The FL receptive skills: Same or different?

System, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 327-336, 1988 0346-251X/88 $3.00 + 0.00 Printed in Great Britain ¢3 1988 Pergamon Prcss plc

THE FL RECEPTIVE SKILLS: SAME OR DIFFERENT?

THEA REVES and ADINA LEVINE

Department of English, Bar-llan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

The study was aimed at presenting empirical evidence for the relationship between reading and listening comprehension in the FL. The hypothesis, based on the consensus reached in the "unitary competence hypothesis debate", is that the two receptive skills are both similar to and different from each other. They may both be composed of a unitary skill-factor as well as of various sub-skills; they may differ in the relationship of these composite parts to one another. The issue of similarity or difference may have major implications in language learning and language teaching.

Sixty-eight social science students enrolled in EFL reading courses served as subjects. Courses were conducted in LI; listening was not practised. Regular tests in reading and in listening in the FL were administered: they were based on the specific sub-skills studied in the reading course.

Data analysis included correlation of test scores, gain scores and multiple regression analysis.

Findings indicate that sub-skills of the two receptive skills are similar. They suggest, however, that listening is a more integrated skill, in which sub-skills tend to cumulatively contribute to holistic comprehension of the message.

The aim of the present study was to present empirical evidence that would throw some light on the relationship between reading and listening comprehension.

The rationale of the study was based on the debate as to whether language ability is unitary or divisible. The unitary linguistic competence hypothesis was most extensively presented by Oiler (1983) who claimed the existence of a single general factor underlying all language skills. The divisibility hypothesis, on the other hand, was based on the claim that language proficiency consists of separate components or aspects of them (Bachman and Palmer, 1983).

In spite of a great deal of research and discussion that has been devoted to support either of the two opposing hypotheses, no clear-cut decision in favour of one or the other position has been made.

What has been suggested as a possible consensus (Canale, 1983; Palmer, 1983; Vollmer and Sang, 1983) seems to be a compromise between the two opposing views, namely that language proficiency most probably consists of a general factor as well as of multiple contributing factors

327

328 THEA REVES and ADINA LEVINE

(Oiler, 1983). Accordingly, language processing is a category of performance based upon the underlying facts of competence and, as such, it is both observable and measurable.

With reference to the receptive skills of discourse processing (reading and listening), the question arises to what extent they are similar or different.

Researchers in the field of reading and listening identified certain general similarities between the two processes (Alderson and Urquhart, 1984; Richards, 1983).

(1) Both reading and listening comprehension involve the perception and interpretation of discourse.

(2) Both reading and listening require interactive work and active participation of the comprehender who must possess overall language competence as well as background knowledge and draw upon them in order to decode the message.

The issue of differences between reading and listening was raised by Widdowson (1984); he claimed that although both listening to a lecture and reading an article are activities of a "non- reciprocal kind", the difference between them lies in the permanent nature of written texts enabling the reader to refer back to the text in order to consolidate or change the frames of reference which define his own conceptions.

A further question to be asked, then, is whether the two receptive processes consist of the same or of different sets of activities; in other words, can the proficiencies (skills) underlying reading and listening be sub-divided into process components (sub-skills)?

In an attempt to analyze reading/listening into a series of sub-skills, researchers have drawn up different taxonomies varying in content from three to 36 (Lunzer and Gardner, 1979; Richards, 1983). These sub-skills include, among others, the ability to understand the main idea as well as details or facts; the ability to identify the relationships among units within discourse, to make inferences, to evaluate the purpose and scope of the discourse etc. There is, however, an obvious need for further empirical research which would investigate the issue of the similarities and differences between the two receptive skills. It would be important to clarify the question of divisibility of the receptive processes into process components (sub-skills) and to determine the relationships among the components, on the one hand, as well as their relationship to the common proficiency factor, on the other.

The hypothesis underlying the present study is modelled upon the emerging consensus related to the debate on the components of general language proficiency. We hypothesise that the receptive skills of reading and listening are in certain respects both similar to and different from each other. Their similarity may lie in their being composed of a unitary skill factor on the one hand, and various process components (sub-skills) on the other. The difference between them may lie in the relationship of the composite parts hypothesised above.

