REFERENCES Biola, H R (1982) Time limits and topic assignments for essay tests Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 97–98 Caudery, T (1990) The validity of timed essay tests in the assessment of writing skills ELT Journal, 44, 122–131 Crone, C., Wright, D., & Baron, P (1993) Performance of examinees for whom English is their second language on the spring 1992 SAT II: Writing Test Unpublished manuscript prepared for ETS, Princeton, NJ Elder, C., Barkhuizen, G., Knoch, U., & von Randow, J (2007) Evaluating rater responses to an online rater training program Language Testing, 24, 37–64 Elder, C., Knoch, U., Barkhuizen, G., & von Randow, J (2005) Individual feedback to enhance rater training: Does it work? Language Assessment Quarterly, 2, 175–196 Elder, C., & Von Randow, J (in press) Exploring the utility of a Web-based English language screening tool Language Assessment Quarterly Ellis, R (Ed.) (2005) Planning and task performance in a second language Oxford: Oxford University Press Hale, G (1992) Effects of amount of time allocated on the Test of Written English (Research Report No 92-27) Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service Knoch, U., Read, J., & von Randow, J (2007) Re-training writing raters online: How does it compare with face-to-face training? Assessing Writing, 12, 26–43 Kroll, B (1990) What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class compositions In B Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Livingston, S A (1987, April) The effects of time limits on the quality of student-written essays Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., United States McNamara, T., & Lumley, T (1997) The effect of interlocutor and assessment mode variables in overseas assessments of speaking skills in occupational settings Language Testing, 14, 140–156 Powers, D E., & Fowles, M E (1996) Effects of applying different time limits to a proposed GRE writing test Journal of Educational Measurement, 33, 433–452 SPSS, Inc (2006) SPSS (Version 15) [Computer software] Chicago: Author Weigle, S C (2002) Assessing Writing Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Younkin, W F (1986) Speededness as a source of test bias for non-native English speakers on the College level Academic Skills Test Dissertation Abstracts International, 47/11-A, 4072 Effect of Repetition of Exposure and Proficiency Level in L2 Listening Tests HIDEKI SAKAI Shinshu University Nagano, Japan Second language (L2) listening test developers must take into account a variety of factors such as the characteristics of the input, the task, and 360 TESOL QUARTERLY the test takers (see, e.g., Brindley, 1998; Buck, 2001; Rost, 2002; Thompson, 1995) One such issue to be considered is the number of times a listening passage should be played, which concerns the characteristics of both the input and the task in that the number of exposures to a listening passage is a matter of how the assessment task is administered and at the same time how it can increase the redundancy of the input in the passage To better understand the role of repetition in listening tests, it is important to examine whether repetition and proficiency levels exhibit any interactional effect because if differential effects of repetition are observed for various L2 learners, only a portion of the test takers will benefit from the repeated exposure This study addresses the issue of the interactional effect between repetition and proficiency levels Although this study focuses primarily on issues related to the testing of listening, repeated presentation of a listening passage is not limited to testing; it is frequently and widely used in listening instruction (e.g., Harmer, 1998, p 100) Thus, so far this issue has been addressed mainly in studies that investigated the effects of repetition on L2 listening comprehension In general, research conducted to date on the effect of repeated exposure has shown that repetition may facilitate L2 listening comprehension (e.g., Berne, 1995) However, previous studies that included listeners’ proficiency levels as an independent variable yielded mixed results about the interactional effect between repetition and proficiency levels (Cervantes & Gainer, 1992; Chang & Read, 2006; Iimura, 2007; Lund, 1991) On one hand, Lund, and Chang and Read demonstrated supportive evidence for the interactional effect Lund examined the effects of repetition and different course levels (i.e., proficiency levels) on listening and reading comprehension in German as an L2 He found a significant three-way (modality, trial, and course level) interactional effect in the lexical item analysis of the recall protocols That is, the improvement of the first-semester and second-semester students in the listening recall task was about half of the improvement of the third-semester students in the listening recall task, whereas there was no difference in the improvement among the students at different proficiency levels in the reading recall task Therefore, he argued, only thirdsemester students benefited from the repeated exposure in the listening task Chang and Read examined the effects of four different types of listening support: preview of the questions, repetition of the input, provision of the topic knowledge, and vocabulary instruction They also investigated their interactional effects with proficiency levels based on the results of the listening section of the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) Results showed that the effects of the four listening support types differed