Comprehension Questions in Bahasa Indonesia and English Textbooks
Asf_suarman@yahoo.co.id
SMPN 1 Cinangka
Questions in the...
Based on the categories above, the questions on Bahasa Indonesia textbooks from one publisher and
English textbooks from t...
The Comprehension Questions in English Textbooks
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
-

Literal
Inferential
Evaluative

These findings...
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aebersold, J.A., and Field, M.L. (1997). From reader to reading teacher: Issues and strategies for second la...
Pennel, D. (2002). Explicit Instruction for Implicit Meaning: Strategies for Teaching Inferential Reading
Comprehension. A...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Comprehension questions in textbooks

659 views
510 views

Published on

questions in textbooks

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
659
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Comprehension questions in textbooks

  1. 1. Comprehension Questions in Bahasa Indonesia and English Textbooks Asf_suarman@yahoo.co.id SMPN 1 Cinangka Questions in their while or post reading activities are mostly used to check the students’ comprehension about texts. They ought to challenge all levels of the students’ comprehension: literal, inferential and evaluative. They are mostly written after texts on textbooks. However, not all textbooks take those levels of comprehension into account. This study investigated what levels of comprehension were challenged in the Bahasa Indonesia and English textbooks for Junior High School students and how teachers treat the questions in text books. It was found that in the Bahasa Indonesia textbook, 19.9 % of questions challenge literal comprehension level, 45.9% check inferential level and 34% exercise evaluative one. In the English textbooks, 62.9 % challenge the students’ literal comprehension level and 32.7 train inferential and only 4.2% exercise evaluative ones. It was also found that most teachers treated the questions as they were. They scarcely modified them. These findings show in the textbooks the comprehension levels are not evenly challenged. The fact that literal level was not much tested In Bahasa Indonesia might lead students guess the content of the texts without reading. Meanwhile in English textbooks, neglecting evaluative comprehension level might lead students to be uncritical. Therefore, it is recommended that textbook writers as well as teachers should be more cautious in generating questions so that all levels of comprehension are well exercised. In many language lessons, textbooks help teachers teach intensive reading. This lesson is aimed to help students to comprehend texts (Aebersold and Field 1997 in Hedgcock and Ferris, 2009). They work simultaneously with the same texts and activities like re-reading the texts by answering comprehension questions (Hedgcock and Ferris 2009 p. 172). The questions function to check students’ understanding (Nunan and Lamb, 1996 in Yang 2010). The students as readers are more likely to understand what they read when they are asked comprehension questions about the texts and receive immediate feedback about their answers (Bassel and Rasinki, 2008 p. 20). Comprehension questions are expected not only to facilitate but also to challenge at least three levels of comprehension: literal, inferential and evaluative or critical. Literal comprehension is level of understanding of a text wherein a reader has access and can recognize and recall details in the text (Brasel and Rasinski, 2008, p. 87). It requires recognition and recall of ideas, information and happening explicitly stated in the reading selection (Clymer, 1968 in Hudson, 2007 p. 85). The examples of them are finding date of flight; who is …; what/where did she/he …; what happened when or during …; find out the differences between … and …? Inferential or interpretative comprehension is the level of understanding wherein readers can read meanings which are not directly stated on the texts (Brasel and Rasinski, 2008, p. 17; Alexander, 1989; Burnes & Glenda, 1985 in Setiadi, 2010 p. 92; Briskin, 2005). This level requires the orchestration and the manipulation of information from the text as well as within the readers (Brasel and Rasinski, 2008, p. 17) The questions are, for example, how did she converse with …; what was the weather like; do you think …; what will happen next etc. Evaluative or critical comprehension refers to the understanding of a text which requires readers to use an adequately developed knowledge base (Carr and Thompson, 1996) and new information (Briskin, 2005) including prior knowledge, intuition, and imagination to make hypotheses (Pennel, 2002); to draw conclusions, to make reasonable predictions, connections between conclusions and critical judgments about what texts (Keene and Zimmerman, 1997 in Pennel, 2002; Clymer 1968 in Hudson, 2007 pp. 84-5; Brasell & Rasinski, 2008 p. 17). The examples of the questions are what strange ideas did … have? why was … true?; how do you feel about this character?; what do you think …’s attitude?
