1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pedagogical Linguistics
  4. Volume 5, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2665-9581
  • E-ISSN: 2665-959X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Listening comprehension serves as a basic means for communication and participation in society. Unfortunately, especially low-performing students have difficulties understanding informational content presented in a listening format, even more so than with the comprehension of printed texts. Based on empirical findings that text features, such as global text cohesion, have proven to be effective for promoting reading comprehension, and cognitive processes of reading and listening to academic texts share commonalities, the question arises as to how much global cohesion can support students’ listening comprehension. 140 ninth-grade students in German secondary schools listened to one of two informational listening texts which differed in their degree of global text cohesion (low vs. high in cohesion). Listening comprehension was assessed with a written test after listening. Regression analyses show that global text cohesion promotes listening comprehension and that the effect of cohesion remains significant and stable when controlling for topic-related prior knowledge and language-related background variables. Low-performing students profited more from the highly cohesive text than high-performing students. Thus, cohesion contributes to the comprehensibility of informational listening texts which can have implications for the construction of listening texts and listening comprehension instruction at school.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pl.23002.sch
2023-06-13
2025-06-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pl.23002.sch
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arfé, B., Mason, L., & Fajardo, I.
    (2017) Simplifying informational text structure for struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 31(9), 2191–2210. 10.1007/s11145‑017‑9785‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9785-6 [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher, N. & Lascarides, A.
    (2003) The logics of conversation. Cambridge, MA: University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2005) Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 65–83. Retrieved fromhttps://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/Fulltext/2005/01000/Deep_Level_Comprehension_of_Science_Texts__The.7.aspx. 10.1097/00011363‑200501000‑00007
     https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200501000-00007 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bingol, M. A., Mart, C. T., Celik, B., & Yildiz, N.
    (2014) Listening comprehension difficulties encountered by students in second language learning class. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 4(4), 25–30. 10.5539/elt.v9n6p123
     https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n6p123 [Google Scholar]
  5. Clinton-Lisell, V.
    (2021) Listening ears or reading eyes: A meta-analysis of reading and listening comprehension comparisons. Review of Educational Research, 92(4), 543–582. 10.3102/00346543211060871
     https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211060871 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cromley, J. G. & Azevedo, R.
    (2007) Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. 10.1037/0022‑0663.99.2.311
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cronjäger, H., Klapheck, K., Krätzschmer, M., & Walter, O.
    (2010) Entwicklung eines C-Tests für Lernanfänger der Sek. I mit Methoden der klassischen und probabilistischen Testtheorie [Development of a C-test for beginning learners in secondary school with methods of classic and probabilitic test theory]. InR. Grotjahn (Ed.), Der C-Test: Beiträge aus der aktuellen Forschung (pp.71–100). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2008) Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. Tesol Quarterly, 42(3), 475–493. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2008.tb00142.x
     https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00142.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Csomay, E.
    (2006) Academic talk in American university classrooms: crossing the boundaries of oral-literate discourse?Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 117–135. 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  10. De Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W. U.
    (1981) Einführung in die Textlinguistik [Introduction to text linguistis]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111349305
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111349305 [Google Scholar]
  11. Duran, N. D., McCarthy, P. M., Graesser, A. C., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2007) Using temporal cohesion to predict temporal coherence in narrative and expository texts. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 212–223. 10.3758/BF03193150
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193150 [Google Scholar]
  12. Flowerdew, L.
    (1994) Academic Listening: Research Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Goh, C.
    (2000) A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 281, 55–75. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(99)00060‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00060-3 [Google Scholar]
  14. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M.
    (2003) What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text?InA. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp.82–98). New York: Guilford.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Grotjahn, R.
    (2002) Konstruktion und Einsatz von C-Tests: Ein Leitfaden für die Praxis [Construction and application of C-tests: A guideline for practice]. InR. Grotjahn (Ed.), Der C-Test. Theoretische Grundlagen und praktische Anwendungen (pp.211–225). Bochum: AKS.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Hagtvet, B. E.
    (2003) Listening comprehension and reading comprehension in poor decoders: Evidence for the importance of syntactic and semantic skills as well as phonological skills. Reading and Writing, 16(6), 505–539. 10.1023/A:1025521722900
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025521722900 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hall, S. S., Kowalski, R., Paterson, K. B., Basran, J., Filik, R., & Maltby, J.