according to proficiency level In the condition of repetition of the input and preview of the questions, the high listening proficiency group outperformed the low listening proficiency BRIEF REPORTS 361 group; in the other two conditions (provision of topic knowledge and vocabulary instruction), both groups scored similarly For the high listening proficiency group, repetition of the input and the provision of background knowledge were more effective than vocabulary instruction; for the low listening proficiency group, the provision of topic knowledge was more effective than vocabulary instruction and preview of the questions Based on these results, Chang and Reed suggested (a) that the low listening proficiency group benefited less than the high listening proficiency group from preview of the questions and repetition of the input, (b) that both groups benefited from the provision of topic knowledge, and (c) that vocabulary instruction was the least effective for both groups On the other hand, Cervantes and Gainer (1992) and Iimura (2007) reported the lack of an interactional effect between repetition and proficiency levels Cervantes and Gainer examined the effect of input modification (including repetition) on Japanese university students’ listening comprehension of a lecture in English Results of the study showed that both simplification and repetition were more facilitative of comprehension than no modification and that no interactional effect between input conditions and proficiency levels was observed Thus, they argued that repetition augments listening comprehension for both higher and lower listening proficiency learners Iimura examined the effect of repeated exposure, question types, and proficiency levels on the listening comprehension of Japanese senior high school students The participants were divided into three listening proficiency groups based on the results of the listening section of the third-grade level of the Society for Testing English Proficiency (STEP) test He found that repetition improved performance on both question types (local and global questions) irrespective of proficiency levels In summary, these four previous studies have produced mixed results regarding the interactional effect between repetition and proficiency level It must be noted that these previous studies used different tasks to assess listening comprehension: a free written recall task (Lund, 1991), a partial dictation task (Cervantes & Gainer, 1992), a multiple-choice test (Chang & Read, 2006), and an open-ended question task (Iimura, 2007) The choice of tasks seems to be quite important because the effect of repetition may easily be confounded with the effect of the preview of questions For example, in a research design using multiple-choice tests or open-ended questions, participants in the repetition condition hear the passage, read the questions, and answer them; and then the procedure is repeated This inevitably forms what Sherman (1997) called the sandwich version of administering questions Sherman found that the sandwich version was more effective than the questions–listening–listening condition or the listening–listening–questions condition Thus, even if L2 test 362 TESOL QUARTERLY takers were exposed to the listening passage the same number of times, varying the timing of administering questions may lead to different degrees of listening comprehension To avoid the confounding effects of preview of questions, the current study used free written recall tasks in which, after listening to the passage(s), test takers were required to write what they understood (Thompson, 1995, p 28) Because no intervening elements exist between the test taker and the text in free written recall tasks (Alderson, 2000, p 230), it is possible to isolate the effects of previewing questions from the effect of repetition Free written recall tasks have another advantage As Alderson put it, “it [the free written recall task] is also claimed to provide a picture of learner processes” (p 230) Comparing written protocols with the original text will enable researchers to analyze idiosyncratic recall protocols (i.e., additive information that does not appear in the original text) and misinterpretations (i.e., incorrect recall protocols) and obtain useful and detailed information about how learners listen in the L2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS The following three research questions (RQs) were posited for this study Does repetition affect learners’ listening recall performance? Is the effect of repetition on listening comprehension the same for learners at different proficiency levels? How does repetition affect learners’ production of idiosyncratic recalls and misinterpretations? As mentioned earlier, previous studies have supported the effect of repetition on L2 listening comprehension; nevertheless, only one study (Lund, 1991) used free written recall tasks In order to accumulate empirical evidence regarding the effect of repeated exposure, RQ was posed The current study used quantitative and qualitative analyses in order to investigate the effect of repeated exposure for different listening proficiency groups RQs and were posited for the respective analyses METHOD Participants The participants in this study were 36 learners of English (6 males and 30 females) from the author’s intact class at the Faculty of Education of a BRIEF REPORTS 363 university in central Japan All the participants had received formal instruction of English at junior and senior high schools for years before