当前位置: X-MOL 学术Rev. Educ. Res. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Listening Ears or Reading Eyes: A Meta-Analysis of Reading and Listening Comprehension Comparisons
Review of Educational Research ( IF 8.3 ) Pub Date : 2021-12-29 , DOI: 10.3102/00346543211060871
Virginia Clinton-Lisell 1
Affiliation  

In this study, a meta-analysis of reading and listening comprehension comparisons across age groups was conducted. Based on robust variance estimation (46 studies; N = 4,687), the overall difference between reading and listening comprehension was not reliably different (g = 0.07, p = .23). Reading was beneficial over listening when the reading condition was self-paced (g = 0.13, p = .049) rather than experimenter-paced (g = −0.32, p = .16). Reading also had a benefit when inferential and general comprehension rather than literal comprehension was assessed (g = 0.36, p = .02; g = .15, p = .05; g = −0.01, p = .93, respectively). There was some indication that reading and listening were more similar in languages with transparent orthographies than opaque orthographies (g = 0.001, p = .99; g = 0.10, p = .19, respectively). The findings may be used to inform theories of comprehension about modality influences in that both lower-level skill and affordances vary comparisons of reading and listening comprehension. Moreover, the findings may guide choices of modality; however, both audio and written options are needed for accessible instruction.



中文翻译:

听力耳朵或阅读眼睛:阅读和听力理解比较的元分析

在这项研究中,对不同年龄组的阅读和听力理解比较进行了元分析。基于稳健的方差估计(46 项研究;N = 4,687),阅读和听力理解之间的总体差异并不可靠(g = 0.07,p = .23)。当阅读条件是自定进度(g = 0.13,p = .049)而不是实验者进度(g = -0.32,p = .16)时,阅读比听力有益。在评估推理和一般理解而不是字面理解时,阅读也有好处(分别为 g = 0.36,p = .02;g = .15,p = .05;g = -0.01,p = .93)。有迹象表明,与不透明拼写法相比,使用透明拼写法的语言的阅读和听力更相似(分别为 g = 0.001,p = .99;g = 0.10,p = .19)。这些发现可用于为理解模态影响的理论提供信息,因为较低水平的技能和可供性会改变阅读和听力理解的比较。此外,研究结果可以指导方式的选择;然而,无障碍教学需要音频和书面选项。

更新日期:2021-12-30
down
wechat
bug