Volume 7, Issue 1 (3-2022)
IJREE 2022, 7(1): 37-48 |
Back to browse issues page
Department of English, Rahman Institute for Higher Education, Ramsar, Iran
Abstract: (2025 Views)
The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of lexical and syntactic simplification of materials on listening comprehension of intermediate EFL learners and to see whether or not there was any significant difference between learners who listen to authentic materials and those who listen to simplified ones. It was also intended to compare the lexically-simplified-material group with the syntactically-simplified-material group in order to examine which type of simplification leads to a greater gain in listening comprehension. To this end, three hundred Iranian EFL intermediate learners from different language institutes in Sari participated at the onset of the study. To choose a homogeneous sample, an OPT was administered and 150 subjects were selected. Then they were randomly assigned into 3 groups, one control group and two experimental groups. A pretest of listening was administered to assess the initial status of the participants. Then, the intervention was given for two hours in ten sessions. The control group listened to authentic materials, but the two experimental groups listened to lexically and syntactically simplified materials, respectively. Afterwards, a posttest was administered to compare the groups to see how much they improved. The scores of the three groups were analyzed through ANOVA. The results revealed a significant difference among the control group and the two experimental groups. Moreover, the group who listened to syntactically simplified materials outperformed the group who listened to lexically simplified materials.
Keywords: authentic materials, EFL intermediate learners, lexical simplification, listening comprehension, simplified materials, syntactic simplification
References
1. Alijani, S., Maghsoudi, M., & Madani, D. (2014). The effect of authentic vs. non-authentic materials on Iranian EFL learners' listening comprehension ability. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3 (3), 151-156. [DOI:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.3p.151]
2. Azizinia, H., Sadeghoghli, H., & Mohebkhah, V. (2017). A study of English listening comprehension improvement via product- vs. process-oriented tactics: The case study of Shiraz EFL learners. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(3), 22-31. http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-51-en.html [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.ijree.2.3.22]
3. Barekat, B., & Nobakhti, H. (2014). The effect of authentic and inauthentic materials in cultural awareness training on EFL learners' listening comprehension ability. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(5), 1058-1065. [DOI:10.4304/tpls.4.5.1058-1065]
4. Blau, E. K. (1982). The effect of syntax on readability for ESL students in Puerto Rico. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 517-528. [DOI:10.2307/3586469]
5. Brown, R. (1987). A comparison of the comprehensibility of modified and unmodified reading materials for ESL. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL, 6, 1, 49-79.
6. Crossley, S. A., Allen, D. B., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Text readability and intuitive simplification: A comparison of readability formulas. Reading in a Foreign Language, 23(1), 84-101. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ926371.pdf
7. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 115-135. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x]
8. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Text-based recall and extra-textual generations resulting from simplified and authentic texts. Reading in a Foreign Language, 28(1), 1-19.
9. Davies, B. (1988). Factors affecting the difficulty of reading comprehension items for successful and unsuccessful readers. Journal of Experimental Education, 56(2), 67-76. [DOI:10.1080/00220973.1988.10806468]
10. Fry, E. (1977). Fry's readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-408-00239-4.50016-0]
11. extension to level 17. Journal of Reading, 21(3), 242-252. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40018802
12. Fujimoto, D., Lubin, J., Sasaki, Y., & Long, M. H. (1986). The effect of linguistic and conversational adjustments on the comprehensibility of spoken second language discourse. Ms. Department of ESL, University of Hawai'i.
13. Gardner, D., & Hansen, E. C. (2007). Effects of lexical simplification during unaided reading of English informational texts. TESL Reporter, 40(2), 27-59.
14. Gass, S. M., & Torres, M. J. A. (2005). Attention when? An investigation of the ordering effect of input and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 1-31. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263105050011]
15. Heydari, M., Khodabandehlou, M., & Jahandar, S. (2013). On the effectiveness of strategy-based instruction of textual simplification on EFL learners' reading comprehension ability. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 3(2), 176-183. https://www.cibtech.org/J-LIFE-SCIENCES/PUBLICATIONS/2013/Vol_3_No_2/JLS...22-031...Heydari...On...Ability.pdf
16. Johnson, D. (1981). Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural background. TESOL Quarterly, 15(2), 169-181. [DOI:10.2307/3586408]
17. Keshavarz, M. H., Atai, M. R., & Ahmadi, H. (2007). Content schemata, linguistic simplification, and EFL readers' comprehension and recall. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19(1), 19-33. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ759838.pdf
18. Khalili Sabet, M., & Mahsefat, H. (2012). The impact of authentic listening materials on elementary EFL learners' listening skills. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(4), 216-229. doi: 10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.4p.216 [DOI:10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.4p.216]
19. Khezr Minaei, F., & Gholami, M. (2021). Integrative systemic therapy in foreign language learning: A practical framework for managing foreign language listening anxiety among Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Research in English Education, 6(4), 1-17. [DOI:10.52547/ijree.6.4.1]
20. http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-543-en.html
21. Latifi, M., Youhanaee, M., & Mohammadi, E. (2013). Simplifying the text or simplifying the task: How to improve listening comprehension. Porta Linguarum 19, 7-21. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/82dd/e7e4958320d5cd593aa6b88ab6246d94f491.pdf [DOI:10.30827/Digibug.29623]
22. Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393).