Accordingly, the following research question was posed at the outset of the study:

To what extent can the two receptive skills, reading and listening, be considered similar or different, with regard to

THE FL RECEPTIVE SKILLS: SAME OR DIFFERENT? 329

(a) the relationship between the respective sub-skills in each of them;

(b) the relationship between the sub-skills and the unitary skill factor underlying each of them?

The answer to the question may have major implications in language learning and language teaching. Can the mastery of sub-skills in one receptive skill help the learner to acquire mastery in the other? Would instruction in one of the receptive skills enable the learner to apply the sub-skills in the other (Rivers, 1972)?

PROCEDURE

Sixty-eight first year students majoring in various social sciences, enrolled in EFL courses at Bar-Ilan University, served as subjects of the study. The aim of the EFL courses is to provide instruction in various reading skills and to help the students to develop individual reading strategies, that would enable them to cope with academic reading in English.

The curriculum of the course includes training in such sub-skills as the identification of purpose and topic of texts, the identification of logical relationships among units within discourse, recognition and interpretation of cohesive devices and coherence rules, deducing word meaning from context, etc.

In order to avoid massive exposure to the spoken variety of the target language (English), the instruction in the FL reading skills for the groups participating in the study was purposefully conducted in L I (Hebrew). The regu!ar reading course is a four-hour-per-week course, administered during the period of two semesters. The experimental study was limited to the first four months of the academic year.

Diagnostic tests testing overall comprehension in reading and in listening were administered at the beginning of the academic year. The same tests were administered again -- as post-tests -- at the end of the experimental period, in order to serve as indicators of achievement in overall comprehension in both modalities.

Parallel to regular progress tests in reading comprehension, each given after the completion of a unit of studies, listening comprehension tests were administered in the language laboratory. The listening comprehension tests were each based on the specific sub-skill studied and tested in the reading comprehension class. The tests were given in the following order:

(1) recognition of key-lexical items and deduction of word meaning;

(2) recognition of general statements and illustrative support;

(3) recognition of relationships of comparison and contrast;

(4) recognition of logical relationships of cause/effect.


The subject matter of reading and of listening comprehension tests was of a general character. Different texts, however, were chosen for each test type, in order to eliminate the biasing effect of transfer of background knowledge from one modality to the other.

The texts and the questions of both the reading and the listening tests were controlled for their level of difficulty: three independent judges, experienced teachers of EFL, were given three texts and their related questions for each task. They ranked each text and questions on a scale of difficulty; the same level of difficulty was chosen for each of the parallel tests.

The listening tests were "listenable" (Rubin and Rafoth, in press), i.e. authentic in the orality of their language; they were not written articles read out aloud, but live recordings of authentic lecturettes, carrying all the characteristics of planned spoken language.

After having listened to the lecture the subjects had to answer ten questions worded in English; this was a paper-penci l test. The questions were partly multiple-choice and partly open-ended questions; the subjects were allowed to answer the open-ended questions in L1 (Hebrew) or FL (English). The scoring of the tests was done by independent raters.

(1)

(2)

(3)

METHOD OF DATA ANALYSIS

Gain scores in both reading and listening were computed, to find out if and to what extent there was progress in reading comprehension and/or listening comprehension during the four-month period of study.

The scores on tests testing the various skills in reading were correlated with the scores on the tests testing the same skills in listening, in order to see if and to what extent each of the reading skills might be considered a single predictor of the respective listening skill.

The final score of listening comprehension, as dependent (criterion) variable, was submitted to a multiple regression analysis, to find out the degree of relationship between the criterion variable on the one hand, and all the tests in reading and listening as predictor variables, on the other.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

1. M e a n scores

As can be seen in Tables l(a and b), the mean scores and the standard deviations of the tests in various sub-skills in reading comprehension are different from those in listening comprehension. While in reading the mean scores are higher, ranging from 5.57 ("Lexical Items and Word- Meaning Deduction") to 7.75 ("Comparison and Contrast"), with the median SD 2.01, in listening the mean scores are lower; they range from 4.66 ("Lexical Items and Word-Meaning Deduction") to 6.95 ("Cause-Effec t Relationships") with the median SD 2.15. In other words, students performed better when tested on the individual sub-skills in the modality in which they received instruction and practice in the classroom (reading), It can be noted that no gradual


improvement f rom test to test can be seen in reading while there is a regular, gradual improvement

in l istening.

