Grade Twelve Iranian High School Students’ Reading Comprehension: A Brief Look at Item Piloting

Subject Areas :

Roshanak Rezaei ¹ ( Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran )
Faramarz Azizmalayeri ² ( Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran )
Abbas Bayat ³ ( Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran )
Hossein Ahmadi ⁴ ( Department of English Language, Malayer Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malayer, Iran )

Received: 2021-10-15 Accepted : 2022-02-06 Published : 2022-02-01

Keywords: Inferential Comprehension, International Reading Comprehension Assessment,  Reorganizational Comprehension,

Abstract :

Iran’s educational system has undergone new reforms during the last decades. To investigate the effectiveness of the new reform in English as the lingua franca of the world, the current study emphasizes the reading comprehension abilities of grade twelve Iranian female students in English as a foreign language. To this end, 167 students' responses per item of three tests of English reading comprehension were gathered from four different high schools of Malayer. Students' responses in three different item types (three literal, three reorganization, and three inferential comprehension items) from three different reading texts were analyzed altogether. A quantitative design was employed to descriptively analyze the students' responses. The results of the analysis revealed that grade 12 students in Malayer are stronger in literal comprehension compared to the other two comprehension levels: reorganizational and inferential items. This indicated the students' lack of skill in reading between the lines as well as the inability to synthesize and analyze different implicit information in the text that leads them to make meaning. The results can be beneficial for language institutes, English Teachers, and practitioners. Keywords: Inferential Comprehension, International Reading Comprehension Assessment, Reorganizational Comprehension

References:

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Atai, M. R., & Mazlum, F. (2013). English language teaching curriculum in Iran: Planning and practice. The Curriculum Journal, 24(3), 389-411.

Barrett, T. C. (1968). Taxonomy of cognitive and affective dimensions of reading comprehension. Innovation and Change in Reading Instruction. 17-23.

Council of Europe. (2020). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Day, Richard R.; and Park, Jeong-suk. (2005). Developing reading comprehension questions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 17(1), 60-73.

Ebrahimi, F., & Sahragard, R. (2016). Some Insights into Iran's English Curriculum Based on Iran's Major Policies. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 7(5). 1036-1042.

Farhady, H., & Hedayati, H. (2009). Language assessment policy in Iran. Annual review of applied linguistics, 29, 132-141.

Fullan, M. (Ed.). (2007). Fundamental change: International handbook of educational change (Vol. 3). Springer Science & Business Media.

Gray, W. S. (1960). The major aspects of reading. Sequential Development of Reading Abilities, 90, 8-24.

Hayati, A. M., & Mashhadi, A. (2010). Language planning and language-in-education policy in Iran. Language problems & language planning, 34(1), 24-42.

Husén, T., & Postlethwaite, T. N. (1996). a brief history of the international association for the evaluation of educational achievement (TEA). Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 3(2), 129-141.

Mullis, I. V., Martin, M. O., & Sainsbury, M. (2016). PIRLS 2016 reading framework. PIRLS, 11-29.

Nagai, N. W., Birch, G. C., Bower, J. V., & Schmidt, M. G. (2020). CEFR-informed Learning, Teaching and Assessment. Springer: Singapore.

OECD (2019), PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en

Parkin, C.; Parkin, C.; & Pool, B. (2003). Key into reorganization: Guide and answers.  Key Comprehension Series. PISA O. Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. PISA. Vol. I.

Razavipour, K., & Rezagah, K. (2018). Language assessment in the new English curriculum in Iran: Managerial, institutional, and professional barriers. Language Testing in Asia, 8(1), 1-18.

Robertson, D. A., Gernsbacher, M. A., Guidotti, S. J., Robertson, R. R. W., Irwin, W., Mock, B. J., & Campana, M. E. (2000). Functional neuroanatomy of the cognitive process 0f mapping during discourse comprehension. Psychological Science, 11, 255-260.

Stephens, M., Erberber, E., Tsokodayi, Y., Kroeger, T., & Ferguson, S. (2015). Is Reading Contagious? Examining Parents' and Children's Reading Attitudes and Behaviors. Policy Brief No. 9. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

Tiwari, P. R. (2021). Reading Comprehension of Grade 8 Students: A Glimpse of Item Piloting. Educational Assessment, 3(1), 81-96.        

Walter, C. (2007). First‐to second‐language reading comprehension: not transfer, but access. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 14-37.

Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation. Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan, 10, 9780230514577.