↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Noise on English Listening Comprehension among Chinese College Students with Different Learning Styles

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of Noise on English Listening Comprehension among Chinese College Students with Different Learning Styles
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01764
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaohu Yang, Meng Jiang, Yong Zhao

Abstract

This study was intended to determine whether the effects of noise on English listening comprehension would vary among Chinese college students with different learning styles. A total of 89 participants with different learning styles measured using Kolb's (1985) Learning Style Inventory finished English listening comprehension tests in quiet and in white noise, Chinese two-talker babble, and English two-talker babble respectively. The results showed that the participants in general had significantly poorer performance in the two babble conditions than in quiet and white noise. However, the participants with assimilative and divergent learning styles performed relatively better in Chinese babble, and exhibited stable performance across the three noisy conditions, while the participants with convergent and accommodative learning styles had more impaired performance in both Chinese babble and English babble than in white noise. Moreover, of Kolb's four learning modes, reflective observation had a facilitative effect on listening performance in Chinese babble and English babble. These findings suggest that differences in learning style might lead to differential performance in foreign language listening comprehension in noise.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Student > Master 3 11%
Unspecified 2 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Professor 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 12 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 7 25%
Social Sciences 4 14%
Unspecified 2 7%
Psychology 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,572,844
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,473
of 30,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,543
of 325,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#507
of 603 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,917 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 603 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.