| . |
. |
. |
|
Evaluating
Reading Comprehension in EFL
|
|
|
|
About 400 million people in
the world today use English as a second or foreign language. Many of these people are
professionals whose success or failure may well depend on their ability to read the latest
scientific and technical publications in English. For this reason courses whose specific
objective is the reading of scientific and technical texts are becoming more and more
common in universities and technical colleges throughout the world.
Venezuela is no exception. At the Simón Bolívar University in Caracas, the first year
English program is composed of three courses designed by language department professors to
meet the needs of students who will major in different areas of science and technology.
The main objective of these courses is to develop the skill of reading scientific and
technical texts in English since students will be expected to understand English books and
journals for their undergraduate studies and research, and later on in their professional
activities.
|
|
|
|
Due to the importance of reading in English in
today’s scientific world, the three courses are obligatory for all first year
students. They are taught each term to approximately 1,000 students divided into 30 to 36
sections taught by 18 to 20 professors. This situation created the need to impose some
type of standardized criteria to assure the achievement of a similar level among all
students. It was therefore decided to administer two departmental exams each term. At
first, controlled open-ended questions were used. To validate the correction of the exams,
groups of exams were exchanged among different professors. Each professor corrected one
lot and then checked her own group of tests. In spite of the control over the type of
questions and the list of correction rules, it was found that professors graded the exams
differently. Another problem with this type of exam was the difficulty of distinguishing
between reading and writing. Students were being penalized for errors in writing, when
what we really wanted to test was reading.
In an attempt to solve these problems, in 1978 the language department started to use
multiple–choice questions. This type of objective question separates reading from
writing skills and presents a series of advantages over open-ended questions. These
advantages are the following: a) high corrector reliability, b) easy implementation, c)
quick and easy collection, and d) easy determination of difficulty and discrimination
levels.
It was also decided to use modular type questions, i.e., short independent texts for each
question, rather than one or two longer readings, followed by numerous questions. By using
20 to 25 short texts on a variety of technical topics, we hoped to compensate for any
advantage previous knowledge of a specific subject might afford a particular student. It
should be pointed out that in our first year courses, students who will later major in
different areas of pure science or engineering are mixed together in the same classes, so
interests and background knowledge are diverse. The use of modular items also reduces the
possibility of inter-item dependence, a condition which can reduce the discriminative
ability of the items, and, therefore, the reliability of the scores (Haladyna 1994).
Finally, the use of 20 to 25 different texts reduces the possibility that students will
remember the questions and communicate this information to others.
The efficiency of multiple-choice items depends, to a great extent, on their design. The
options of a good question must be plausible cognitive tasks related to and derived from
the content of the text. The syntactic and semantic form of the questions must differ from
that of the text so that students must understand the context rather than simply recognize
the form to answer the question correctly. However, since the options are prefabricated
answers, they may reduce the interaction between reader and text and deter the
interpretation process (Widdowson 1978). But after considering the advantages and
disadvantages for our particular situation, we decided that multiple-choice items were the
most objective and efficient way to measure the reading skill in large groups of students.
Because of their limitations, however, the weight of these exams is only 50% of the final
grade, allowing teachers to complete the total grade with other types of evaluations.
In recent years more than 1,200 questions have been collected, so it has become necessary
to organize these questions and create a computerized program which could store them and
prepare an exam by selecting the most appropriate questions to be used in a given
evaluation. For this purpose, the following taxonomy was designed.
|
|
|
A multiple-choice item used to test reading
comprehension usually consists of three parts: the reading text, the question or stem, and
the options. Although several taxonomies exist, most describe only the type of question or
stem making no reference to the nature of the reading text or the option, and most refer
to open-ended questions rather than multiple-choice items.
The first taxonomy, and probably the best known, was published by Bloom et al., in 1956.
The main purpose of this taxonomy was to classify educational objectives, but it was later
also applied to the areas of instruction and evaluation. It is divided into three large
areas or domains: (a) the cognitive domain, (b) the affective domain, and (c) the
psychomotor domain. The cognitive domain refers to the intellectual activities involved in
learning and is composed of a six-level hierarchy: knowledge, comprehension, application,
analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. This taxonomy was very influential since it
emphasized the complexity of the cognitive activities involved in learning and the fact
that all must be taught and evaluated. The limitations, for our own purposes, are that it
includes far more than reading comprehension and does not include those specific processes
involved in the understanding of a written text.
In 1978, Herber tried to relate Bloom’s categories to three levels of reading
comprehension: (a) literal comprehension, (b) interpretive comprehension, and (c) applied
comprehension. Literal questions require the reader to recall or recognize information
explicitly presented in the reading material. Interpretive questions ask for a paraphrase,
explanation, inference, conclusion, or summary. Applied questions utilize the
readers’ background knowledge and lead them to evaluate, elaborate, predict, or solve
problems based on implicit information in the text.
Pearson and Johnson (1978) present a taxonomy of word comprehension tasks with nine levels
and a taxonomy of propositional comprehension tasks also containing nine categories. Their
question taxonomy, however, consists of only three levels: (a) textually explicit
questions, (b) textually implicit questions, and (c) “scriptally” implicit
questions. The definitions of these categories correspond roughly to those of Herber and
to what Gray (1960) has called to “read the lines, read between the lines, and read
beyond the lines.” In contrast to the taxonomy presented by Bloom et al., these two
taxonomies refer specifically to reading comprehension and are important because they
emphasize the relationship between the question and the source of the answer, thus
reflecting the relationship between the text and the reader. For our purposes, however,
both are too general.
Barrett’s taxonomy also refers to questions related to reading comprehension and is
far more detailed than the ones mentioned above. Barrett proposes four main categories:
(a) literal recognition or recall, (b) inferences, (c) evaluation, and (d) appreciation.
Each level contains between four and eight categories. As the reader will see, some of
these categories are similar to those mentioned in our taxonomy. For example, Barrett
mentions recognition or recall of sequence (1.3.) and/or cause and effect relationships
(1.5.). Our taxonomy also deals with these and other rhetorical patterns, but only at the
level of recognition since it refers only to multiple-choice items, not open-ended
questions. Another difference between our system and that of Barrett is that several of
Barrett’s categories refer to the analysis of literary texts (i.e., 4.2.
identification with characters and incidents). Since our taxonomy was designed for
scientific and technical readings, it contains no such categories.
Elijah and Legenza (1975) present a taxonomy based largely on Barrett’s (1968) and
Sander’s (1966) publications. They also describe four main levels of comprehension
(literal, interpretive reaction, and application), with numerous subcategories. This
system mentions several tasks not taken into account by Barrett such as interpreting
unfamiliar words (1.B.1.) and summarizing (1.C.2.). However, it includes numerous
activities which could not be tested using multiple-choice items.
Irwin’s taxonomy (1986) best reflects the interactive theory of reading
comprehension. Irwin separates questions at the level of micro-information (concerning
word meaning or syntactic relationships) from questions at the level of macro-information
(main ideas summaries). Although this taxonomy contains numerous categories which would be
useful in classroom discussions, they would not be applicable in multiple-choice exams.
For example, Irwin mentions previous knowledge and metacognitive processes in her system.
These types of questions would certainly be very important in teaching the mental
processes needed to understand a reading (“comprehending”), but not to measure
the level of understanding which has taken place (“comprehension”) (Chapman
1976). It should also be pointed out that although our system uses some of the same terms
Irwin uses, the meaning of these terms is not necessarily the same in both taxonomies.
While these and other taxonomies classify types of questions, without mentioning the text
and options, Arcay and Cossé (1992) present a system which categorizes certain types of
texts. Their system groups both fictional and non-fictional texts according to form,
content, and organization. Arcay and Cossé’s taxonomy includes many more areas of
form and content than ours but in a more general form. They make no attempt to classify
comprehension questions referring to these texts.
After reviewing these and other taxonomies, it became evident that none satisfied our
needs regarding a system to classify multiple–choice items used to test reading
comprehension of scientific and technical texts. We therefore decided to design our own
taxonomy for this purpose. Since most of the items which we use contain three parts (the
reading text, the stem, and the options), our system takes these three main areas into
consideration. Furthermore, it takes into account the interactive and constructivist
reading models on which the first year program is based (Rumelhart 1977; Stanovich 1980;
Flower and Spivey in Cornish 1991; Goodman in Carrell et al., 1988; Widdowson 1984, 1990).
These models present reading as a dynamic process where bottom-up and top-down processes
interact to create meaning.
The following taxonomy ( Figure 1 )
which we created to overcome some of the limitations of existing versions will be
described below.
|
|
|
Four basic criteria are used to classify the
reading text: A. Subject, B. Rhetorical Patterns, C. Sources, and D. Form.
The first general category (A. Subject) is further divided into three main groups: (1)
Humanities and Social Sciences, (2) Physical Sciences, and (3) Biological Sciences, each
of which is broken down into specific disciplines. Due to the growing interdependence of
many fields nowadays, which is reflected in many of the reading texts, a reading may be
classified as belonging to more than one subject category. For example, a text describing
the use of computers in education would be classified under systems engineering
(computers) (I.A.2.b.1.g.) as well as education (I.A.1.5.). The category
“others” exists throughout the system to include texts or questions which
exemplify a complex combination of several categories or which illustrate unique areas not
frequent enough to merit a separate category.
The text is also classified according to the predominating rhetorical pattern. The study
guide used in the first two trimesters of the reading course is organized around the
patterns most commonly found in scientific and technical writing. The patterns selected to
classify the reading text closely follow those which are emphasized in class: definition,
static description, classification, comparison-contrast, chronology, process,
cause-effect, hypothesis, argumentation, and exemplification.
The final two categories refer to source and form. The source is identified according to
the style in which the text is written and the type of information which appears. For
example, a textbook would be written in an objective style and contain explanations of
basic concepts, well-known and generally accepted information, whereas a journal would
describe recent investigations or discoveries and be written in technical language for
specialists and researchers. The form refers to the graphic appearance of the text. It may
be an extract from an article or book, a list of sentences to be placed in the correct
order, a table or graph, a page from a dictionary, an abstract, etc.
|
|
|
The question may take one of several forms. It
may be a sentence separate from the text which must be completed with one of the options.
It may be in the form of a question to be answered by an option, or it may take the form
of instructions such as the following: “Form a coherent paragraph by choosing the
correct order of the following sentences.” There may simply be a blank space left in
the reading text which must be completed with one of the options.
Regardless of the form the question may take this part of the classification system
attempts to categorize the cognitive process the reader must undergo to reach the correct
answer. Frequently in order to decide which category is appropriate, one must look not
only at the question but also at the text and options to see if the information needed is
explicit or implicit, for example. To categorize the question, it is necessary to consider
not only the type of information requested, but also the relation between the question and
the source of the answer.
The classification of the question has been divided into two general categories: A.
Micro-information and B. Macroinformation. Questions which belong to the first category
can be answered by understanding or recognizing only specific sentences, phrases, or key
words of the text. The reader does not necessarily have to read or understand the entire
text but must be able to identify those parts of the reading referred to in the questions.
For this task the reader depends mainly on his linguistic schemata (vocabulary and
grammar). S/he must be able to group words together to form meaningful phrases and
recognize syntactic relationships. In these tasks, bottom-up processing is very important.
To answer a question classified as Macroinformation, the reader must read the entire text
and integrate information found in different parts of the reading. In order to do this,
s/he must draw upon his/her formal and content schemata. In these tasks, the importance of
top-down processing becomes evident.
A. Microinformation: Within the category of Microinformation, the taxonomy
includes thirteen tasks which a reader may be asked to perform. Regarding vocabulary, a
reader may be asked to determine the meaning of a word based on the context in which it
appears (II.A. 1.). In this type of question, the options all contain valid definitions of
the word, so the question does not become a simple dictionary exercise. In category
II.A.2., the reader is asked to identify the word or phrase which a particular noun or
pronoun refers to, thus establishing cohesive relationships of an anaphoric or cataphoric
nature.
In order to demonstrate his/her comprehension of the relationship among the different
propositions presented by the author, the reader may be asked to select the appropriate
connector or the appropriate usage of a given connector (II.A.3.). For example, by
choosing the connector “nevertheless” in the following blank, the reader is
demonstrating his/her recognition that the relationship between the first and second parts
of the sentence is one of contrast:
The results were convincing; _________, further evidence from research was called for.
To determine if the reader has comprehended explicit information which appears in the
text, s/he may be asked to select the most appropriate paraphrase for this information or
simply to recognize the answer in specific parts of the text (II.A.4.). Category II.A.5.
refers to items in which the stem appears in the form of a question, and the reader is
asked to demonstrate understanding of explicitly stated facts in the reading.
The next eight categories require the reader to recognize the different rhetorical
patterns used by the author. The reader may be asked to identify the words which are
defined in the text (II.A.6.); to recognize the elements being compared, the basis for the
comparison, or the relationship between two or more elements being compared (similarities
or differences) (II.A.7.); to recognize the criteria used by the author to classify
specific elements and for the relationship between these elements (II.A.8.); to recognize
the sequence (chronology or process) used by the writer, or to recognize the sentence
which appropriately describes the relationship between steps or stages in the sequence
(II.A.9.). The reader may also be required to distinguish between reasons or motives and
consequences clearly and explicitly described in the text by identifying the cause and or
effect of a particular action or event (II.A.10. ), identify an idea as having been
presented in the original text in the form of either fact or hypothesis (II.A.11), or
identify what is being described in the reading (II.A.19.). Finally, the reader may be
asked to identify the rhetorical function of the text. In these questions the options do
not include information specific to the particular text. The reader would simply recognize
key words indicating specific functions (II.A.13.).
B. Macroinformation. The category of Macroinformation is broken down into
Analyze and Interpret. In questions which fall into the first of these categories,
Analyze, the reader must examine and relate information which is explicitly present in
different sections of the text. In addition to linguistic schemata, the reader must also
utilize his/her formal schemata (Carrell et al., 1988) regarding the rhetorical
organization of different types of texts. In questions classified in the second group,
Interpret, the reader must go beyond the explicit information found in the text. S/he must
elaborate, infer, or predict. In order to do this, s/he must rely heavily on content
schemata.
1. Analyze. There are eight possible tasks within the category of Analyze. The
reader may be asked to place a list of sentences in the correct order to form a coherent
paragraph (II.B.1.1.). To do this, s/he must recognize the different indicators of text
cohesion and identify propositional relationships between sentences at various levels.
To evaluate if the reader is able to transcode information from a text to a graph or
diagram, s/he may be asked to recognize the most appropriate graphic representation of the
information presented verbally in the reading (II.B.I.9.). S/he may also be required to
select the best verbal interpretation of information which appears in a table or diagram
(II.B.1.3.)
In some cases, the reading material may be composed of two short texts from different
sources. In these instances the readings describe two different ideas, theories, or
opinions on a given subject. The reader is asked to compare some aspect of the two texts
(style, concepts presented, source, author’s purpose, etc.) (II.B.1.4.).
Two types of questions require the reader to recognize the structure or organization of
the entire text. In the first, the reader must recognize textual inconsistencies. In these
questions s/he is required to identify the sentence or idea which does not fit into an
otherwise coherent paragraph, based on inconsistencies of either a linguistic or
conceptual nature (II.B.1.5.). In the second, the reader must identify the logical
progression of the text; s/he must recognize the manner in which the author presents
his/her ideas (for example, inductively or deductively), or the order in which they appear
(II.B.1.6.).
The two last categories under Analyze test for comprehension of explicit ideas presented
in the reading. In II.B.1.7., the reader must integrate information explicitly present in
different parts of the text in order to draw a conclusion and/or deduction. In II.B.1.8.,
the reader is asked to predict what follows the information that is presented in the text.
This may take the form of completing the last sentence of the reading or predicting what
the next sentence or next paragraph will probably deal with.
2. Interpret. The category of Interpret includes eleven possible tasks. In
II.B.2.1., the reader is requested to identify the main idea of the reading, i.e., the
message which the author wants to transmit. Regarding this category, we agree with the
interpretation of Pearson and Johnson rather than that of Barrett. Barrett specifies two
categories: 1.2. recognition or recall of main ideas and 2.2. inferring the main idea. By
using only one category for identification of the main idea, our taxonomy reflects the
opinion of Pearson and Johnson, who believe that almost all main ideas are inferences,
even when they are explicitly stated in the text. The reason for this is that there are
generally no grammatical or lexical clues in the text to indicate that a specific sentence
reflects the main idea of the reading. The reader must infer which sentence encompasses
the ideas presented in all the other sentences.
In II.B.2.2. the reader must identify the objective, goal, or purpose of the author in
writing the text. In these questions the purpose must be specific to the particular text
and simply more than just the recognition of general function words (see II.A.13.).
Category II.B.2.3. requires the reader to select the best title for the text. In order to
do this, s/he must be able to recognize the main idea and or purpose of the author and
identify it in a phrase which probably does not appear in the reading.
In the following two categories, the reader should consider the style, language and format
used by the author to identify the probable source of the text (Il.B.2.4.) and the readers
for whom it was written (II.B.2.5.).
Categories II.B.2.6. and II.B.2.7. refer to the author’s point of view. In the first,
the reader should recognize the tone used by the author, e.g., irony, sarcasm, optimism,
pessimism, etc. In the second, the reader should recognize the opinion expressed by the
author, e.g., whether or not the author recommends a particular book or supports a
specific theory. The reader should identify whether the author’s opinion is positive
or negative.
Category II.B.2.8. is similar to II.B.1.7., except that now the information on which the
reader is asked to base his/her conclusion is implicit rather than explicit. In these
questions, the reader may be asked to select the opposite of the information which appears
in the text, to generalize from specific examples given in the text, or to choose an
appropriate example of a general category described in the reading.
In the following two categories, the reader utilizes implicit information from the reading
as a basis for inferring what might have preceded (ll.B.2.9.) or followed this text
(II.B.2.10.). This is similar to Barrett’s category 2.3. Inferring sequence.
In the final category the reader is asked to make an analogy between information contained
in the passage and a new situation (II.B.2.11). In these questions, the reader must apply
the information stated in the text to new examples.
Two aspects should be pointed out regarding part II of the taxonomy. First, the order in
which the tasks appear does not necessarily imply order of difficulty of the item. In this
sense, we adhere to the strict definition of the term taxonomy as being simply a
classification system not a “hierarchical listing of skills” as identified by
Elijah and Legenza, (1975:28). In multiple-choice items used to test reading
comprehension, many factors affect the difficulty level. Besides the form which the stem
takes, other elements such as the subject and style of the reading text and the
reader’s previous knowledge regarding this subject are only a few of the factors
which may contribute to determining the level of difficulty.
Second, we are aware that differences of opinion exist regarding the definitions of
inference and implicit information. According to Chikilanga (1992), implicit information
is based on two sources: the propositional content of a text (i.e., the explicit
information present in the text) and the reader’s previous knowledge. Barrett’s
concept of inference is slightly broader than Chikilanga’s description. She refers to
inferential comprehension as being a combination of a synthesis of the literal content of
a selection plus the reader’s personal knowledge, intuition, and imagination. On the
other hand, Pearson and Johnson (1978) distinguish between questions requiring information
which is textually implicit (“answers that are on the page but…not so
obvious” p. 157) or “scriptally” implicit (“a reader needs to use his
or her script in order to come up with an answer” p. 57).
We agree that in order to respond to an inference question, the reader must elaborate on
information which is explicitly present, i.e., “read between the lines.” To do
this, the reader must use all three types of schemata: linguistic, formal, and content.
But it is also necessary to keep in mind that the purpose of these questions is to measure
comprehension of a written text. We must, therefore, be careful to assure that our
questions are not independent of the text. On the other hand, if specific information
other than that which is presented in the text is needed to correctly answer the question,
this information must be available to all the readers. For example, a question which
requires the reader to recognize the possible source of a text assumes that all the
readers are familiar with the characteristics which distinguish this particular type of
reading. Figure 2 shows how this
taxonomy would be used to classify a testing item.
|
|
|
Each multiple–choice item in our system has
four options. The classification of these options is based on statistical analysis. After
each exam is administered, the answer sheets are analyzed using the LERTAP computer
program, which determines the difficulty and the discrimination levels of each question
and the effectiveness of the options. This information becomes part of our computerized
item bank and is utilized in the selection of items to be used on future exams. In this
way, we are able to produce exams at an appropriate level of difficulty containing items
which have proven to distinguish between the efficient and less efficient readers.
It is important to point out that the reliability of the taxonomy was tested as measuring
the degree of agreement among different professors who classified the same items. After a
short period of training, the classifications reached independently by these professors
coincided 90% of the time.
|
|
|
The taxonomy described here has been used to
classify more than 1,200 items which form the basis of a computerized item bank of
comprehension questions that are used to prepare valid and reliable exams to measure the
ability of university students to read scientific and technical texts in English as a
foreign language. Both the taxonomy and the computer program, which was also designed in
the language department at the Simón Bolívar University, are sufficiently flexible to
permit changes for practical and theoretical reasons. This flexibility was built into the
system to accommodate the results of growing research in the area of applied linguistics
and reading comprehension.
The program is extremely user friendly and presents a series of menus with various options
designed to carry out exam-related functions and prepare different lists and tables useful
for decision making. The user need only specify the requirements for a particular exam
regarding text subject, objectives, difficulty levels, etc., and the program will provide
a list of acceptable items fitting these characteristics.
The program also provides us with access to a data base which serves as a rich source of
information for reading researchers. This data base contains a complete corpus of
organized information which permits the study and evaluation of results produced by a
specific item throughout the years and across groups of subjects.
The taxonomy has also been very useful to new teachers by helping them to focus on
specific learner outcomes which they can emphasize in class. It also serves as a guide in
the preparation of new items which can be incorporated into future exams.
It should be mentioned that the taxonomy presented here can also be used as a means for
teaching. Once the students’ reading problems have been detected, the student may
access other data bases to practice with texts and questions similar to those in the item
bank.
It is necessary to point out that we do not pretend to have solved all problems related to
the evaluation of the reading comprehension process. This system does not include nor does
it classify all cognitive abilities involved in the reading process. We simply hope to
have provided one approach to help in the evaluation of the ability to read scientific and
technical texts in English.
|
|
|
CHERYL
L. CHAMPEAU DE LOPEZ is a professor of advanced reading comprehension and oral
comprehension in EFL at Universidad Simón Bolívar in Caracas, Venezuela. GIANCARLA
MARCHI B. has taught EFL and ESP English for electrical and electronic engineering,
chemical and material engineering, and reading comprehension. MARIA E. ARREAZA-COYLE has
taught Spanish as a Foreign Language at Thomas Jefferson High School in Rockford,
Illinois, and at Universidad Simón Bolívar in Caracas, Venezuela. |
|
|
Return
|
|
|
- Arcay Hands, E. and L. Cossé. 1992. La composición en EFL: Un modelo teórico.
Valencia, Venezuela: Universidad de Carabobo.
- Barrett T. C. 1968. What is reading? Some current concepts. In Innovation and Change in
Reading Instruction. The sixteenth handbook of the National Society for the Study of
education. ed. H. M. Robinson. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
- ———. 1976 Taxonomy of reading comprehension. In Teaching reading in the
middle class. eds. Smith R. and Barrett, T. C. Reading. MA.: Addison-Wesley.
- Bloom B. S., M. B. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, and D.R. Krathwohl. 1956. Taxonomy of
education objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive
domain. New York: Longmans Green.
- Carrell, P., J. Devine, and D. Eskey. 1988. Interactive approaches to second language
reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Chapman, T. 1976. Comprehending and the teacher of reading. In Promoting reading
comprehension. ed. J. Flood. Newark. Del.: International Reading Association.
- Chikalanga, I. 1992. A suggested taxonomy of inferences for the reading teacher. Reading
in a Foreign Language, 8 (2), pp. 697–709.
- Cornish, F. (Date). Foreign language reading comprehension as externally guided
thinking. Reading in a Foreign Language, 8, 2. p. 721.
- Elijah. D. and A. Leganza. 1975. A comprehension taxonomy for teachers. Reading
Improvement, 15, 1. pp. 98–99.
- Flower, __, __ Spivey. 1992. Foreign language reading comprehension as externally guided
thinking. ed. F. Cornish, Reading in a Foreign Language, 8, 2. p. 721.
- Goodman, K. 1988. The reading process. In Interactive approaches to second language
reading. eds. P. Carrell et. al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 11–21.
- Gray, W. S. 1960. The major aspects of reading. In Sequential development of reading
abilities. ed. H. M. Robinson. Supplementary Educational Monographs No. 90. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
- Haladyna, T. 1994. Developing and validating multiple-choice test items. Hillsdale,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Publishers.
- Herber, H. 1978. Teaching reading in content areas. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs,
Prentice-Hall.
- Irwin, J. W. 1986. Teaching reading comprehension process. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall Inc.
- Pearson P. D., and D. D. Johnson. 1978. Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt
Rinehart and Winston.
- Rumelhart D. 1977. Toward an interactive model of reading. In Attention and
Performances. ed. S. Dornic. Hillsdale N.J.: Erlbaum.
- Sanders N. M. 1966. Classroom questions. New York: Harper and Row.
- Stanovich W.E. 1980. Toward an interactive-compensation model of individual differences
in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, l7, pp. 157–159.
- Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching language and communication. London: Oxford University
Press.
- ———. 1984. Explorations in applied linguistics. London: Oxford University
Press.
- ———. 1990. Aspects of language teaching. London: Oxford University Press.
|
|
Figure 1
THE TAXONOMY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I. |
TEXT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.A. |
SUBJECT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.1. |
Humanities
and Social Sciences |
|
|
|
|
I.A.1.1. |
Anthropology-Paleontology |
|
|
|
I.A.1.2. |
Sociology |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.1.3. |
Psychology |
|
|
|
|
I.A.1.4. |
Architecture |
|
|
|
|
I.A.1.5. |
Education |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.1.6. |
Economics |
|
|
|
|
I.A.1.7. |
Linguistics |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.1.8. |
Philosophy |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.1.9. |
Geography-Oceanography |
|
|
|
I.A.1.10. |
Fine arts |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.1.11. |
History |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.1.x. |
Other |
|
|
|
|
I.A.2. |
Physical
Sciences |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.a. |
Pure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.a.1. |
Physics |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.a.2. |
Chemistry |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.9.a.3. |
Mathematics |
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.a.4. |
Astronomy |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.a.5. |
Geology |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.a.x. |
Other |
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.b. |
Applied |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.b.1. |
Engineering |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.b.1.a. |
Mechanical |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.b.1.b. |
Electrical-Electronic |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.b.1.c. |
Civil |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.b.1.d. |
Materials |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.b.1.e. |
Chemical |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.b.1.f. |
Petroleum |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.b.1.g. |
Systems (computers) |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.b.1.x. |
Other |
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.b.2. |
Meteorology |
|
|
|
|
I.A.2.b.x. |
Other |
|
|
|
I.A.3. |
Biological
Sciences |
|
|
|
|
|
I.A.3.1. |
Botany-Zoology |
|
|
|
|
I.A.3.2. |
Ecology-Environment-Climate |
|
|
|
I.A.3.3. |
Medicine-Health-Nutrition |
|
|
|
l.A.3.4. |
Agronomy |
|
|
|
|
|
l.A.3.5. |
Other |
|
|
|
I.B. |
Rhetorical
Patterns |
|
|
|
|
|
I.B.1. |
Definition |
|
|
|
|
|
I.B.2. |
Static
description |
|
|
|
|
I.B.3. |
Classification |
|
|
|
|
I.B.4. |
Comparison-contrast |
|
|
|
|
I.B.5. |
Chronology |
|
|
|
|
I.B.6. |
Process |
|
|
|
|
|
I.B.7. |
Cause-effect |
|
|
|
|
I.B.8. |
Hypothesis |
|
|
|
|
I.B.9. |
Argumentation |
|
|
|
|
I.B.10. |
Exemplification |
|
|
|
|
I.B.x. |
Other |
|
|
|
|
I.C. |
Source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.C.1. |
Magazine,
newspaper, pamphlet |
|
|
|
I.C.2. |
Reference
book |
|
|
|
|
I.C.3. |
Textbook |
|
|
|
|
|
I.C.4. |
Journal |
|
|
|
|
|
I.C.x. |
Other |
|
|
|
|
I.D. |
Form |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.D.1. |
Paragraph(s) |
|
|
|
|
|
I.D.1.1. |
Extract
from article/book |
|
|
|
I.D.1.2. |
Editorial |
|
|
|
|
|
I.D.1.3. |
Report |
|
|
|
|
|
I.D.1.4. |
Summary |
|
|
|
|
|
I.D.1.5. |
Review-book,
movie, play, television, etc. |
|
|
|
I.D.1.6. |
Letter |
|
|
|
|
|
I.D.1.7. |
Abstract |
|
|
|
|
|
I.D.1.8. |
List of
sentences |
|
|
|
|
I.D.1.x. |
Other |
|
|
|
|
I.D.2. |
Table |
|
|
|
|
|
I.D.3. |
Graph |
|
|
|
|
|
I.D.4. |
Dictionary
page |
|
|
|
|
I.D.5. |
Advertisement |
|
|
|
|
I.D.6. |
Illustration |
|
|
|
|
|
I.D.x. |
Other |
|
|
|
| II. |
STEM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
II.A. |
MICROINFORMATION |
|
|
|
|
II.A.1. |
Vocabulary-determine
meaning from context |
|
|
II.A.2. |
Determine
referents |
|
|
|
|
II.A.3. |
Select
appropriate connector or usage of a given connector |
|
|
II.A.4. |
Restate
or paraphase specific information |
|
|
II.A.5. |
Answer
factual questions |
|
|
|
II.A.6. |
Recognize
definitions |
|
|
|
|
II.A.7. |
Recognize
comparison-contrast relationships |
|
|
II.A.8. |
Recognize
classification |
|
|
|
II.A.9. |
Recognize
sequence (process and chronology) |
|
|
II.A.10. |
Recognize
cause-effect |
|
|
|
II.A.11. |
Recognize
fact-hypothesis |
|
|
|
II.A.12. |
Recognize
description |
|
|
|
|
II.A.13. |
Identify
function of a text |
|
|
|
II.A.x. |
Other |
|
|
|
|
II.B. |
MACROINFORMATION
|
|
|
|
|
II.B.1. |
Analyze |
|
|
|
|
|
|
II.B.1.1. |
Organize
sentences |
|
|
|
|
II.B. 1.2. |
Transcode
information from text to graph or diagram |
|
|
|
II.B.1.3. |
Verbalize
from graph |
|
|
|
|
II.B.1.4. |
Compare
ideas in two texts |
|
|
|
II.B.1.5. |
Recognize
textual inconsistencies |
|
|
|
II.B.1.6. |
Identify
progression of text |
|
|
|
II.B.1.7. |
Draw
conclusion and/or deduction from explicit information |
|
|
|
II.B.1.8. |
Predict
from explicit information |
|
|
|
II.B.1.x. |
Other |
|
|
|
|
II.B.2. |
Interpret |
|
|
|
|
|
|
II.B.2.1. |
Recognize
main idea or topic sentence |
|
|
|
II.B.2.2. |
Recognize
author's purpose |
|
|
|
II.B.2.3. |
Choose
appropriate title |
|
|
|
II.B.2.4. |
Identify
source and/or type of text |
|
|
|
II.B.2.5. |
ldentify
intended audience |
|
|
|
II.B.2.6. |
Recognize
tone of author |
|
|
|
II.B.2.7. |
Recognize
opinion of author |
|
|
|
II.B.2.8. |
Draw
conclusions and/or inferences from implicit information |
|
|
|
II.B.2.9. |
Infer
what preceded |
|
|
|
|
II.B.2.10. |
Predict
what follows from implicit information |
|
|
|
II.B.2.11. |
Make
analogy between information in passage and new situation |
|
|
|
II.B.2.x. |
Other |
|
|
|
|
Figure 2
| Example of Item with
Classification |
|
|
|
|
| At Albert Einstein College of
Medicine in New York, Dr. Eli Seifter and co-workers have found that vitamin A and beta
carotene, the chemical that gives carrots their color and from which the body makes
vitamin A, can prevent or heal ulcers that have been provoked by heavy physical stress in
experimental animals. Seifter suggests that vitamin A may shield the stomach and
intestinal lining from erosion by gastric juices. |
|
|
|
|
|
Which of the following is still only
hypothesis? |
|
|
| A. |
What beta carotene
is. |
| B. |
That vitamin A
prevents ulcers. |
| C. |
How vitamin A heals
ulcers.* |
| D. |
What the body
produces vitamin A from. |
|
|
|
|
| Text subject: |
I.A.3.3. |
Medicine-health-nutrition |
| Text functions: |
I.B.7. |
Cause-effect |
|
I.B.8. |
Hypothesis |
| Text source: |
I.C.1. |
Magazine-newspaper-pamphlet |
| Text form: |
I.D.1.1. |
Extract from
article/book |
| Stem: |
II.A.11. |
Recognize
fact-hypothesis |
|
|
Back to Article
|
. |
. |