[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-589940-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-589940-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","reading-and-listening-comprehension-subskills-the-match-between-theory-coursebooks-and-language-proficiency-tests","Reading and Listening Comprehension Subskills: The Match between Theory, Coursebooks, and Language Proficiency Tests","","The article addresses differences between theoretical and applied approaches to reading and listening comprehension subskills in EFL/ESL. It compares subskills drawn from Applied Linguistics literature, nine major proficiency tests, and 25 widely used coursebook task sets. Repetitions are eliminated and a unified list of common and exclusive subskills is produced. Results indicate ten shared subskills, seven exclusive to reading, and four exclusive to listening. The list supports test development and coursebook content design.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/reading-and-listening-comprehension-subskills-the-match-between-theory-coursebooks-and-language-proficiency-tests/589940/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/reading-and-listening-comprehension-subskills-the-match-between-theory-coursebooks-and-language-proficiency-tests/589940.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Cart","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-27","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What problem does the study investigate about reading and listening subskills?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It examines whether theoretical reading and listening subskills used in the literature are actually practiced in EFL/ESL coursebooks and assessed in proficiency tests, and whether shared versus exclusive subskills are unified in one list.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How were relevant subskills collected and compared?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The study collected theoretical subskills from Applied Linguistics sources, extracted subskills from nine popular EFL/ESL proficiency tests and 25 widely used coursebook tasks, then cross-compared them and removed repetitions to produce a final inclusive list.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What are the main findings regarding common and exclusive subskills?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"It identifies ten common reading and listening subskills. Reading-exclusive subskills total seven, while listening-exclusive subskills total four.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},589940,1792116779,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":101,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},18829141979164,"https://eur-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","Advances in Language and Literary Studies  \nISSN: 2203-4714  \n[www.alls.aiac.org.au](www.alls.aiac.org.au)  \n| Reading and Listening Comprehension Subskills: The Match between Theory, Coursebooks, and Language Proficiency Tests\u003Cbr>Aynur Ismayilli Karakoc*\u003Cbr>School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Corresponding Author: Aynur Ismayilli Karakoc, [E-mail: phdvuw@gmail.com](E-mail: phdvuw@gmail.com) |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| ARTICLE INFO | ABSTRACT\u003Cbr>Different theoretical and empirical taxonomies of reading and listening comprehension (RC, LC) are available in the literature. Most of language tests and tasks in English as foreign or second language (EFL/ESL) coursebooks are based on the classifications of reading and listening subskills (micro-skills) offered in theory. However, these taxonomies have not cross-checked whether the theoretical subskills are practiced in ESL/EFL coursebooks and assessed in proficiency tests. Nor have they listed the shared and exclusive RC and LC subskills in a unified fashion. For this purpose, theoretical subskills offered in Applied Linguistics literature, nine internationally popular EFL/ESL proficiency tests and 25 widely used coursebook tasks were collected, cross-compared, repetitions were eliminated, and a final inclusive list of common and exclusive subskills was prepared. The findings suggested ten common reading and listening subskills. The subskills exclusive to reading were seven, and exclusive to listening were four. This list is hoped to be helpful for teachers in developing their own tests, and the coursebook developers in preparing the content materials. |\n| Article history\u003Cbr>Received: March 10, 2019\u003Cbr>Accepted: June 24, 2019\u003Cbr>Published: August 31, 2019\u003Cbr>Volume: 10 Issue: 4\u003Cbr>Advance access: July 2019 |  |\n| Conflicts of interest: None\u003Cbr>Funding: None |  |\n| Key words:\u003Cbr>Reading Subskills,\u003Cbr>Listening Subskills, Skills in Coursebooks,\u003Cbr>Skills in Tests |  |\n\nINTRODUCTION  \nLanguage ability is manifested through reading and listening skills. These are also called receptive skills comprising different and similar processes. There are modality unspecific and modality-specific perspectives explaining the comprehension ability (Schroeders, Wilhelm & Bucholtz, 2010) . According to a modality unspecific or single skill view, a unique single factor can explain the comprehension, implying that reading comprehension (RC) and listening comprehension (LC) may comprise the same cognitive processes. On the other hand, a modality-specific or multiple skill view posits that various factors can explain RC and LC with some differences and some similarities. This dichotomy also corresponds with the unitary and dual comprehension models (Lund, 1991) . The unitary model posits that a single comprehension process functions for reading and listening, while the dual model holds that there are both differences and similarities between modalities.  \nIn terms of differences, it is believed that listening is more cognitively demanding than reading (Buck, 2001) because:  \n(a) it requires more attention to sounds and prosodic features,  \n(b) it occurs in real time, and listeners have less control on the input, and do not have the opportunity to check,  \n(c) speech is unplanned having pauses, false starts, hesittions and so forth (Vandergrift, 2006; Wagner, 2013),  \n(d) it has different speeds of input, use of cognates, reductions, blending of sounds and back-channel cues,  \n(e) speech is shorter than written units with vaguer and more colloquial language (i.e., there are more pronouns, redundancies, fillers, self-corrections, less standard grammar in speech, and conjunctions are used instead of subordination), and  \n(f) meaning is conveyed by gestures and body language in speech (Brown, 2011) .  \nRegarding the similarities, both receptive skills involve decoding and comprehension using language and background knowledge. As Alderson (2000) suggested","cbCaigqjRhDYAqH8","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaigqjRhDYAqH8","pdf",370615,"English","# Introduction\n## Differences between reading and listening\n## Similarities between receptive skills\n# Article framework\n## Purpose and methodology\n## Findings and implications","[{\"question\":\"What problem does the study investigate about reading and listening subskills?\",\"answer\":\"It examines whether theoretical reading and listening subskills used in the literature are actually practiced in EFL/ESL coursebooks and assessed in proficiency tests, and whether shared versus exclusive subskills are unified in one list.\"},{\"question\":\"How were relevant subskills collected and compared?\",\"answer\":\"The study collected theoretical subskills from Applied Linguistics sources, extracted subskills from nine popular EFL/ESL proficiency tests and 25 widely used coursebook tasks, then cross-compared them and removed repetitions to produce a final inclusive list.\"},{\"question\":\"What are the main findings regarding common and exclusive subskills?\",\"answer\":\"It identifies ten common reading and listening subskills. Reading-exclusive subskills total seven, while listening-exclusive subskills total four.\"}]","Reading and Listening Comprehension Subskills: The Match between Theory, Coursebooks, and Language Proficiency Tests | PDF",1792068444,15]