The Effects of Modality, Information Type and Language Experience on Recall by Foreign Language Learners of Spanish

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The relationship between grammatical knowledge and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis

“…Second, Jeon and Yamashita (2014) did not remove over 3.5 standard deviation effect sizes as the outlier, which showed that the correlation was unclear and did not generate convincing conclusions due to the significant heterogeneity problem. Through the literature search, the current results were consistent with most empirical studies, which showed that the average correlation between grammatical knowledge and reading comprehension was nearly large ( Mecartty, 2000 ; Gersten et al, 2001 ; Perfetti et al, 2005 ), indicating that the grammatical knowledge significantly determined the comprehension process. Moreover, this result informed how the cohesive tie function of grammatical knowledge might have great determining power on reassembling decoded words into phrases and clauses, allowing readers to be more efficient in detecting and correcting reading errors to enhance their comprehension process indirectly (e.g., Slobin, 1966 ; Bowey, 2005 ; Kempen et al, 2012 ).…”

Listening Ears or Reading Eyes: A Meta-Analysis of Reading and Listening Comprehension Comparisons

“…The inclusion criteria were based on the purposes of this meta-analysis as well as for clarity of causal inference (examples of excluded studies based on each criteria are after each criteria): (1) there was a measure of performance (memory and/or comprehension) of the texts (Buchweitz et al, 2014); (2) sufficient statistics for the meta-analysis were available either in the report or were available when requested from the author (such information could not be determined from Fletcher and Pumfrey, 1988); (3) there was at least one condition in which participants were silently reading the text and at least one other condition in which participants were only listening to the text (e.g., Verlaan & Ortlieb, 2012, was excluded because it compared reading-while-listening to reading-only and did not have a listening-only condition); (4) the texts were the same in the reading and listening conditions (e.g., Wolf et al, 2019, was excluded due to different materials for reading and listening); (5) there was random assignment for between-subjects designs and counterbalancing for within-subjects designs (Stanton, 1934); (6) the materials did not include visual representations as multimedia materials are processed differently than only verbal information (Mayer, 2009; see also, e.g., Crooks et al, 2012, because diagrams were in the materials); (7) the verbal materials in the experiments needed to be longer than one sentence due to differences between processing single sentences compared with discourse (e.g., Krull & Humes, 2016, was excluded because it compared reading and listening of single sentences while measuring brain activation); and (8) experimental procedures occurred under researcher supervision to ensure consistent environments between reading and listening conditions (e.g., Daniel & Woody, 2010, was excluded because participants read or listened to the materials on their own time as part of a course assignment). In addition, studies that focused on participants’ development of nonnative language skills were excluded because of confounds with second languages (Mecartty, 2001; Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014, for details on differences in first and second language comprehension). Also excluded were studies that focused on individuals with disabilities to avoid confounds (Hale et al, 2005).…”

Proficiency, language of assessment, and attention to meaning and form during L2 comprehension: Methodological considerations in L2 replication research

“…As regards the impact of proficiency, Vandergrift (2006) for instance found that while both L1 ability and L2 proficiency affected learners’ comprehension scores, the latter had a much stronger influence. Similarly, Mecartty (2000) reported significant effects of vocabulary but not grammar on L2 listening, highlighting how specific aspects of L2 proficiency can interact with learners’ performance. Specifically addressing learners’ simultaneous processing of form and meaning during reading, two recent studies (Sanz & McCormick, 2021; Son et al, 2021) convincingly demonstrated the role of L2 proficiency in affecting learners’ allocation of attention.…”