Listening as information processing

Goss, Blaine

doi:10.1080/01463378209369465

Cited by 79 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…He presented his conclusions (with occasional supplementary data and analyses) to the academic and business communities in a series of articles and books (Nichols, 1947(Nichols, , 1948a(Nichols, , 1948b(Nichols, , 1957(Nichols, , 1962Nichols & Stevens, 1957a, 1957b, 1958 which shaped the conceptualization of listening and, by their high quality and apparent completeness, may have unintentionally discouraged additional research. 51 In recent years scholars have carefully reevaluated conceptual definitions of listening and have begun to use more specific terms such as active listening, empathetic listening, interpretive listening, and recall listening (e.g., Arnett, 1983;Backlund, Brown, Gurry, & Jandt, 1982;Bostrom & Waldhart, 1988;Goss, 1982;Stewart, 1983;Wolvin & Coakley, 1982). Listening tests have also been reevaluated and refined (e.g., Bostrom & Waldhart, 1980,1983,1988Rubin & Roberts, 1987;Watson & Barker, 1983.…”

Section: Review Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Listening in Organizational Environments

Lewis

Reinsch

1988

Journal of Business Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Workers at a bank and a medical center provided 195 critical incident descriptions of effective and ineffective listening. Individual elements were identified and sorted into 38 categories which describe listening in the two work environments.Results indicate that listening is described in organizational settings as an interrelated set of concepts including attentiveness, verbal behavior, nonverbal behavior, attitudes, memory, and behavioral responses. This concept of listening differs from the classroom-oriented and counseling-oriented concepts of listening which dominate much research and training.

show abstract

Section: Review Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Listening in Organizational Environments

Lewis

Reinsch

1988

Journal of Business Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Goss (1982) argues that reading and listening are fundamentally different processes. It may be acceptable that storing verbal/print and verbal/speech information occurs along the same phonetic lines.…”

Section: Listening Versus Readingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Target Group Characteristics: Are Perceptional Modality Preferences Relevant for Instructional Material Design?

Jaspers¹

1992

Educational Media International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In instructional development one is often advised to take individual perceptional preferences into account when designing audiovisual materials. Perceptual and learningstyle research literature, however, offers no clear evidence for modality preferences for video or audio. The same holds for other interlocking symbolic modalities: verbal and pictorial, and reading and listening. Here, too, no such thing as individual modality preference has been clearly proved. A relatively strong support is given to the dichotomy between visualizers and nonvisualizers. There is not always a clear discrimination in the research literature between these various dichotomies. Audiovisual design must deal with learner characteristics such as perceptual preference in the same way as it deals with other characteristics such as reading proficiency and prerequisite visual literacy: by building on optimal prerequisite information and intuitive knowledge about the target group. There is not yet a legitimate theoretical basis for typological diflerentation within the target group.

show abstract

“…First, we have no real way of telling whether two people listening to the same audio signal are listening to it in the same way (Hochberg, 1978). After all, hearing and listening are two different operations (Goss, 1982;Watson & Barker, 1985). Transcription as an active process, invariably involves the latter.…”

Section: Inter-transcriber Agreement and The Burden Of Proofmentioning

confidence: 99%