Table l(a). Means and standard deviations of tests in reading * t

Test x SD n

R Pre 6.56 2.03 68 R Lex 5.57 2,99 67 R CC 7.75 2,03 68 R GI 7.63 1.89 67 R CE 6.33 1,99 66 R Post 6.46 1.55 68

* The following abbreviations are used in this and all the tables below: R Lex, Lexical Items and Words Meaning Deduction in Reading; R CC, Comparison and Contrast in Reading; R GI, General Statement and Illustrative Support in Reading; R CE, Cause-Effect Relationships in Reading; L Lex, Lexical Items and Words Meaning Deduction in Listening; L CC, Comparison and Contrast in Listening; L GI, General Statement and Illustrative Support in Listening; L CE, Cause-Effect Relationships in Listening.

t The significance level of all the correlations was P < 0.001

Table l(b). Means and standard deviations of tests in listening

Test x SD n

L Pre 4,54 2.01 67 L Lex 4.66 2.05 65 L CC 6.40 2.05 68 L GI 6.56 2.43 68 L CE 6.95 2.35 60 L Post 6.00 2.01 59

2. Gain scores

The Gain Scores , express ing the overal l progress made in reading and in l istening throughout

the four -month per iod o f the exper imenta l project , are displayed in Table 2. In overal l reading

comprehens ion no progress was made ( - 0 . 1 0 ) (on a 10-point scale).

It should be noted that the first four months o f the reading course aim at provid ing the students

with specif ic reading sub-skills. Overa l l reading comprehens ion is emphas ized in the second

ha l f o f the course when signif icant improvemen t in global comprehens ion could be expected in a cumula t ive way.

In listening, however , the gain was rather impressive ( + 1,45); the students seem to have processed

the text l is tened to in a holist ic manner , in spite o f the fact that the source of indirect input

was the instruct ion in discrete reading sub-skills.

Table 2. Gain scores

Reading Listening

x SD x SD

-0.10 1.9 + 1.45 1.87

332 T H E A REVES and A D I N A L E V I N E

3. Correlations between scores on pre-tests and post-tests in reading and in listening As can be seen in Table 3, whi le the corre la t ion be tween the scores on the pre- and post-tests

in reading was rather modes t (0.42), it was h igher in l is tening (0.75). Mos t students who

pe r fo rmed better on the pre-test in l istening, ach ieved better results also on the l istening post-

test; a different picture emerges , however , f rom the tests in the reading modal i ty .

Table 3. Correlations between scores on pre-tests and post-tests in reading and in listening

R Pre R Post L Pre L Post

R Pre -- 0.42 0.45 0.33 R Post -- 0.51 0.59 L Pre -- 0.75 L Post

4. Correlations between scores on tests in sub-skills in reading and in listening Tables 4 and 5 display the d i f ferences which can be noticed be tween the corre la t ions among

the scores on tests o f var ious sub-skil ls in reading (ranging f rom 0.23 to 0.57) as opposed to

those in l is tening (ranging f rom 0 .60 to 0.83),

The na r rower range in the scores on the l istening tests indicates that the different iat ion among

the sub-skills in l is tening comprehens ion is weaker .

Table 4. Correlations between scores of various skills in reading

R Lex R CC RG1 RCE

R Lex -- 0.41 0.48 0.23 R CC -- 0.57 0.49 R GI - - 0.48 R C E

Table 5. Correlations between scores of various skills in listening

L Lex L CC LGI L CE

L Lex -- 0.60 0.64 0.70 L CC -- 0.83 0.65 L GI -- 0.67 L CE

5. Correlations between scores on tests o f sub-skills and scores on post-tests o f overall comprehension Table 6 displays the corre la t ions be tween the scores on the tests of the sub-skills and the scores

on the post-test o f overall comprehension both in reading and in listening. The range of correlations

in reading is rather wide ( f rom 0.28 to 0.66) , while that in l istening is na r rower (from 0.42

to 0.53). In o ther words , the sub-skills in l is tening seem to be more related to one another in

the predict ion o f overal l comprehens ion .

THE FL RECEPTIVE SKILLS: SAME OR DIFFERENT?

