Cover not available
Article published In:
Pedagogical Linguistics
Vol. 5:2 (2024) ► pp.137–161

Impact of global text cohesion on students’ listening comprehension of informational listening texts

ORCID logo | University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland FHNW
 | Universität Hamburg
 | Ruhr-University of Bochum
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.
Keywords: listening comprehension, text cohesion, listening text, language proficiency, prior knowledge, comprehensibility
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Listening comprehension of informational texts: Challenges and influencing factors
    • 2.1Characteristics of listening comprehension in academic settings
    • 2.2Listening comprehension depending on student characteristics and stimulus features
    • 2.3Text cohesion for promoting listening comprehension of academic texts
    • 2.4Research questions
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Sample
    • 3.2Design
    • 3.3Materials
      • 3.3.1Listening text: Text content and manipulation of global text cohesion
      • 3.3.2Listening comprehension test
      • 3.3.3Control variables
    • 3.4Procedure
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Impact of Global Text Cohesion on Listening Comprehension
    • 5.2Limitations of the Study and Implications for Future Research
    • 5.3Implications for Listening Instruction at School
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 13 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.23002.sch
References (52)
References
Arfé, B., Mason, L., & Fajardo, I. (2017). Simplifying informational text structure for struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 31 (9), 2191–2210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. (2003). The logics of conversation. Cambridge, MA: University Press.Google Scholar
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 from [URL]. DOI logo
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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]. In R. Grotjahn (Ed.), Der C-Test: Beiträge aus der aktuellen Forschung (pp. 71–100). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. Tesol Quarterly, 42 (3), 475–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Beaugrande, R. & Dressler, W. U. (1981). Einführung in die Textlinguistik [Introduction to text linguistis]. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (1994). Academic Listening: Research Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System, 28 1, 55–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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? In A. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82–98). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Grotjahn, R. (2002). Konstruktion und Einsatz von C-Tests: Ein Leitfaden für die Praxis [Construction and application of C-tests: A guideline for practice]. In R. Grotjahn (Ed.), Der C-Test. Theoretische Grundlagen und praktische Anwendungen (pp. 211–225). Bochum: AKS.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English (Vol. 91). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hasan, A. (2000). Learners’ perceptions of listening comprehension problems. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13 1, 137–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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: [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 141 1, 101–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). Revisiting the construction-integration model of text comprehension ans its implications for instruction. In D. 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
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, 26 1, 153–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S. & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22 1, 247–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNamara, D. S. & Magliano, J. (2009). Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51 1, 297–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19 1, 228–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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: [URL]
Rubin, D. L., Hafer, T., & Arata, K. (2000). Reading and listening to oral-based versus literate-based discourse. Communication Education, 49 (2), 121–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2001). Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Linguistics and Education, 12 1, 431–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 67 1, 149–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E. & Inbar, O. (1991). Validation of listening comprehension tests: the effect of text and question type. Language Testing, 8 1, 23–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1982). The oral/literate continuum in discourse. Spoken and Written Language, 1–16.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 65 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 35 1, 11–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123 1, 162–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Heemsoth, Tim, Claus Krieger, Rieke Frerichs, Anke Schmitz, Sebastian Wallot, Hendrik Härtig & Dominik Leiss
2024. Verständlichkeit mündlicher Erklärungen von Sportlehrkräften. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.