LingoLeap Research
Every day, thousands of learners complete TOEFL speaking and writing practice on LingoLeap and receive AI scores. We turn that anonymised, aggregated data into descriptive studies that answer questions a small sample cannot — which sounds are hardest, where sentences start to break, how first language shapes pronunciation. Every study publishes aggregates only: no recordings, transcripts, or identities.
Academic Discussion · Rubric
In 3,692 AI-scored answers, Language Use & Grammar was the lowest of the three rubric sub-scores, or tied for lowest, 93.8% of the time. LingoLeap's AI grader, not ETS.
93.8%
Language Use lowest or tied
Academic Discussion · Length
Only 1.3% of 3,692 answers ran under 100 words. Scores rise with length up to about 175-199 words, then level off. Observational.
1.3%
answers under 100 words
Academic Discussion · Engagement
47.3% of answers name a classmate from the prompt; they score +0.67 points higher on 0-30. A small, observational difference.
47.3%
name a classmate
Academic Discussion · AI scoring
A template opener is associated with +0.04 points on the 0-30 scale (95% CI -0.12 to +0.20), with 80% power to detect 0.23. Language Use is the flattest of the three sub-scores. LingoLeap's AI grader, not ETS's e-rater.
+0.04
points on 0-30, 95% CI -0.12 to +0.20
Take an Interview · Speaking scoring
Across 54,247 Take an Interview answers in the reported 2.0–4.5 AI score bands, Delivery, Language Use, and Topic Development move upward together. The pattern is observational, not causal.
54,247
answers in reported bands
Take an Interview · Delivery
Fluency, pace, and length are higher in higher AI score bands. Bucket averages peak around 140–159 wpm, while the zero-pause bucket is confounded by short and truncated responses.
140–159
highest-average wpm bucket
Take an Interview · Language Use
Grammar/vocabulary control and complex-sentence share are higher in higher bands, but the share of advanced (B2+) vocabulary stays low (4–7%) and roughly flat — rare words aren't what distinguishes bands here.
4–7%
advanced-vocab share, all bands
Take an Interview · First-language comparison
Chinese-interface and English-interface learners score almost identically across Delivery, Language Use, and Topic Development, with near-identical score distributions — no first-language gap detectable under this (weak) proxy.
≈ parity
across every dimension
Listen and Repeat · Pronunciation
Chinese- and English-interface learners score almost identically on every sound — except /θ/, the single hardest sound for Chinese-first-language learners at 63.5/100.
/θ/ 63.5
hardest sound, Chinese L1
Listen and Repeat · Speaking
A descriptive study of sentence length, pauses, word endings, and phoneme-level pronunciation across 23,390 real TOEFL 2026 practice sessions.
152,218
scored sentence attempts
모든 연구는 집계 표를 CC BY 4.0 CSV로 공개하며, APA 7·MLA 9 인용문, 삽입 가능한 차트, 한 장짜리 교사용 자료를 제공합니다.
listen-and-repeat-sentence-length.csvlisten-and-repeat-phonemes.csvlisten-and-repeat-pauses.csvlisten-and-repeat-hardest-words.csvlisten-and-repeat-summary.csv교사용 자료(PDF)인용 방법
chinese-learners-phoneme-compare.csvchinese-learners-sentence-length.csv교사용 자료(PDF)인용 방법
toefl-speaking-by-score-band.csvtoefl-speaking-fluency-speech-rate.csvtoefl-speaking-fluency-pauses.csvtoefl-speaking-fluency-response-length.csv교사용 자료(PDF)인용 방법
templates-phrase-prevalence.csvtemplates-score-difference.csvtemplates-subscores.csvtemplates-openers.csv교사용 자료(PDF)인용 방법
라이선스: 집계 수치만 CC BY 4.0으로 공개합니다. LingoLeap을 출처로 밝히고 이 페이지에 링크하면 자유롭게 사용할 수 있습니다. 학습자 답안, 녹음, 개인 점수는 공개하지 않습니다.
Want to put the research to work?
Practise TOEFL speaking on LingoLeap and get the same AI scoring and diagnostics.