Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol 3, No 3 (2012), 452-457, May 2012
doi:10.4304/jltr.3.3.452-457

The Effect of Metadiscourse on EFL Learners’ Listening Comprehension

Seyed Mohammad Reza Heshemi, Hossein Khodabakhshzade, Majid Elahi Shirvan

Abstract


This study is an attempt to investigate the effect of metadiscourse on listening comprehension of EFL intermediate and advanced students. 120 students were assigned into four groups of 30. There were two groups of treatment and control both in intermediate and advanced levels. Two versions of monologues with and without discourse markers were given to the control and treatment groups respectively. The result showed a significant difference between groups in advanced and intermediate levels. There was however no significant difference within the intermediate groups. So, a follow up unstructured interview was conducted to find out the possible reason. The result showed that intermediate students were not aware of the role of discourse markers in the monologues. This consciousness raising regarding discourse markers helped the premise of the study and the result of the second administration of the versions of the monologues to the intermediate groups showed a significant difference. The findings of this study clearly display the crucial role of metadiscourse and the degree of consciousness about them across different levels in listening comprehension of EFL students.


Keywords


metadiscourse; listening comprehension; consciousness raising; discourse markers

References


 

Alison, D. & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse organization on lecture comprehension. English for Specific Purposes, 14(2), 157-173.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(95)00007-E

Carlson, S.B. (1988). Cultural differences in writing and reasoning skills. In A.C. Purves (Ed.), Writing Across Languages and Cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 227-260). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chaudron, C. & Richards, J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics, 7, 113-127.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/7.2.113

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cheng, X and Stefensen, M. (1996). Metadiscourse: A techniquein improving students writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 149-181.

Crismore, A. (1984). The rhetoric of social studies textbooks: Metadiscourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 279-296.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022027840160306

Crismore, A. (1989). Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.

Eslami, R. Z. & Eslami, R. A. (2007). Discourse markers in academic lectures. Asian EFL Journal. 9(1), 22-38.

Flowerdew, J., & Tauroza, S. (1995). The effect of discourse markers o second language lecture comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 435-458.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014406

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.).London: Edward Arnold.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30 (4), 437-455.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5

Hyland, K. (1999). Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory course books. English for Specific Purposes, 18(1), 3-26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00025-2

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 133-151.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001

Hyland, K. (2005). Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.

Intraprawat, P. & Stefensen, M. S. (1995). The use of metadiscourse in good and poor ESL essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 253-272.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90012-8

Jalilifar, A. & Alipour, M. (2007). How explicit instruction makes a difference: Metadiscourse markers and EFL learners’ reading comprehension skill. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 38(1), 127-148.

Martinez, A. C. L. (2004). Discourse markers in the expository writing of Spanish university students. IBERICA, 8, 63-80.

Morell, T. (2004). Interactive lecture discourse for university EFL students. English for specific purposes, 23, 325-338.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(03)00029-2

Murphy, D.F. & Candlin, C.N. (1979). The engineering lecture discourse and listening comprehension. Practical papers in English Language Education, 2, 1-79.

Olsen, L. A., & Hukin, T. N. (1990). Point-driven understanding in engineering lecture comprehension. English for Specific Purposes, 9, 33-47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(90)90027-A

Perez, M. A. & Macia, I. A. (2002). Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension: Does it really help foreign language learners? Allantis, 14(2), 3-21.

Perez, M.A. & Macia, I. A. (2002). Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension: Does it really help foreign language learners? Allantis, 14(2), 3-21.

Shing Chiang, C. & Dunkel, P. (1992). The effect of speech modification, prior knowledge, and listening proficiency on EFL lecture learning. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 345-374.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587009

Simin, S. & Tavangar, M. (2009). Metadiscourse knowledge and use in Iranian EFL writing. Asian EFL Journal, 11, 230-255.

Vahid Dastjerdi, H., & Shirzad, M. (2010). The impact of explicit instruction of metadiscourse markers on EFL learners’ writing performance. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 2(2), 154-174.

Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College composition and communication, 36, 82-93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/357609


Full Text: PDF


Journal of Language Teaching and Research (JLTR, ISSN 1798-4769)

Copyright @ 2006-2014 by ACADEMY PUBLISHER – All rights reserved.