    (2015) Local text cohesion, reading ability and individual science aspirations: key factors influencing comprehension in science classes. British Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 122–142. 10.1002/berj.3134
     https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3134 [Google Scholar]
  18. Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English (Vol.91). London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hasan, A.
    (2000) Learners’ perceptions of listening comprehension problems. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 131, 137–153. 10.1080/07908310008666595
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07908310008666595 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hecker, K., Südkamp, A., Leser, C., & Weinert, S.
    (2015) Entwicklung eines Tests zur Erfassung von Hörverstehen auf Textebene bei Schülerinnen und Schülern der Klassenstufe 9 [Development of a test for assessing listening comprehension on text level of students in grade 9]. Retrieved from: https://www.neps-data.de/Portals/0/Working%20Papers/WP_LIII.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Heppt, B., Olczyk, M., & Volodina, A.
    (2022) Number of books at home as an indicator of socioeconomic status: Examining its extensions and their incremental validity for academic achievement. Social Psychology of Education, 25(4), 903–928. 10.1007/s11218‑022‑09704‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-022-09704-8 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kim, Y.-S. G.
    (2016) Direct and mediated effects of language and cognitive skills on comprehension of oral narrative texts (listening comprehension) for children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1411, 101–120. 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kintsch, W.
    (1998) Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2019) Revisiting the construction-integration model of text comprehension ans its implications for instruction. InD. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, M. Sailors, & B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy (pp.179–203). New York, London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Koch, P., Oesterreicher, W., Caldas, R., & Urbano, H.
    (2012) Language of immediacy – language of distance: Orality and literacy from the perspective of language theory and linguistic history. Linha D’Água, 261, 153–174. 10.11606/issn.2236‑4242.v26i1p153‑174
     https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2236-4242.v26i1p153-174 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kürschner, C. & Schnotz, W.
    (2008) Das Verhältnis gesprochener und geschriebener Sprache bei der Konstruktion mentaler Repräsentationen [The relation of spoken and written language for constructing mental representations]. Psychologische Rundschau, 59(3), 139–149. 10.1026/0033‑3042.59.3.139
     https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042.59.3.139 [Google Scholar]
  27. Marx, A., Heppt, B., & Henschel, S.
    (2017) Listening comprehension of academic and everyday language in first language and second language students. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(3), 571–600. 10.1017/S0142716416000333
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716416000333 [Google Scholar]
  28. McNamara, D. S. & Kintsch, W.
    (1996) Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 221, 247–288. 10.1080/01638539609544975
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975 [Google Scholar]
  29. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Butler Songer, N., & Kintsch, W.
    (1996) Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 1(1), 1–43. 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1 [Google Scholar]
  30. McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C.
    (2010) Coh-metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47(4), 292–330. 10.1080/01638530902959943
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959943 [Google Scholar]
  31. McNamara, D. S. & Magliano, J.
    (2009) Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 511, 297–384. 10.1016/S0079‑7421(09)51009‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51009-2 [Google Scholar]
  32. O’Reilly, T. & McNamara, D. S.
    (2007) Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good Texts Can be better for strategic, high knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 42(2), 121–152. 10.1080/01638530709336895
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530709336895 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2009) Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 191, 228–242. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  34. Richardson, J. T.
    (2011) Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 135–147. 10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Rohm, T., Freund, M., Gnambs, T., & Fischer, L.
    (2017) NEPS Technical Report for Listening Comprehension: Scaling Results of Starting Cohort 3 for Grade 9. Retrieved from: https://www.neps-data.de/Portals/0/Survey%20Papers/SP_XXI.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Rubin, D. L., Hafer, T., & Arata, K.
    (2000) Reading and listening to oral-based versus literate-based discourse. Communication Education, 49(2), 121–133. 10.1080/03634520009379200
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520009379200 [Google Scholar]
  37. Schleppegrell, M. J.
    (2001) Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 121, 431–459. 10.1016/S0898‑5898(01)00073‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(01)00073-0 [Google Scholar]
  38. Schlücker, B., Hannken-Illjes, K., & Dehé, N.
    (2017) Zuhören vs. Lesen: Verständnis literarischer Texte bei Schüler_innen. [Listening vs. reading: Schoolchildren’s comprehension of literary texts]. Zeitschrift für angewandte Linguistik, 671, 149–177. 10.1515/zfal‑2017‑0021
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfal-2017-0021 [Google Scholar]
  39. Schmitz, A.
    (2016) Verständlichkeit von Sachtexten. Wirkung der globalen Textkohäsion auf das Textverständnis von Schülern [Comprehensibility of expository texts. Effect of global text cohesion on students reading comprehension]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Schmitz, A. & Gräsel, C.
