The effect of discourse markers on listening comprehension of EFL Iranian high and low proficiency Learners

Subject Areas : Journal of Teaching English Language Studies

Neda Javadi ¹ , Ramin Rahmany ²

1 - Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch
2 - Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch

Received: 2016-05-24 Accepted : 2016-07-03 Published : 2016-09-01

Keywords: Discourse, Listening comprehension, language proficiency, Discourse markers, high and low proficiency,

Abstract :

This research was designed to investigate the effects of discourse markers on EFL Iranianlearners' listening comprehension. Fifty eight male and female students took a pre-test as aproficiency test first, 39 students out of 58 are needed. To gain this aim, a language proficiencytest, i.e., Nelson test will be given to the total participants. After calculating Mean and StandardDeviation, each person with +1SD above the mean will be assigned to high level of languageproficiency and each one with -1SD below the mean will be assigned to low level of languageproficiency. Then they were assigned to two experimental groups and a control group, twentystudents for high level proficiency of DMs group, nineteen students for low level proficiency ofDMs group and nineteen students for control group were selected. During four sessions of thetreatment, each experimental group worked on four listening passages taken from IELTS sample.The participants in two experimental groups were encouraged to think and notice meaningfullyto the DMs and their functions how concepts are linked in listening passages by DMs. Alongwith the experimental groups, the participants in the control group also worked on the differentfour listening passages. At the end, three post tests were performed in one session. Finally OnewayANOVA was used to analyze the results of the control and the two experimental groups’post- tests, and a significant difference was observed in the high proficiency experimental groupof DMs and control groups, but there was not observed any remarkable difference between thelow proficiency group and control group.

References:

Abdi, R. (2010). Metadiscourse strategies in research articles: A study of the
differences across subsections. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 3(1), 1-16.
Aijmer, K. (2007). Pragmatic markers in spoken interlanguage. Nordic Journal of
English Studies, 3(1), 173-190.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Benson, Malcolm J. (1989) "The Academic Listening Task: A Case Study",
TESOL Quarterly Vol. 23 No 3
Bloom, C.P. (1988). The roles of schemata in memory for text. Discourse Processes,
11, 305-318.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. New York: Cambridge.
Carter, R. A., & McCarthy, M. J. (1995). Grammar and the spoken language.
Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 141-158.
Carter, R. A., & McCarthy, M. J. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English:
A comprehensive guide: Spoken and written English grammar and usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Discourse analysis and the teaching of listening. In G.
Chaudron, C. & Richards, J. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the
JOURNAL OF TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES, Vol. 5, NO. 1, Summer 2016
35
Comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7,113-127.
Crismore, A. (1989). Talking to readers: discourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.
Crismore, A., & Abdollehzadeh, E. (2010). A review of recent discourse studies:
The Iranian context. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9, 2, 195-219.
Field, J. (2011). Into the mind of the academic listener. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 10, 102-112.
Flower dew, J., & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse markers on second
language lecture comprehension. SSLA, 17, 435-458.
Haig, E. (2008). A critical discourse analysis of discourse strategies in reports on youth
crime. UK Radio News, 4, 33-65.
Hyland, K. (2009). Corpus informed discourse analysis: The case of academic engagement.
Cambridge press.
Jung, E.H. (2003). The effects of organization markers on ESL learners' text
understanding. TESOL Quarterly, 37 (4), 749-759.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Li, F. (2010). A study of English listening strategies used by senior middle school
students. Asian Social Science, 6(10), 184-192.
Lynch, T. (2011). Academic listening in the 21st century: Reviewing a decade of
research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 79-88.
Nation, I.S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking.
New York: Routledge.
Perez, M. A. & Macia, I. A. (2002). Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension:
Does it really help foreign language learners? Allantis, 14(2), 3-21.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and
Applied linguistics (3rd ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
Rubin, J. (1995). A review of second language listening comprehension research.
The Modern Language Journal, 78(2), 199-221.
Schiffrin, D. (2009). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841
Syam, C. A. (2013). Spoken grammar isn’t broken grammar: A case for teaching
JOURNAL OF TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES, Vol. 5, NO. 1, Summer 2016
36
spoken grammar ESL/EFL contexts. Language in India, 13(11), 146-157.
Vande Kopple, W. (1989). Some exploratory on discourse. College composition
and communication, 36, 1, 82-93.
Modern Language Review. Vol. 58, 4; 555 − 558.
Widdowson , Ed. (2007). Explorations in applied linguistics (pp. 57-61). ... ELT Journal,
60 (1), 3-12. 2-Halleck, G. Wikimedia Foundation. Retrieved March 24, 2009.
Zarei, & Mahmudi. (2012). Schema building activities in L2 reading and
listening comprehension: A theoretical review and an empirical analysis
Singapore: Lap Lambert Academic Publishing.