entering the university Of the 36 participants, 16 were second-year students, 16 were third-year students, and were fourth-year students Two of the participants reported that they had studied abroad in Englishspeaking countries for about year In order to divide the participants into two listening proficiency groups, the listening sections (k = 60) of three forms (A, B, and C) of the Michigan English Placement Test (Corrigan, Dobson, Kellman, Spaan, & Tyma, 1993) were administered to them month before the experimental task The reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.75 The mean score of 34 was used as the cutoff point Those who scored 35 or above were assigned to the higher listening proficiency group (HG); the others who scored 34 or below were categorized as the lower listening proficiency group (LG) Thus, the HG consisted of 16 participants (M = 39.94; SD = 4.06), and the LG had 20 participants (M = 29.90; SD = 5.01) The difference between the two groups was statistically significant: t(34) = 6.639, p < 0.000 Procedures The experiment was carried out in a classroom where listening materials were played on a CD player The participants were given a blank sheet of paper They listened to the first passage and were told to write down in Japanese everything they understood as extensively and accurately as possible on one side of the sheet after listening While listening to the passage, they were not allowed to take notes, but were asked to concentrate on listening The allotted writing time was minutes Then a second passage was played After listening to the second passage, the participants were told to write under the recall protocols of the first passage on the same side of the paper The allotted writing time was minutes For the second trial, the participants were asked to turn over the paper so that they could not access what they had written for the first listening trial The same procedure was repeated The total time was about 15 minutes The instructions were provided in Japanese Materials The passages derived from past examinations of the presecond grade of the STEP tests, and the attached CD was used (Obunsha, 2004) The STEP tests are widely known in Japan as tests of English proficiency They come in seven levels: first grade (the highest level), prefirst grade, second 364 TESOL QUARTERLY grade, presecond grade, third grade, fourth grade, and fifth grade (the lowest level) Each grade has its own test aimed at different proficiency levels The presecond grade test is targeted at the senior high school level (for more information about the STEP, see Society for Testing English Proficiency, n.d.) This grade’s test was chosen because it was considered not to be so difficult for the participants performing the free written recall tasks, cognitively demanding tasks in which participants need to listen to the passages, understand the information, and write down the information that they comprehend Both passages were monologue narratives Monologue narratives were chosen for this study because they constitute one of the common text types used on the STEP tests Because the STEP tests are used widely in Japan, a large number of test takers encounter similar passages during each test administration The first passage read by a male contained 47 words in four sentences, whereas the second read by a female contained 48 words in four sentences The recording time for each passage was 27 seconds and 29 seconds, respectively Thus, the reading speeds were 104.4 words per minute and 99.3 words per minute, respectively To check the difficulty level of the listening passages, the participants were asked to underline the unknown words in the scripts of the two passages months after the experiment This interval occurred because the summer vacation was between the semesters Responses from 34 participants (19 from LG and 15 from HG) were examined Six (3 LG learners and HG learners) reported that they did not know the word secretary in the first passage; (1 LG learner and HG learner) reported that they did not know the word poetry in the second passage Because the numbers of the participants reporting unknown words of the two groups were not so different from each other and because the number of unknown words, that is, only two words, was small, it is suggested that the passages used for this study were easy for both groups Scoring The recall protocols written in the participants’ first language (L1) were analyzed by idea unit analysis The passages were divided into idea units in advance, mainly on the basis of Carrell’s (1985) definition of idea units: Basically, each idea unit consisted of a single clause (main or subordinate, including adverbial and relative clauses) Each infinitival construction, gerundive, nominalized verb phrase, and conjunct was also identified as a separate idea unit In addition, optional and/or heavy prepositional phrases were also designated as separate idea units (p 737) BRIEF REPORTS 365 In addition, to make idea units shorter for the analysis of recall protocols on the listening tests, adverbials and nonheavy prepositional phrases functioning as adverbials were counted as separate idea units Based on these criteria, the two passages for this study were divided into 16 and 12 idea units respectively (see appendix) Then exact recall of each idea unit was assigned one point Thus, the highest possible score was 28 All the recall protocols were scored by the author To check the intrarater reliability, they were scored again after a 1-month interval The agreement rate was 98.02% (988 out of 1008 idea units) To assess interrater reliability for the scoring, about 20% of the protocols (14 out of the 72 protocols) were scored by another rater The interrater reliability agreement rate was 99.49% (390 out of 392 idea units) The test reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for the first trial was 0.69; the alpha for the second trial was 0.76 RESULTS RQs and 2: Main Effect of Repetition and Interactional Effect of Repetition and Proficiency Levels Table shows descriptive statistics of recall performance on the first listening and the second listening for each group The results indicate that repetition facilitated listening comprehension for both groups For both groups, the second effort was better than the first effort Second, both groups improved to a similar degree: HG improved by 5.88 points, and LG improved by 5.00 points It is important to note that HG outperformed LG on the first listening This result may support the use of the Michigan English Placement Test for the division of the participants A two-way ANOVA was performed with time (first listening and second listening) being a within-subjects factor and with proficiency level (high TABLE Descriptive Statistics of Recall Performance by Group and Time HG (n = 16) LG (n = 20) Time M SD Skewness SES Kurtosis SEK 1st 2nd Dif 1st 2nd Dif 15.00 20.88 5.88 12.45 17.45 5.00 4.41 4.05 4.21 3.55 3.82 2.97 −0.07 −1.19 0.95 0.65 −0.38 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.51 0.51 0.51 −0.82 2.20 −0.12 1.42 −1.01 1.22 1.09 1.09 1.09 0.99 0.99 0.99 Note Dif = 2nd listening − 1st listening; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; SES = standard error of skewness; SEK = standard error of kurtosis 366 TESOL QUARTERLY and low) being a between-subjects factor The main effects of time and proficiency level were significant: F(1, 34) = 82.40, p = 0.000; F(1, 34) = 6.45, p = 0.016 Effect sizes measured as Pearson’s correlation coefficients (Field, 2005, pp 514–516) were also calculated According to Field (p 33), a coefficient of 0.50 or above is considered to show a large effect; a coefficient of 0.30–0.50, a medium effect; and a coefficient of 0.10– 0.30, a small effect The effect size of time was large, r = 0.84, explaining 70.6% of the total variance; the effect size of proficiency level was medium, r = 0.40, explaining 16.0% of the total variance Thus, the results showed that HG outperformed LG and that the second effort was better than the first On the other hand, the interactional effect of time and proficiency level was not significant: F(1, 34) = 0.53, p = 0.470, r = 0.12 Thus, the effects of repetition facilitated both HG and LG to a similar degree RQ 3: Idiosyncratic Recall Units, Misinterpretation, and Repetition For this study, idiosyncratic recall units were operationalized as recall protocols of information which the original passages did not contain In other words, idiosyncratic recall units are additional information not found in the passages The following are examples of idiosyncratic recall units from the data of this study: She usually has lunch at a noodle shop every day She wanted to become a singer in the future Nancy wants to become an English teacher The italicized parts were not contained in the original passages (see appendix); therefore, they were coded as idiosyncratic recall units The results show that although more participants in LG produced idiosyncratic recall units on the first listening than HG (12 out of 20, 60.0% for LG versus out of 16, 37.50% for HG), repeated exposure brought about improvement for 66.67% of those who had produced idiosyncratic recall units in both groups (8 out of 12 for LG; out of for HG) In addition, the number of those who produced new idiosyncractic recall units in LG (6 out of 20) was larger than HG (1 out of 16) Thus, the results suggest that less proficient learners produce more idiosyncratic recall units than more proficient learners at both listening times, that repeated exposure helps decrease idiosyncratic recall units, and that the effectiveness of repeated exposure is the same for both groups Analysis of misinterpretations, operationalized as incorrect recall protocols of the original texts (“to become a swimmer” for Idea Unit 203 BRIEF REPORTS 367 to become a singer), shows that repetition is beneficial for both groups as well In order to clarify this point, misinterpretations of Idea Unit 112 (Before she went back) are shown here as an example In LG, only participant recalled this idea unit correctly on the first listening Thus, the other 19 participants did not get points for this idea unit Of the 19 participants, 12 did not write any protocols for this idea unit; provided incomplete protocols and were not assigned a point On the second listening, of the 12 participants who did not write any protocols on the first listening, did not produce any protocols; wrote correct protocols; and gave almost correct protocols but misinterpreted the conjunction before in this unit (Before she went back), as “after she went back” or “on the way back.” The participants who provided incomplete protocols on the first listening did not improve on the second listening In HG, the number of participants who produced no protocols on the first listening was smaller (n = 6) than in LG Of the participants, did not recall anything on the second listening; produced correct protocols; and gave almost correct protocols but failed to recall the word before Of those who wrote almost correct protocols, that is, misinterpretations, on