    (2016) Bei welchen Lernenden fördert globale Textkohäsion das Verstehen von Sachtexten? Eine Studie zu Wechselwirkungen zwischen globaler Textkohäsion und kognitiven Verständnisvoraussetzungen [Which students profit from global text cohesion? A study about interactions between global text cohesion and cognitive abilities]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 44(3), 267–281. 10.25656/01:17141
     https://doi.org/10.25656/01:17141 [Google Scholar]
  41. Schmitz, A., Gräsel, C., & Rothstein, B.
    (2017) Students’ genre expectations and the effects of text cohesion on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 30(5), 1115–1135. 10.1007/s11145‑016‑9714‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9714-0 [Google Scholar]
  42. Schnotz, W.
    (1994) Aufbau von Wissensstrukturen. Untersuchungen zur Kohärenzbildung beim Wissenserwerb mit Texten [Development of knowledge sturctures. Studies on coherence construction during text-based knowledge acquisition] (Vol.201). München/Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Schwippert, K.
    (2019) What’s about the books? Social background of students and educational opportunities from the perspective of international large-scale surveys. Journal for Educational Research Online, 11(1), 92–117. CitetononCRdoi:10.25656/01:16789
     https://doi.org/Cite to nonCR doi: 10.25656/01:16789 [Google Scholar]
  44. Shohamy, E. & Inbar, O.
    (1991) Validation of listening comprehension tests: the effect of text and question type. Language Testing, 81, 23–40. 10.1177/026553229100800103
     https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229100800103 [Google Scholar]
  45. Stanat, P., Schipolowski, S., Schneider, R., Sachse, K. A., Weirich, S., & Henschel, S.
    (2022) Kompetenzen in den Fächern Deutsch und Mathematik am Ende der 4. Jahrgangsstufe: Erste Ergebnisse nach über einem Jahr Schulbetrieb unter Pandemiebedingungen [Competencies in German and Mathematics at the end of fourth grade: First results after one year of schooling in pandemic conditions]. Münster, New York: Waxmann. 10.31244/9783830996064
     https://doi.org/10.31244/9783830996064 [Google Scholar]
  46. Tannen, D.
    (1982) The oral/literate continuum in discourse. Spoken and Written Language, 1–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Thums, K., Artelt, C., & Wolter, I.
    (2020) Reading for entertainment or information reception? Gender differences in reading preferences and their impact on text-type-specific reading competences in adult readers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(2), 339–357. 10.1007/s10212‑020‑00486‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00486-1 [Google Scholar]
  48. Volodina, A., Heppt, B., & Weinert, S.
    (2021) Effects of socioeconomic status and language use on academic language proficiency in children with a migration background: An evaluation using quantile regressions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 651. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101973
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101973 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wagner, M., Gegenfurtner, A., & Urhahne, D.
    (2020) Effectiveness of the flipped classroom on student achievement in secondary education: A meta-analysis. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 351, 11–31. 10.1024/1010‑0652/a000274
     https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000274 [Google Scholar]
  50. Weirich, S., Bachinger, A., Trendtel, M., & Krelle, M.
    (2019) Listening comprehension tests in Germany and Austria: Research report and critical review. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 19(3), 1–26. 10.17239/L1ESLL‑2019.19.03.05
     https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.03.05 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wolf, M. C., Muijselaar, M. M. L., Boonstra, A. M., & de Bree, E. H.
    (2019) The relationship between reading and listening comprehension: shared and modality-specific components. Reading and Writing, 32(7), 1747–1767. 10.1007/s11145‑018‑9924‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9924-8 [Google Scholar]
  52. Zwaan, R. A. & Radvansky, G. A.
    (1998) Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 1231, 162–185. 10.1037/0033‑2909.123.2.162
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.23002.sch
Loading
Impact of global text cohesion on students’ listening comprehension of informational listening texts
Pedagogical Linguistics 5, 137 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.23002.sch
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.23002.sch
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.23002.sch
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): comprehensibility; language proficiency; listening comprehension; listening text; prior knowledge; text cohesion

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error