ArticleBMC psychology2026
Discourse type effects on EFL listening comprehension: cognitive load and metacognitive strategy shifts across scientific and literary texts.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive Load and Foreign-Language Anxiety in Second-Language Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Review
- Measuring information density in interlanguage through entropy analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiscourse type can alter the demands placed on L2 listeners by changing coherence, rhetorical density, and the balance between meaning-driven and form-driven processing. Building on the Information-Rich Discourse Hypothesis, this study examines whether an information-rich scientific text and a rhetorically complex literary text produce different patterns of listening comprehension, perceived effort, and metacognitive strategy use among EFL learners.
methodsSixty undergraduate EFL learners completed a within-subjects listening task involving two counterbalanced discourse conditions (scientific vs. literary). Outcomes included comprehension accuracy, processing speed, self-reported cognitive load, and self-reported use of top-down versus bottom-up metacognitive strategies. Analyses used paired comparisons and repeated-measures modeling that accounted for order and individual differences (listening anxiety and receptive vocabulary knowledge as a lexical-coverage proxy).
resultsListening to the information-rich scientific text resulted in significantly higher comprehension accuracy, faster processing, and lower cognitive load than listening to the rhetorically complex literary text. Strategy reports showed systematic adaptation across conditions, with greater reliance on top-down strategies in the scientific condition and greater reliance on bottom-up strategies in the literary condition. Individual differences were associated with variability in outcomes and strategy use; however, interpretations involving vocabulary are framed cautiously because the vocabulary measure reflects written receptive knowledge rather than phonological vocabulary access.
conclusionDiscourse type exerts robust effects on EFL listening performance, perceived effort, and strategic regulation. These findings support the Information-Rich Discourse Hypothesis and underscore that listening success depends on an interaction between discourse characteristics, learner profiles, and strategic processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.