視覺媒材與第二語言聽力表現的關係，長期以來備受關注。在眾多視覺媒材之中，以影片做為聽力測驗媒材最為普遍。然而，過往的研究結果呈現分歧。為深入瞭解分歧的起因，探究視覺媒材與第二語言學習者語言程度之間的複雜關係尤為重要。本研究旨在探討不同第二語言程度(高或低)的學習者，在接觸不同視覺媒材(動態影片或連續靜態影像)後，其聽力表現是否呈現差異。為豐富研究成果，本研究同時測量學習者的主觀認知負荷(內在、外在與增生)以及對視覺媒材的整體感受。研究結果顯示，在68名學習者中，學習者的第二語言程度與所接觸的視覺媒材皆對聽力表現產生直接影響。其中第二語言程度的影響尤為顯著。高成就學習者在不同視覺媒材條件下的聽力表現皆顯著高於低成就學習者。進一步分析，縱使低成就學習者的聽力表現顯著低於高成就學習者，低成就學習者仍對於視覺媒材展現正向態度且仔細留意不同非語言訊息之意涵。就視覺媒材而言，動態影片相較於連續靜態影像更能顯著提升聽力表現。此差異可能源於動態影片提供較細膩的非語言訊息且引發較低的外在認知負荷與較高的增生認知負荷所致。此外，結果亦可推論動態影片為較合適的多模聽力視覺素材。本研究結果再次呼應第二語言學習者之語言程度與所接觸之視覺媒材對於聽力表現的影響。同時，本研究為聽力教學與測驗中，多模態資源的運用提出建議，希冀透過教學與測驗方法，培養學習者面對真實世界的聽力技巧與策略。

The interaction between visual components and L2 listening performance has garnered considerable attention, with video as a prevalent assessment tool, albeit with discrepant results. The inconsistency necessitates a nuanced examination of the intricacies between diverse visual formats and learners' L2 proficiency. In light of the existing findings and assumptions, the present study investigated the interplay of L2 proficiency levels (i.e., high vs. low) and contrasting visual formats (i.e., dynamic video vs. sequential static imagery). The study also gauged learners' perceived cognitive load at different proficient levels while encountering various visual formats to further enrich the analysis. The manipulation of L2 proficiency and visual formats resulted in four listening conditions (i.e., high-proficient + dynamic video, low-proficient + dynamic video, high-proficient + sequential static imagery, and low-proficient + sequential static imagery). A cohort of 68 participants, stratified by proficiency and visual format, were assigned to one of the four listening conditions. They then completed the listening comprehension test and questionnaires measuring their perceived cognitive load (i.e., intrinsic, extraneous, and germane) and overall perception.
Results elucidated that learners' L2 proficiency exerted a more profound impact on listening performance than visual formats. Specifically, high-proficient learners consistently outperformed their low-proficiency counterparts, irrespective of visual formats. While low-proficient learners' listening performance was inferior to that of high-proficient learners, they generally reported positive attitudes toward visual inclusion, and paid close attention to various nonverbal information. Visual formats, on the other hand, demonstrated a comparatively limited impact on learners' listening performance; they nonetheless exhibited statistically significant effects, with dynamic video yielding superior outcomes compared to sequential static imagery. The enhanced performance was derived from the detailed nonverbal information in dynamic video, the low extraneous cognitive load, and the high germane cognitive load. Additionally, dynamic video might be an optimal visual material for eliciting learners' multimodal listening ability.
The present study underscores the role of learners' L2 proficiency and visual formats in shaping listening performance within a multimodal listening environment. The study's implications are far-reaching for L2 listening instruction and assessment. By judiciously considering the role of visual components and learners' proficiency levels, instructors can apply effective strategies to cultivate learners' listening skills in real-world, multimodal contexts.

Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications. (5th ed.). Worth Publishers.