Table 6. Correlations between scores on tests of various sub-skills and scores on post-tests: reading and listening

333

R Lex R CC R GI R CE L Lex L CC L GI L CE

R Post 0.66 0.43 0.38 0.28 L Post 0.42 0.47 0.50 0.53

A noticeable difference was also found in the correlations between individual variables and the post-tests. While in reading the correlation between the scores on the lexical test and the post- test is the highest (0.66), in listening the correlation between the scores on the lexical test and the post-test is the lowest (0.42). The recognition of individual lexical items in reading is more closely related to overall comprehension than in listening.

Another striking difference can be seen between the scores on recognizing cause-effect relationships, on the one hand, and the post-tests on the other. Whereas this correlation was the lowest in reading (0.28), it was the highest in listening (0.53). Thus, in listening the recognition of causal relationships seems to be more closely related to overall comprehension than in reading.

6. Correlations between scores on tests o f various sub-skills in the two modalities The correlations between the scores on tests in various sub-skills in the two modalities, reading and listening, are presented in Table 7. These correlations, range from 0.23 to 0.72. Low correlation was found only between recognition of cause and effect relationships in reading and the same sub-skill in listening.

Table 7. Correlations between scores on tests of various skills in reading and listening

L Lex L CC L GI L CE

R Lex 0.44 0.63 0.67 0.37 R CC 0.52 0.63 0.72 0.43 R GI 0.39 0.46 0.65 0.48 R CE 0.48 0.52 0.53 0.93

7. Multiple regression analysis: overall listening comprehension While significant correlations were found between the individual sub-skills in reading and those in listening in the single prediction, in the multiple regression the picture is different. As can be seen in Table 8, the multiple prediction of the final post-test in overall listening comprehension indicates that in the cumulative analysis the only statistically significant variables predicting listening comprehension are the pre-test in listening (0.60) and the post-test in reading (0.53).

Table 8. Multiple regression analysis: dependent variable L Post

Variable B value Prob > F

L Pre 0.60 0.0001 R Pre -0.05 0.71 R V 0.09 0.51 R GI 0.03 0.77 R CC -0.11 0.38 R CE 0.08 0.49 R Post 0.53 0.001 L Lex -0.15 0.25

R 2 = 0.67,


The former expresses the integrated overall listening comprehension before the interference of any input in reading, while the latter expresses the integrated overall reading comprehension, the sum total of all the input in reading including all the specific sub-skills instructed and practised throughout the four-month period of the experimental project.

DISCUSSION

The data from this experiment provide tentative answers to the research questions. The results demonstrate both similarities and differences between the two receptive skills. Regarding the sub-skills presumably composing the skills of reading and listening, the findings of the present study suggest that the sub-skills of the reading comprehension process are to some extent similar to those of the process of listening comprehension. The relatively high correlations found between most of the sub-skills of the two receptive skills support this suggestion.

There is, however, evidence to a major difference between the receptive skills of listening and reading. The lower results of tests on specific sub-skills in listening than in reading suggest that, differently from the reader, the listener does not concentrate on separate discourse units, the location of which requires the use of specific sub-skills. He rather attempts to get a more general impression of the message on the basis of his expectations.

Although the test scores in listening were lower than those in reading, there was a regular, gradual improvement from test to test in listening. The improvement is also seen in the gain score of overall listening comprehension. These findings may suggest that the skill of listening is a more integrated skill, in which the sub-skills are less discrete; they rather tend to cumulatively contribute to a holistic comprehension of the message.

Another indication of the less divisible character of the skill of listening than that of reading is given by the correlations between scores on the pre- and post-tests of overall comprehension in each modality. The narrow range of correlations found in listening can be accounted for by the global character of the listening process. On the other hand, the rather wide range of correlations between scores on tests of respective sub-skills and overall comprehension in reading might imply that reading is a more divisible skill, or in other words, a more compartmentalized activity. Furthermore, the results show that in listening the sub-skill least related to overall comprehension is the recognition of lexical items. This seems to indicate that in the listening process the individual unfamiliar lexical item may be ignored and yet, the general message retrieved. This, however, does not seem to be the case in reading, where the correlation between scores on the lexical test and on overall comprehension is the highest. One likely explanation for this may be found in the permanent character of written discourse which offers the reader an opportunity to pace himself according to the demands of the text, to refer back to individual text items in order to decode the message. The same, however, cannot be done in listening, in which the individual lexical items or parts of them may get lost in the stream of speech.

