A Comparative Study of Authentic Listening Materials and their Simplified Versions on the Listening Comprehension and Motivation of Iranian EFL Learners

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The present study was an attempt, to empirically investigate if there was any significant difference between authentic listening materials and their simplified version in terms of the listening comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. To this end, two groups of thirty subjects were chosen. One group received authentic listening materials and the other group received the same topic in simplified version through ten sessions. The subjects studied Top Notch Book, level 3. The listening parts were followed with seven listening comprehension questions to assess the listening comprehension of the subjects. Then, at the end of the course, the listening comprehension scores of the two groups were compared by a T-Test. The result showed that simplified demonstration of materials had a benefit over the use of authentic version. A questionnaire was also given to the subjects at the beginning and at the end of the course to find out their motivation toward using authentic or simplified materials. The result indicated that there was no significant difference between two groups in terms of motivation.

Keywords

References

Berardo, S. A. (2006). The use of authentic materials in the teaching of reading. The Reading Matrix, 6(2), 47-52.
Breen, M. P. (1985). Authenticity in the language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 60-70.
Celce-Murica, M. (Ed.). (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreignlanguage(3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle&Heinle.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role ofattitudes and motivation.London: Arnold.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley MA: Newbury House.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence New York: Bentam Books.
Hyness, L. (2002). Adjustment in Teacher Language with Different Level Students.Explorations in Teacher Education. 10 (1).
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative languageteaching. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Mackey, A. &Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodogy anddesign.Mahwa, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
Nunan, D. (1992). The learner-centered curriculum: A study in second languageteaching.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Nunan, D. (2001). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Rivera, C. &Stansfield, C. W. (2004). The effect of linguisticsimplificationof science test items on score comparability. Educational Assessment, 9(3&4),79-105.
Rossner, R. & Bolitho, R. (Eds.). (1990). Currents of change in Englishlanguageteaching.Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Sheerin, S. (1987). Listening Comprehension Teaching or Testing? ELTJournal,41(2), 125-128.
Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Context, community, and authentic language. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 705-716.
Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.
Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice
Volume 3, Issue 7
Summer and Autumn 2010
Pages 205-219

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics