THE EFFECT OF KNOWING THE MAIN IDEA OF A TEXT ON ANSWERING MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS WHICH LOOK FOR THE DETAILS OF THE TEXT
Abstract
This paper describes a classroom research with two groups of high school students to clarify the effect of knowing the main of a text (here, the name of a story) on answering multiple-choice questions which look for details. The two groups read the same story with an appropriate level of difficulty which was suitable for their level of English proficiency. The only difference between their stories was that one of them had the name of the story above it and the other did not have. Each group then took a reading comprehension test and their mean scores were compared. The findings suggest that the group of students who read the story with the name of it above did not excel the group who read the same story without its name when answering to questions looking for minute aspects of the story. This lack of excellence shows that knowing the main idea of a text does not play an important role in answering reading comprehension questions which look for details of a text. The results suggest more research in this realm and also the need for instruction on answering reading comprehension texts.
References
Bachman, L.F. 1990. Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. White Plains. NY: Pearson Education
Brown, G., & Yule, G. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge University Press
Carrell , Patricia L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. 1989. Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 647-678.
Celce-Murcia, M. 2001. Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Chastain, K. 1988. Developing second language skills, Theory and Practice. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers
Crismore, A. 1989. Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
Crismore, A., & Vande Kopple, W. J. 1997. Hedges and readers: effects on attitudes and learning.
Dubin, F., & Bycina, D. 1991. Academic reading and the ESL/EFL teacher. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Gabb, Sally. 2000. From talk to print: Preparing students to read with ease. Field Notes, 10(2); Retrieved November 1, 2004 from http://www.sabes.org/resources/fieldnotes/vol10/fn102.pdf
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985a. Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hedge, Tricia. 2003. Teaching & learning in the language classroom. UK: OUP.
Hyland. K. 1999. Talking to students: Metadiscourse in introductory textbooks. English for Purposes, 18, 3-26. Specific
Moorman , Kenneth, & Ram, Ashwin. 1994. Integrating Creativity and reading: A functional approach. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society: Cognitive Science Program. Georgia Institute of Technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Orasanu, Judith (Ed.). 1986. Reading comprehension: From research to practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schmitt, N., Ostroff, C. 1986. Operationalizing the “behavioral consistency” approach: Selection test development based on a content-oriented approach. Personnel Psychology, 39, 91-108.
Spencer, R, & Hay, I. 1998. Initial reading schemes and their high frequency words. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. Retrieved November 12, 2004 from http://www.questia.com.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms: (1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC-BY-SA) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal; (2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal; (3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
