across disciplines Developing a genre-based research article reading module for undergraduate students
×
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