...language ability as consisting of two components: (1) language knowledge, sometimes
referred to as‘competence,’and (2) cognitive processes, or strategies, which implement
that knowledge in language use. (p. 57)
Here, we might even go a step further: in academic listening, a quite cognitively
demanding type of listening, could cognitive processes be regarded asindicatorsof
test-takers’ academic listening competence? We already discussed a construct
should interpret a type of observed behavior and in our localized setting, the type of
behavior we want to observe is students’cognitive behavior during academic lis-
tening, or lecture comprehension in a more precise term. Therefore, in order to
establish the competence domain of a Lecture Comprehension Construct frame-
work, I have synthesized literature on cognitive processes and strategies that all
shed some light upon the pursuit of the nature of lecture comprehension ability. In
the current study, we follow Field’s argument that listening is a“process”instead of
a“result”(Field 2008) and the focus dwells on test-takers’cognitive processes, i.e.,
cognitive operations they practically adopt to hear the lecture and complete the
related tasks, evidenced by their test-taking TAPs and retelling protocols. In order
to make the terminology consistent in my research, I use“process”instead of
“strategy” or“skill”while addressing relevant data to support the competence
domain.
In order to observe interaction between task domain and competence domain, we
need to understand how the task targets and task demands, mandated by teachers
and test-takers, are realized in the test-takers’genuine test-taking cognitive process.
I would like to argue there must be empirical data supporting the extent to which
the task targets, task demands and the test-takers’cognitive processes interact with
each other and how high competence level students differ from lower competence
level students in terms of their employment of cognitive processes.
Moreover, we also need to target high-level processes typical of lecture com-
prehension, which facilitate test-takers to integrate and accommodate incoming
information, and to use their own background and topical knowledge (topical,
genre, register, rhetorical, discourse schema, etc.) with the ultimate aim to construct
a discourse level representation. The competence domain is in need of more
empirical research to ensure that the task-competence match is a prudent process
full of exploration and reflection rather than simply a hit and miss game.
In the current framework, the interaction between task domain and competence
domain is enhanced by the dual-direction arrows. The task domain refers to the
task-based construct that defines task characteristics calibrated for academic lis-
tening assessment while the competence domain features the test-takers’actual
cognitive processes while taking an academic listening test. Constructing the dia-
logue between the task domain and the competence domain is significant in thefield
of academic listening tests, and hence, different levels of cognitive processes should
be clarified to differentiate test-takers’different competence level and furthermore,
more complex and comprehensive tasks targeting higher level of cognitive pro-
cesses should be designed.
4.4 A Proposed Construct Framework for Lecture Comprehension 41