A similar view is held by Brown and Yule (1983), who claim that the listener does not process every word from the speech he hears, but negotiates a reasonable interpretation of the speaker's intention. Listening is paced by the speaker, so that in his processing of spoken discourse the listener is dependent on his echoic memory (Rivers, 1972), as well as on the speaker's choice of emphasis. Another finding pointing to the less divisible character of listening is the fact that


in listening, recognition of cause -e f fec t relationships proved to be a much stronger predictor of overall comprehension than in reading. This may perhaps be interpreted by the assumption that while the reader of a written text scans it for specific cohesion markers in order to decode the message, the listener has to grasp the overall message rather by capturing the elements of coherence which are less explicit and so have to be inferred. In this process the listener is assisted by factors determining the orality of spoken discourse, such as simpler sentence structure, redundancy, repetition of important elements, highlighting of the speaker's point of view by psychological hedges and various intonation patterns (Rubin and Rafoth, in press).

Further evidence for the suggestion that listening is a more holistic skill than reading, is provided by the fact that in the cumulative analysis the individual sub-skills were not statistically significant predictors of overall listening comprehension. While the single correlations between scores on the individual sub-skill tests in the two modalities indicated a strong relationship between the respective individual sub-skills, the same sub-skills were not significant predictors of overall listening comprehension. The only significant predictors of overall listening comprehension were the pre-test in listening and the post-test in reading, both of which were tests of global comprehension.

In view of all the findings presented above, we are tempted to conclude that listening is a more integrated, less divisible skill, in which the unitary skill factor is more dominant than the composite parts of the skill.

The conclusions drawn above raise the question of implications regarding language learning and language teaching. As can be inferred from their statistical relationship, the mastery of specific reading sub-skills may affect the mastery of the same discrete sub-skills in listening comprehension. Overall listening comprehension, however, being of a more integrated character, will probably be affected only by a more general, overall reading comprehension ability. In terms of FL instruction, this means that a general development of listening comprehension ability should not be expected as a transfer from the teaching of specific reading sub-skills. Listening comprehension has to be taught and practised.

While the present study aimed only at providing some empirical evidence for the similarities and differences between the two receptive skills, the more theoretical question regarding the core of those differences remains to be answered by further research.

REFERENCES

ALDERSON, Ch. J. and URQUHART, A. H. (1984) Introduction: what is reading? In Alderson Ch. J. and Urquhart A. H. (eds), Reading in a Foreign Language, pp. XVI-XXVIII. London: Longman BACHMAN, L. F. and PALMER, A. S. (1983) The construct validity of the FSI oral interview. In Oiler, J. W., Jr (ed.), Issues in Language Teaching and Research, pp. 133-153. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. BROWN, G. and YULE, G. (1983) Teaching and Spoken Language: an Approach Based on the Analysis of Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CANALE, M. (1983) On some dimensions of language proficiency. In Oller, J. W., Jr (ed.), Issues in Language Testing Research, pp. 333-342. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. LUNZER, E. and GARDNER, K. (eds) (1979) The Effeetive Use of Reading. London: Heinemann. OLLER, J.W., Jr (1983) Evidence for a general language proficiency factor: an expectancy grammar. In Oiler, J. W., Jr (ed.), Issues in Language Testing Research, pp. 3-10. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.


PALMER, A. S. (1983) Compartmentability and integrated control. In Oiler, J. W., Jr (ed.), Issues in Language Testing Research, pp. 323-332. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

RICHARDS, J. C. (1983) Approach, design, procedures. TESOL Quarterly 17, 219-238.

RIVERS, W. M. (1972) The second language teacher and cognitive psychology. In Speaking in Many Tongues. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

RUBIN, D, L. and RAFOTH, B. A. (in press) Oral Language: A Criterion for Selecting Listenable Material.

VOLLMER, H. J. and SANG, F. (1983) Competing hypotheses about second language ability: a plea for caution. In Oiler, J. W., Jr (ed.) Issues in Language Testing Research, pp. 29-79. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

WlDDOWSON, H. G. (1984) Reading and communication, In Alderson, Ch. J. and Urquhart, A. H. (eds), Reading in a Foreign Language, pp. 213-226. London: Longman.

Documents

The FL receptive skills: Same or different?