Table Of ContentAN_ INVESTIGATION IN MEASURING AMD IMPROVING
LISTENING ABILITY OF COLLEGE FRESHMEN
toy
Arthur William Heilman
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillm ent of the re
quirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,
in the College of Education in the Graduate
College of the State University of Iowa
August, 1950
ProQuest Number: 10902171
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
uest
ProQuest 10902171
Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
\ ^ o
\-\ Cp Co
11
0.0 ^ * ^ -
AOKNOVjLEDG'MKNTS
The writer wishes to express his appreciation
and indebtedness to Dr* James B. Stroud, who as the
sponsor of th is project gave many helpful suggestions
and Invaluable aid throughout the course of the study.
The writer is grateful to Dr. A. N. Hieronymus
and Dr. Paul Blommers, the other members of the committee.
This study could not have been carried out except
for the cooperation and helpfulness of Professor Paul D.
Bagwell, Head of the Department of Written and Spoken
English, Michigan State College, and various sta ff members
in that department who cooperated with the writer and made
their classes available for the study*
Further specific acknowledgments are recorded in
the text on Procedure*
ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter -age
I Introduction • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i
II Procedure • • • • • • ............................* • • • • 1 1
Methods of Approach • • • • • • • • • • • n
Criterion lests * • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 2
Item Analysis and R eliab ility • • • • • • 16
The Experiments ....................... **24
Admini strati on of Pre-Test • • • • • • • • 2 6
The Training M aterial..................................................29
Description of Material in Training Units 32
Administration of End-Tests • • • • • • • 37
Investigation of Transfer of Training . *38
III results . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • 4 2
Pre-Test and End-Test Scores of the
Croup • • • • • • ...................... • • • • * 4 2
Transfer of Training in other Listening
S itu a tio n s.................................................................56
Relationship of Listening A bility to
Intelligence and Reading A bility. • . .59
IV Summary and Conclusions . . . • • • • • • . 6 3
Appendix A •67
Appendix B 148
Bibliography -211
TABU*: OF TABLES
Pa,
Data fo r Experimental and Control troupe
on Pra-Teat of Listening Com prehension. . . . 14
Comparison of Form A and Form B on Item
D ifficulty and D iscrim ination. . . . . . . . 20
Days of Via ok and Times of Day that Classes
were Tested . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Form of Test Administered on Pre-Test and
Order of Presentation of Sub-Tests . . . . . . 30
Form of Test Adrn-nistered on -Sod-Test and
Order of Presentation of Sub-Tests ........................... 31
D escriptive Data Relating to Form A and
Form B of Listening T e s t ..................................................... 43
Data fo r Experimental arid Control Croups on
End-Test of Listening Comprehension........................... 46
Changes between Pre-Test and End-Test •cores
fo r Experimental Group* arranged by Quarters
with Intervals Fouul to standard Deviation. » 49
Changes between Pre-Test and End-Test ocores
fo r Control Croup* Arranged by Quarters vith
Intervals Equal to Standard Deviation. . . • 52
R elationship between u-ains on -Ind-Tost by
Experimental Croup and Scores- on Pre-Test *»nd
Psychological Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Data fo r Experimental and. Control Groups on
58
Tests Over Weekly Lectures . . . . . . . . .
D ifficulty Level, Percent of High and Lov.»
Groups Passing, and. Discrim ination of .acb
Item
1
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
The number of articles that can be found In edu
cational journals and the number of research projects that
have been carried out In the area of reading are ample proof
of the Importance that educators place on reading as a means
1*
of learning. Brown states,
Heading, probably more than any other school sub
ject, has been the object of scien tific study and
investigation. Recent figures indicate that over
2625 studies in reading have been completed.
2
Nichols points out that during the time the above
was taking place in reading, something less than one hundred
Journal entries were concerned with listen in g and only a
small percent of these would merit the designation re**
search.
^However, in recent years there has been an awaken
ing of interest in listen in g as a means of learning. One
can find in various publications such title s as: The
5 4
Problem sL Listening. Jfeg &. ££U£
the Neglected Phase of Communication. Learning to Listen.
♦Numbers in the text refer to specific articles listed
in the bibliography following this chapter. These are
listed in the order of their oltation.
2
7 8
Ita £audb £ is, w. k. Ite ;,flp.flg,tarvae s£. kXs,ianAns £MXi%x,
9 10
lb& &EX S t Listening, Skill in HftLSRAna, hSBXXktiXX 12.
la llagyjaAaaUag IJjalaaacaJ and 80 on*
However, despite the increased in terest in
listen in g as a means of learning, there is s t ill a very
d efin ite need for research in th is field* ^VJhen reviewing
the lim ited research that has been published in this area,
it is observed that certain phases of listen in g have re
ceived the bulk of attention while other important problems
i—.
are etilly irtu a lly unexplored*J
£The problems which have been investigated in-
eludes
The relative effectiveness, in regard to
retention, of presenting material orally
and visually*
2. The effect of rate-of-present& tion on learn
ing.
3. The study of the relationship between listen
ing a b ility and other a b ilities and a ttri
butes such as in telligen ce, reading ab ility
and academic success*
4. The effect on learning of presenting ma
teria l aurally, but using different modes of
oral presentation. 1* e ., lecture, dialogue,
story form, dramatisation.
5. The effect of aural presentation with the
speaker present contrasted with presenting
the material via a loudspeaker*.. ' "7
In some few instances there have been data
3
found on the same problem, but at different age levels,su ch
as elementary level and the oollege lev el. In practically
a ll Instances further investigation is badly needed. A
certain lack of agreement In findings of different studies
is apparent. These differences in findings may stem from
differences in approach, differences in m aterials used, and
differences in instruments of measurement used*
Following is a review of experimental data done
in the area of listen in g.
12
Young, working with pupils in grades four, fiv e,
and six, contrasted four methods of presenting material:
oral reading by teacher, oral reading by teacher plus
simultaneous silen t reading by the pupil, silen t reading
alone without time lim its and silen t reading for the same
length of time as given to oral reading by the teacher.
He found that at grade four the oral presentation was
superior to any other, but by grade six the superiority
of oral presentation had disappeared.
13
R ussell, using subjects in the fifth , seventh,
and ninth grades, found that in the fifth grade pupils
learned more from having material read to them than they
did from reading it themselves. In the seventh grade the
tv/o methods were equally effective while in grade nine
there was a sligh t, but not significant, difference
4
favoring learning by reading*
14
Loder, compared the efficiency of oral learn
ing with and without the speaker being present* In one
oase the speaker was present with the grouj> while another
group heard him at the same time but in another room over
a loud speaker* On immediate recall, the method of having
the speaker present was : ignifleant!y superior* On delayed
recall* 24 and 44 days, the two methods were equal.
15
Corey, working with college freshmen, had one
group read a 2500 word passage, while another group heard
the same material as a lecture* On Immediate recall the
superiority of the reading group was sta tistica lly sig
nificant but on delayed recall, two weeks, there was no
difference between the groups.
16
Greene, prepared a series of lecture articles
of approximately 2300 words each. One group of male
college students read these a rticles and another group
heard them as lectures* On Immediate recall the difference
between the groups was not significant. On delayed recall
the lecture group was superior in retention but it was
pointed out that students In the lectures had taken more
detailed notes than had the reading group. Students in
the top quarter scholastically tended to do sligh tly
better in recall based on reading, while in the lower
5
quarter students tended to do better in recall based on
listening*
i?
Larsen, used comparable forms of the Kelson-
Denny reading test to study reading comprehension and
listen in g comprehension. In one case the students read
the m aterial said in the other they listen ed to recordings
of the material* Larsen reports his findings as follows:
Easy material may be comprehended as w ell when
read as when heard* In m aterial of moderate
d ifficu lty there Is a tendency for reading
comprehension to be superior; with d ifficu lt
m aterial, reading comprehension is markedly
superior to hearing comprehension.
Another factor Larsen reported on was the relation
ship between scholastic aptitude and listen in g comprehension.
With subjects of low scholastic aptitude there was practical
ly no difference in listen in g and reading comprehension,
but students with high scholastic aptitude showed a sligh t
superiority in reading comprehension on easy material and
\
a definite superiority in reading comprehension on d iffi
cult material*
Id
Goldstein, using 280 adult men and women sub
jects, tested reading and listen in g comprehension at
different controlled rates of presentation. He concluded
that listen in g comprehension is, in general, superior to
reading comprehension. This was markedly so for easy