the first listening (n = 6), produced correct protocols on the second listening Thus, this example shows that repetition helped both groups understand the text further even though the protocols were not assigned a point DISCUSSION Guided by three research questions, this study provided the following findings First, repetition was shown to have facilitated listening comprehension Moreover, repetition reduced the production of idiosyncratic recall protocols In other words, repetition led to more precise comprehension of the passages Second, this study did not find any interactional effect between repetition and proficiency levels That is to say, repetition was effective for HG and LG to the same degree Third, repetition helped both groups reduce production of idiosyncratic recall protocols, although LG produced more idiosyncratic recall protocols than HG Therefore, this study found that repeated exposure facilitated listening comprehension for both HG and LG and did not support the argument that the effect of repetition varies according to proficiency level Analysis of misinterpretations also supported these findings It is important to note that the findings of this study should be limited to the case in which learners have sufficient L2 ability to understand the lexical items of the listening passages These findings lend support to the results of Cervantes and Gainer (1992) and Iimura (2007) and give evidence against the studies of Chang and Read (2006) and Lund (1991), who argued for the interactional 368 TESOL QUARTERLY effect between repetition and proficiency levels Here it is worthwhile to examine the results of Chang and Read, in particular in terms of the effect between repetition and proficiency levels; although Chang and Read argued for a differential effect of repetition for different proficiency levels, another interpretation seems possible They argued that “LLP [low listening proficiency] learners benefited less than HLP [high listening proficiency] learners from PQ [preview of the questions] and RI [repetition of the input],” mainly based on the findings that the high listening proficiency groups scored better than the lower listening proficiency group in these two conditions (p 389) Because all four conditions in Chang and Read’s study included previewing the questions, they stated that “in effect the PQ [preview of the questions] group was a comparison group to provide a basis for evaluating the enhanced listening support experienced by the other three groups” (p 385) However, they did not make such comparisons in their discussion of the results It seems natural that the high listening proficiency group outperformed the low listening proficiency group because the two proficiency groups differed in their proficiency levels For the condition of the preview of the questions, the mean scores of the two proficiency groups were 18.39 and 14.91, respectively If these mean scores were treated as a baseline, both proficiency groups in the repetition condition obtained higher means (20.47 and 16.44, respectively) although the difference between the two conditions was not significant Thus, another possible interpretation of Chang and Read’s results is that repetition may have improved the performance of both proficiency groups, but the changes were not statistically significant In other words, their results may not provide evidence that repetition affects different proficiency levels differently Therefore, aside from Chang and Read (2006), a statistically significant interactional effect between repetition and proficiency level was reported only by Lund (1991) It should be noted that he found a statistically significant interactional effect only in one of the two analyses of the recall protocols, that is, in the lexical item analysis but not in the idea unit analysis Although the current study used free written recall tasks like Lund’s study, it did not carry out lexical item analysis It is possible that detailed scoring systems may be necessary to detect the differential effect of repetition If this is correct, it is plausible that some studies did not find the differential effect of repetition: The studies (Cervantes & Gainer, 1992; Chang & Read, 2006; Iimura, 2007) used a partial dictation task, a multiple-choice test, and an open-ended question task, respectively, which require test takers not to understand everything in the passages but to listen to part of the passages Thus, the mixed results of the previous studies may be due to different analysis methods BRIEF REPORTS 369 CONCLUSION In conclusion, several limitations and directions for future research are addressed First, only one text type, a monologue narrative, was used as the listening materials Different text types may yield different results For example, redundancy and repetition are already abundant in oral conversations (e.g., Flowerdew & Miller, 2005, p 51; Ur, 1984, p 7) It will be necessary to examine the interactional effect of repetition and proficiency level with different text types that have varying degrees of redundancy and repetition inherent in them Second, this study used only idea unit analysis for the scoring of recall protocols Recall protocols can be analyzed on the basis of idea unit and pausal unit (Alderson, 2000) as well as lexical unit (Lund, 1991) If detailed scoring analyses, as discussed earlier, are necessary to detect the differential effect of repetition for different proficiency levels, it is important to examine the effects of different scoring methods for protocol