Spoken propositional idea density, a measure to help second language English speaking students: A multicentre cohort study

2Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: Idea density has been shown to influence comprehension time for text in various populations. This study aims to explore the influence of spoken idea density on attainment in young, healthy subjects using demographic characteristics. Methods: Students watched two online lectures and answered 10 multiple choice questions on them. Students received one more idea dense (MID) and one less idea dense (LID) lecture on two different subjects. Results: Seventy-five students completed the study achieving a higher median score after a less idea-dense lecture (LID = 7(3), MID = 6(3), p = 0.04). Artificial neural network models revealed the first language as the main predictor of exam performance. The odds ratio (OR) of obtaining ≥70% after a more idea-dense lecture was six-time higher for the first language versus second language English speakers (OR = 5.963, 95% CI 1.080–32.911, p = 0.041). The odds ratio was not significant when receiving a less dense lecture (OR = 2.298, 95% CI 0.635–8.315, p = 0.205). Second-language speakers benefited from receiving a lower idea density, achieving a 10.8% score increase from high to low density, versus a 3.2% increase obtained by first language speakers. Conclusions: The propositional idea density of lectures directly influences students’ comprehension, and disproportionately for second language speakers; revealing the possibility of reduced spoken idea density in levelling the attainment differential between first and second language speakers.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lunn, A. M., Bürkle, D. M., Ward, R., McCloskey, A. P., Rathbone, A., Courtenay, A., … Manfrin, A. (2022). Spoken propositional idea density, a measure to help second language English speaking students: A multicentre cohort study. Medical Teacher, 44(3), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2021.1985097

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free