23. Lynch, T. (2012). Promoting EAP learner autonomy in a second language university context. Research perspectives
24. on English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 390-403. doi:
26. McDonough, J., Shaw, C., & Masuhara, H. (2013). Materials and methods in ELT. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
27. McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
28. Moradian, M. R., Naserpoor, A., & Tamri, M. S. (2013). Effects of lexical simplification and elaboration of ESP texts on Iranian EFL university students' reading comprehension. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Research, 2(6), 332-338.
29. Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. Oxford: Heinemann. Omaggio Hadley, A. (2nd ed.) (1993). Teaching language in context. Boston: Heinle.
30. Oh, S. Y. (2001). Two types of input modification and EFL reading comprehension: Simplification versus elaboration. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 69-96. [DOI:10.2307/3587860]
31. Osada, N. (2004). Listening comprehension research: A brief review of the past thirty years. Dialogue, 3(1), 53-66. https://www.scirp.org/%28S%28lz5mqp453edsnp55rrgjct55%29%29/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=2802776
32. Parker, K., & Chaudron, C. (1987). The effects of linguistic simplifications and elaborative modifications on L2 comprehension. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in ESL, 6(2), 107-133.
33. Peacock, M. (1997). The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners. ELT Journal, 51(2), 144-156. [DOI:10.1093/elt/51.2.144]
34. Richards, J. C. (2006). Materials development and research-Making the connection. RELC Journal, 37(1), 5-26.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206063470 [DOI:10.1177%2F0033688206063470]
35. Safari, M., & Mohaghegh Montazeri, M. (2017). The effect of reducing lexical and syntactic complexity of texts on reading comprehension. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 36(3), 59-83. [DOI:10.22099/jtls.2017.26325.2324]
36. Saggion, H. (2017). Automatic text simplification. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies, 10(1), 1-137. [DOI:10.2200/S00700ED1V01Y201602HLT032]
37. Shewan, C. M., & Canter, G. J. (1971). Effects of vocabulary, syntax, and sentence length on auditory comprehension of aphasic patients. Cortex, 7(3), 209-226. [DOI:10.1016/S0010-9452(71)80001-1]
38. Shirzadi, S. (2014). Syntactic and lexical simplification: the impact on EFL listening comprehension at low and high language proficiency levels. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 5(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.3.566-571 [DOI:10.4304/jltr.5.3.566-571]
39. Shook, D. (1997). Identifying and overcoming possible mismatches in the beginning reader-literary text interaction. Hispanica, 80(2), 234-243. [DOI:10.2307/345882]
40. Siddharthan, A. (2014). A survey of research on text simplification. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 165(2), 259-298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/itl.165.2.06sid [DOI:10.1075/itl.165.2.06sid]
41. Sonmez, S. (2007). An overview of studies on the use of authentic texts in language classrooms. In Proc. Online Conf. Second & Foreign Language Teaching & Research (pp. 51-62).
42. Tomlinson, B. (2013). Principles of effective materials development. In Nigel Harwood (ed.), English language teaching materials: Theory and practice, 93-125. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
43. Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (2013). Review of adult EFL courses. ELT Journal, 67(2), 233-249. [DOI:10.1093/elt/cct007]
44. Tsang, W. K. (1987). Text modifications in ESL reading comprehension. Scholarly paper, Department of ESL, University of Hawai'i.
45. Tweissi, A. I. (1998). The effects of the amount and type of simplification on foreign language reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11(2), 191-204. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ577616
46. Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension: acquiring successful strategies. ELT [DOI:10.1093/elt/53.3.168]
47. Journal, 53(3), 168-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/53.3.168 [DOI:10.1093/elt/53.3.168]
48. Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40(3), 191-210. doi: [DOI:10.1017/S0261444807004338]
49. Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canadian Modern Language Review, 42(5), 1018-1019. [DOI:10.3138/cmlr.42.5.1018b]
50. Yano, Y., Long, M., & Ross, S. (1994). The effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 44(2), 189-219. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01100.x]
51. Young, D. J. (1999). Linguistic simplification of SL reading material: Effective instructional practice? Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 350-366. [DOI:10.1111/0026-7902.00027]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |