Testing Reading Comprehension Mahmood Maleki Tabar The purpose of reading is to connect the ideas on the page to what

we already know, the text and background knowledge. If we don't know anything about a subject, then pouring words of text into our mind is like pouring water into your hand. You don't grasp much. As ESL/EFL teachers, we are aware that the primary objective of reading is comprehension--being able to find meaning in what is read. Thus, we give our students reading assessments in order to test their reading abilities. When we are preparing these assessments, we may go through some of the followings:

We ensure that we select an appropriate text. We make sure that the language used in the text is suitably geared to our students' proficiency. We carefully study the text to ensure that the information in each paragraph is tested.

Content of questions Some teachers may not be aware that the comprehension questions they formulate only test students' ability to understand and recall ideas and information directly stated in the given text. It is indeed unfortunate if comprehension assessments do not go beyond this level of comprehension. The purpose of this article is to provide ESL/EFL teachers with some guidelines when preparing reading assessments. We should be aware that there are generally three main levels of comprehension: literal comprehension: Comprehension at this level involves surface meanings. At this level, teachers can ask students to find information and ideas that are explicitly stated in the text. In addition, it is also appropriate to test vocabulary. According to Karlin(1971), "being able to read for literal meanings ie stated ideas is influenced by one's mastery of word meanings in context'. Interpretive comprehension. At this level, students go beyond what is said and read for deeper meanings. They must be able to read critically and analyse carefully what they have read. Students need to be able to see relationships among ideas, for exmple how ideas go together and also see the implied meanings of these ideas. It is also obvious that before our students can do this, they have to first understand the ideas that are stated (literal comprehension). Interpretive or referential comprehension includes thinking processes such as drawing conclusions, making generalizations and predicting outcomes. At this level, teachers can ask more challenging questions such as asking students to do the following:
o o o o

Re-arrange the ideas or topics discussed in the text. Explain the author's purpose of writing the text. Summarize the main idea when this is not explicitly stated in the text. Select conclusions which can be deduced from the text t!hey have read.

Critical comprehension : At this level ideas and information are evaluated. Critical evaluation occurs only after our students have understood the ideas and information that the writer has presented. At this level, students can be tested on the following skills:
o o o

The ability to differentiate between facts and opinions. The ability to recognize persuasive statements . The ability to judge the accuracy of the information given in the text.

Forms of questions We present and discuss five forms that comprehension questions may take to stimulate students' understanding of texts. This is not a discussion of all possible ways of questioning students. For example, we do not discuss fill-in-the-blank activities or cloze, as such activities or tasks may be more appropriate for assessing, and not comprehending, the types of comprehension presented and discussed in the previous section. Yes/no questions Yes/no questions are simply questions that can be answered with either yes or no. For example, Is this article about testing reading comprehension? This is a common form of comprehension question, but it has the drawback of allowing the student a 50% chance of guessing the correct answer. So when using yes/no questions, we recommend following up with other forms of questions to ensure that the student has understood the text. Yes/no questions can be used to prompt all six types of comprehension. When yes/no questions are used with personal response or evaluation, other forms of questions seem to follow readily. Alternative questions Alternative questions are two or more yes/no questions connected with or: for example, Does this article focus on the use of questions to teach reading comprehension or to test reading comprehension? Similar to yes/no questions, alternative questions are subject to guessing, so the teacher may want to follow up with other forms discussed in this section. Alternative questions have worked best for us with literal, reorganization, inference, and prediction types of comprehension. We have found that they do not lend themselves as well to evaluation and personal response. True or false Questions may also take the form of true or false. While true or false questions are found frequently in commercially available materials, there is a potential danger in relying exclusively on them. As with yes/no questions, students have a 50% chance of guessing the correct answer. Teachers might simply accept a right answer, failing to ask why the answer is correct or the distracters (the wrong choices) are not correct. True or false questions are difficult to prepare. The false answers must be carefully designed so as to exploit potential misunderstandings of the text. False answers that are obviously incorrect do not help teach comprehension because students do not have to understand the text to recognize them as incorrect. True or false questions may also be hard to write because sometimes, as written, both answers are plausible, regardless of the degree of comprehension of the text. Like yes/no questions, true or false questions can be used to prompt all six types of comprehension. When used with

personal response or evaluation, follow-up tasks are sometimes necessary. To illustrate, a personal response question about this article might be: Is this statement true or false? I like this article. Explain your choice. Wh- questions Questions beginning with where, what, when, who, how, and why are commonly called whquestions. In our experience, we have found that they are excellent in helping students with a literal understanding of the text, with reorganizing information in the text, and making evaluations, personal responses and predictions. They are also used as follow-ups to other questions forms, such as yes/no and alternative. In particular, wh- questions with how/why are often used to help students to go beyond a literal understanding of the text. As beginning and intermediate readers are often reluctant to do this, using how/why questions can be very helpful in aiding students to become interactive readers. Multiple-choice questions are based on other forms of questions. They can be, for example, a wh-question with a choice: When was Maria Kim born? a. 1940 b. 1945 c. 1954 d. 1990 Generally, but not always, this form of question has only one correct answer when dealing with literal comprehension. The multiple-choice format may make wh-questions easier to answer than no-choice whquestions because they give the students some possible answers. Students might be able to check the text to see if any of the choices are specifically discussed, and then make a choice. Multiple-choice questions may be used most effectively, in our experience, with literal comprehension. They can also be used with prediction and evaluation. However, when used for these types of comprehension, we suggest using follow-up activities that allow students to explain their choices. As with true or false questions, developing good multiple-choice questions requires careful thought. We have found that developing a question with four choices works best for students with low proficiency in the target language. One of the four, obviously, is the desired answer; the others should be seemingly plausible responses. Conclusion Although comprehension takes place at several levels, mastery at any one level is not a prerequisite to comprehension at another level. Furthermore, the reading skills for each level or strand cut across ages; they are relevant to young readers in primary schools, secondary school students right up to students at tertiary level. EFL/ESL teachers also need to keep in mind that the three levels are not distinct . Dividing comprehension into literal, referential and critical strands is only intended as a guide for teachers when preparing reading assessments. Studies have shown that teachers tend to ask their students mainly literal comprehension questions. They need to be aware that there is more to reading than just the basic skills of reading and recalling information.

References Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Barrett, T. C. (1972). Taxonomy of reading comprehension. Reading 360 Monograph. Lexington, MA: Ginn & Co. Eskey, D. & Grabe, W. (1988). Interactive models for second language reading: Perspectives on instruction. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 223-239). New York: Cambridge University Press. Karlin, Robert. (1971) Teaching Elementary Reading:Principles and Strategies. Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich, Inc.

Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. (2nd ed.) Oxford: Heinemann. Pearson, P. D. & Johnson, D. D. (1972). Teaching reading comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Samuels, S. J. (1994). Toward a theory of automatic information processing reading, revisited. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed.) (pp. 816-837). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Smith, R. J. & Barrett, T. C. (1974). Teaching reading in the middle grades. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Swaffar, J. K. (1988). Readers, texts, and second languages: The interactive process. Quandt, Ivan J. (1977) Teaching Reading: a Human Process . Rand McNally College Publishing Co. Modern Language Journal, 80, 461-477. Taylor, B. M., Peterson, D. S., Pearson, P. D., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). Looking inside classrooms: Reflecting on the "How" as well as the "What" in effective reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 56(3), 270-279.