Signals and reading comprehension — theory and practice

Chung, Jenny S.L

doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(00)00010-5

Cited by 32 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present findings further extend previous empirical research documenting the beneficial effects of markers on reading and listening comprehension (Chung, 2000;Flowerdew & Tauroza, 1995;Hron et al, 1985;Kintsch & Yarbrough, 1982;Lorch, 1989;Lorch & Lorch, 1995, 1996Lorch et al, 1993;Meyer, 1987;Rickards et al, 1997;Spyridakis & Standal, 1987;Tyler, 1992Tyler, , 1994Tyler & Bro, 1992;Williams, 1992). The marker group performed significantly better than the nonmarker group on the recall of high-idea units.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

The Effects of Organization Markers on ESL Learners' Text Understanding

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

The Effects of Organization Markers on ESL Learners' Text Understanding

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…On the one hand, cues facilitated learners' listening comprehension of high-and low-level information, as well as the combination of both. The current findings that the signaled group recalled significantly more high-and lowlevel information from the lecture in an accurate manner than the nonsignaled group extend previous empirical research documenting the beneficial effects of cues on reading and listening comprehension (Chung, 2000;Flowerdew & Tauroza, 1995;Hron et al, 1985;Jung, 1999;Kintsch & Yarbrough, 1982;Lorch, 1989;Lorch & Lorch, 1995Lorch, Lorch, & Inman, 1993;Meyer, 1987;Rickards et al, 1997;Rounds, 1987;Spyridakis & Standal, 1987;Tyler, 1992Tyler, , 1994Williams, 1992).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

The Role of Discourse Signaling Cues in Second Language Listening Comprehension

Jung

2003

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In contrast to the extensive research on reading, few studies have been conducted to investigate the role of discourse signaling cues in second language (L2) listening. Even the few existing studies provide inconsistent support for the beneficial effects of discourse signaling cues on L2 listening comprehension. Most of these studies also fail to show how these cues affect listeners' comprehension of different levels of information in the text. The current study examined the effects of discourse signaling cues on L2 learners' listening comprehension of high-and low-level information in academic lectures. The study involved 80 Korean learners of English as a Foreign Language. Of the 80 learners, half listened to the lecture with discourse signaling cues (i.e., signaled group), and the other half listened to the lecture without such cues (i.e., nonsignaled group). Half the learners in each group performed summary tasks; the other half performed recall tasks. The findings showed that discourse signaling cues play an important role in L2 listening comprehension. Compared to the nonsignaled group, the signaled group recalled significantly more high-as well as low-level information from the lecture in an accurate manner.

show abstract

“…They depend on LCs to construct global coherence (Irwin, 1986). Chung (2002) found LCs more beneficial to readers below the advanced proficiency level, since they contribute to discourse at a macro-rather than a microstructure level, as suggested by van Dijk and Kintsch (1983).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 56%

Linguistic intelligence and logical intelligence: Which is determinant for logical connector (LC) comprehension by EFL readers?

Asassfeh¹

2014

Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The label of 'logical connectors' (LCs) or 'conjunction' suggests that these expressions constitute an area where linguistic intelligence and logical/mathematical intelligence are likely to intersect. This paper is the first to explore the relationship between these two intelligence types and EFL undergraduates' use of LCs in both their L1 (Arabic) and L2 (English). Two instruments (the Multiple Intelligence Inventory and the Logical Relations Reading Test) were administered to 200 English-major undergraduates. The results revealed that these students had significantly higher logical/mathematical intelligence than linguistic intelligence. Nonetheless, linguistic intelligence had a stronger correlation with their reading comprehension performance in both their L1 and L2. The findings of this study and their implications are helpful for EFL instructors and invite further in-depth research that addresses the relationship between intelligence types and EFL learning.

show abstract

Signals and reading comprehension — theory and practice

Cited by 32 publications

References 16 publications

The Effects of Organization Markers on ESL Learners' Text Understanding

The Effects of Organization Markers on ESL Learners' Text Understanding

The Role of Discourse Signaling Cues in Second Language Listening Comprehension

Linguistic intelligence and logical intelligence: Which is determinant for logical connector (LC) comprehension by EFL readers?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About