Aryadoust, V., Foo, S., & Ng, L. Y. (2022). What can gaze behaviors, neuroimaging data, and test scores tell us about test method effects and cognitive load in listening assessments? Language Testing, 39(1), 56-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322211026876
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
Batty, A. O. (2014). A comparison of video- and audio-mediated listening tests with many-facet Rasch modeling and differential distractor functioning. Language
Testing, 32(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214531254
Batty, A. O. (2020). An eye-tracking study of attention to visual cues in L2 listening tests. Language Testing, 38(4), 511–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220951504
Baltova, I. (1994). The impact of video on the comprehension skills of core French students. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(3), 507–531. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.50.3.507
Brett, P. (1997). A comparative study of the effects of the use of multimedia on listening comprehension. System, 25(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(96)00059-0
Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511732959
Campoy-Cubillo, M. C., & Querol-Julián, M. (2015). Assessing multimodal listening. In Camiciottoli, B. C., & Fortanet-Gómez, I. (Eds.), Multimodal Analysis in Academic Settings (pp. 193-212). Routledge.
Campoy-Cubillo, M. C. (2019). Functional diversity and the multimodal listening construct.European Journal of Special Needs Education, 34(2), 204-219.https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1581402
Chi, C., Chen, H. J. H., Tseng, W. T., & Liu, Y. T. (2022). Efficacy of different presentation modes for L2 video comprehension: Full versus partial display of verbal and nonverbal input. ReCALL, 35(1), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344022000088
Coniam, D. (2001). The use of audio or video comprehension as an assessment instrument in the certification of English language teachers: a case study. System, 29(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(00)00057-9
Cross, J. (2011). Comprehending news videotexts: The influence of the visual content. Language, Learning and Technology, 15(2), 44–68
Education Testing Service. (2022). TOEIC Examinee handbook: Listening and reading test.
Education Testing Service. (2023). TOEIC Listening and reading test official test preparation guide (Vol. 7).
Field, J. (2008). Revising segmentation hypotheses in first and second language listening. System, 36(1), 35-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.10.003
Fries, C. C. (1945). Teaching and Learning English as a foreign language. University of Michigan Press
Furness, E. L. (1952). Techniques for the teaching of listening. The Modern Language Journal, 36(3), 124–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1952.tb01412.x
Ginther, A. (2001). Effects of the presence and absence of visuals on performance on TOEFL® CBT listening-comprehension stimuli. ETS Research Report Series, 2001(2), i-43.
Ginther, A. (2002). Context and content visuals and performance on listening comprehension stimuli. Language Testing, 19(2), 133–167. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt225oa
Goh, C. C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners' listening comprehension problems. System, 28(1), 55-75.
Goh, C. C., & Vandergrift, L. (2021). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. Routledge.
Gruba, P. (1993). A comparison study of audio and video in language testing. JALT Journal, 15(1), 85–88
Guichon, N., & McLornan, S. (2008). The effects of multimodality on L2 learners: Implications for CALL resource design. System, 36(1), 85-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.11.005
Jewitt, C. (2013). Multimodal teaching and learning. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The
encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp.4109-4114). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Kang, T., Gutierrez Arvizu, M. N., Chaipuapae, P., & Lesnov, R. (2019). Reviews of academic English listening tests for non-native speakers. International Journal of Listening, 33(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2016.1185210
Kamiya, N. (2022). The limited effects of visual and audio modalities on second language listening comprehension. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 79-88.
13621688221096213. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221096213
Klepsch, M., Schmitz, F., & Seufert, T. (2017). Development and validation of two
instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01997
Lado, R. (1964). Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests. London, UK: Longman.
Lesnov, R. O. (2018). Content-rich versus content-deficient video-based visuals in L2 academic listening tests: pilot study. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 8(1), 15-30.
Lesnov, R. O. (2022). Furthering the argument for visually inclusive L2 academic listening tests: The role of content-rich videos. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 72, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101087
Lee, P. J., Liu, Y. T., & Tseng, W. T. (2021). One size fits all? In search of the desirable caption display for second language learners with different caption reliance in listening comprehension. Language Teaching Research, 25(3), 400-430.
Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Van Gog, T. & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013) Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1058–1072
Liu, T., & Aryadoust, V. (2023). Does modality matter? A meta-analysis of the effect of video input in L2 listening assessment. System, 120, 1-18.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103191
Londe, Z. C. (2009). The effects of video media in English as a second language listening comprehension tests. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 17(1).
Lynch, T. (2011). Academic listening in the 21st century: Reviewing a decade of research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jeap.2011.03.001
Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In Mayer, R. E. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.004
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811678
Mayer, R. E. (2010). Techniques that reduce extraneous cognitive load and manage intrinsic cognitive load during multimedia learning. (R. Moreno, Ed.). In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 131-152). Cambridge University Press.
Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language testing,
13(3), 241-256.
Newton, J. M., & Nation, I. S. (2020). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking.
Routledge.
Ockey, G. J. (2007). Construct implications of including still image or video in computer-based listening tests. Language Testing, 24(4), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207080771
Ockey, G. J., & Wagner, E. (2018). Assessing L2 listening: Moving towards authenticity (Vol. 50). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Parry, T., & Meredith, R. A. (1984). Videotape vs. Audiotape for listening comprehension tests: An experiment (ED254107). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED254107.pdf.
Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1
Pusey, K., & Lenz, K. (2014). Investigating the interaction of visual input, working memory, and listening comprehension. Language Education in Asia, 5(1), 66-80.
Rost, M. (2016). Teaching and researching listening (3rd ed.). Pearson Longman.
Shin, D. (1998). Using videotaped lectures for testing academic listening proficiency. International Journal of Listening, 12(1), 57–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10904018.1998.10499019
Sueyoshi, A., & Hardison, D. M. (2005). The role of gestures and facial cues in second language listening comprehension. Language Learning, 55(4), 661–699. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00320.x
Suvorov, R. (2009). Context visuals in L2 listening tests: The effects of photographs and video vs. audio-only format. In C. A. Chapelle, H. G. Jun, & I. Katz (Eds.), Developing and evaluating language learning materials, 53-68. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
Suvorov, R. (2015). The use of eye tracking in research on video-based second language (L2) listening assessment: A comparison of context videos and content videos. Language Testing, 32(4), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214562099
Suvorov, R., & He, S. (2022). Visuals in the assessment and testing of second language listening: A methodological synthesis. International Journal of Listening, 36(2), 80-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2021.1941028
Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell. Victoria: ACER Press.
Terao, T. (2024). Computer-Based Listening Test with Full Video, Visual-Limited Video, and Audio: A Comparative Analysis Based on Difficulty, Discrimination Power, and Response Time. Applied Measurement in Education, 37(1), 29-42.
Vandergrift, L. (2006). Second language listening: Listening ability or language proficiency? The modern language journal, 90(1), 6-18.
Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language teaching, 40(3), 191-210. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444807004338
Wagner, E. (2007). Are they watching? Test-Taker viewing behavior during an L2 video listening test. Language, Learning and Technology, 11(1), 67–86.
Wagner, E. (2008). Video listening tests: What are they measuring?. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(3), 218-243.
Wagner, E. (2010a). The effect of the use of video texts on ESL listening test-taker performance. Language Testing, 27(4), 493–513.https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209355668
Wagner, E. (2010b). Test-takers' interaction with an L2 video listening test. System, 38(2), 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.01.003
Wagner, E. (2013). An investigation of how the channel of input and access to test questions affect L2 listening test performance. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(2), 178-195.https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2013.769552
Weir, C.J. and Vidakovic, I (2013). The measurement of listening ability 1913-2012. In C. Weir, I. Vidakovic & E. Galaczi (Eds.) Measured constructs: a history of the constructs underlying Cambridge English language (ESOL) examinations 1913-2012: Studies in Language Testing 37 (pp. 347-419). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.