analysis Third, in this study free written recall tasks were shown to be a promising research instrument to measure listening comprehension in sufficient detail and to examine the learner’s comprehension processes by analyzing idiosyncratic recall protocols or misinterpretation; nevertheless, other testing tasks need to be considered because of the possible differential findings that may be attributed to the use of certain tasks Investigating the repetition–proficiency interaction effect using different tasks will help to situate and evaluate the results of previous studies For example, dictation allows researchers to analyze listeners’ comprehension processes such as free written recall and to score the dictated protocols at the word level One disadvantage of dictation is that the task requires test takers to write in their L2; thus, test takers’ writing ability may confound listening comprehension However, dictation can avoid the problem of previewing questions in investigations of the effects of repeated exposure Although the findings of this study should be interpreted with caution because of these limitations, this study did not lend support to the argument that the effect of repetition varies according to proficiency level In other words, repetition of a listening passage in a listening test may not lead to differential effects for test takers at different proficiency levels ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author thanks Brian Wistner, Ken Urano, and Rebecca Ann Marck as well as the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article THE AUTHOR Hideki Sakai is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education at Shinshu University, Nagano, Japan His current research interests include second language interactional 370 TESOL QUARTERLY studies, classroom second language acquisition, and psycholinguistic aspects of listening and speaking REFERENCES Alderson, J C (2000) Assessing reading Cambridge University Press Berne, J E (1995) How does varying pre-listening activities affect second language listening comprehension? Hispania, 78, 316–329 Brindley, G (1998) Assessing listening abilities Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 171–191 Buck, G (2001) Assessing listening Cambridge University Press Carrell, P L (1985) Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure TESOL Quarterly, 19, 727–752 Cervantes, R., & Gainer, G (1992) The effects of syntactic simplification and repetition on listening comprehension TESOL Quarterly, 26, 767–770 Chang, A C.-S., & Read, J (2006) The effects of listening support on the listening performance of EFL learners TESOL Quarterly, 40, 375–397 Corrigan, A., Dobson, B., Kellman, E., Spaan, M., & Tyma, S (1993) English Placement Test Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, English Language Institute, Testing and Certification Division Field, A (2005) Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.) London: Sage Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L (2005) Second language listening: Theory and practice Cambridge University Press Harmer, J (1998) How to teach English Harlow, England: Longman Iimura, H (2007) The listening process: Effects of question types and repetition Language Education & Technology, 44, 75–85 Lund, R J (1991) A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension Modern Language Journal, 75, 196–204 Obunsha (2004) 2004 nendoban eiken jun kyu zenmodanishu CD (The 2004 collection of the pre-second grade STEP tests: CD) Tokyo: Author Rost, M (2002) Teaching and researching listening Harlow, England: Pearson Education Sherman, J (1997) The effects of question preview in listening comprehension tests Language Testing, 14, 185–213 Society for Testing English Proficiency, Inc (n.d.) EIKEN Test in Practical English Proficiency Tokyo: Author Retrieved May 30, 2009, from http://stepeiken.org/ Thompson, I (1995) Testing listening comprehension AATSEEL Newsletter, 37, 24–31 Ur, P (1984) Teaching listening comprehension Cambridge: Cambridge University Press APPENDIX Listening Passages (Obunsha, 2004) Passage (Mary’s Lunch Time) (101) Mary works / (102) as a secretary / (103) She [usually] has lunch / (104) usually / (105) at a noodle shop / (106) near her office / (107) But [yesterday] it was closed, / (108) yesterday / (109) so she went / (110) to an Italian restaurant / (111) and had some spaghetti / (112) BRIEF REPORTS 371 Before she went back / (113) to her office, / (114) she stopped / (115) at a café / (116) and had dessert Passage (Nancy’s Dream) (201) When Nancy was a high school student, / (202) she wanted / (203) to become a singer / (204) But [while she was at college], she met a great English teacher, / (205) while she was at college, / (206) Mr Porter / (207) He taught her many things, / (208) including how to enjoy poetry / (209) and write short stories / (210) Now / (211) Nancy wants / (212) to become a teacher 372 TESOL QUARTERLY ... that the effects of the four listening support types differed according to proficiency level In the condition of repetition of the input and preview of the questions, the high listening proficiency. .. and 2: Main Effect of Repetition and Interactional Effect of Repetition and Proficiency Levels Table shows descriptive statistics of recall performance on the first listening and the second listening. .. QUARTERLY effect between repetition and proficiency levels Here it is worthwhile to examine the results of Chang and Read, in particular in terms of the effect between repetition and proficiency levels;