  2. 2. Based on the categories above, the questions on Bahasa Indonesia textbooks from one publisher and English textbooks from two publishers for grade 7, 8 and 9 junior high schools were categorized. Only the questions written under/after the texts were analyzed. Four teachers were interviewed. From Bahasa Indonesia textbooks, it was found that the questions of inferential comprehension dominated. In grade 7’s textbook, among 90 questions from 19 texts, there were 21 questions (23%) drilling literal comprehension, 38 questions (42%) challenging inferential comprehension and 31 questions (34%) exercising evaluative comprehension level. In grade 8’s, among 98 questions in 17 texts, 12 questions (12%) challenging literal comprehension, 46 (47%) drilling inferential and 40 questions (41%) exercising evaluative comprehension level. In grade 9’s, among 123 questions in 19 texts, 29 questions (24%) exercising literal comprehension, 59 questions (48%) practicing inferential comprehension and 35 (28 %) questions challenging evaluative comprehension. To get the picture of overall distribution, see the table below. The Comprehension Questions In Bahasa Indonesia Textbooks 50.00 40.00 30.00 Literal 20.00 Inferential 10.00 Evaluative Ina Book 7 Ina Book 8 Ina Book 9 Overall This finding shows that inferential questions are the most frequently exercised. This means that the textbooks trained students to be good at inferring which is important for reading (Mickulecky, 1990). However, the literal comprehension was seldom challenged. This could be risky since the students may guess the answer without active reading. They might be reluctant to read the text and rely their answer on their prediction, instead. On the contrary, from the two English textbooks, it was found that the questions about literal comprehension dominated in all grades. In grade 7’s, among 104 questions in 21 texts, there were 81 questions (78%) exercising literal, 21 questions (20%) challenging inferential and 2 (2%) questions checking evaluative comprehension level. In grade 8’s, among 323 questions in 58 texts, there are 182 questions (56%) challenging literal, 121 questions (37%) examining inferential and 9 questions (6 %) training evaluative comprehension. Finally, in grade 9’s, among 193 questions in 50 texts, 193 questions (65%) challenging literal comprehension, 95 questions (32%) training inferential and 9 questions (3 %) exercising evaluative comprehension level. The table below the ratio
  3. 3. The Comprehension Questions in English Textbooks 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 - Literal Inferential Evaluative These findings show that the questions in the textbooks mostly challenge literal comprehension. This means that the students were mostly exercised to recognize and recall of ideas, information and happening explicitly stated in the texts (Clymer, 1968 iin Hudson, 2007 p. 85; Briskin, 2005;). These are in line with what Myhil et. al. (2006) claims that factual questions are the most common ones. These also confirm the statement of Muhamad (1999) that teachers tend to ask their students mainly literal comprehension questions. This implies that the students were not challenged to have better comprehension. Their evaluative comprehension is not frequently exercised. This is parallel to the claim that the emphasis of lesson was reading and doing exercises leading to rote-learning, which could have negative impact on the students’ meaningful learning, and critical thinking has never been the object of learning (Mok, J. 2010). When the students’ critical thinking is not exercised, they do not have the ability to take control of their conscious thought processes. With this, they risk being controlled by the ideas of others. In addition, based on the interview, it was found that teachers tend to utilize the questions as they were written. They modify or add more questions only when the students do not understand the questions, when the time for teaching the texts were still long or when other language skills, speaking or writing, are trained. This confirms the claim that most class activities were dominated by textbooks: it was a textbook which determines what the lecturer and students do (Zohrabi, M. 2011). In summary, this study concludes that the questions in Bahasa Indonesia and English textbooks different emphasis in challenging students’ comprehension levels. The former contained 19.9% literal, 45.9% inferential and 34% evaluative comprehension questions. The latter contained 62.9 % literal, 32.7% and only 4.2% evaluative comprehension questions. The fact that literal level was not much tested In Bahasa Indonesia might lead students guess the content of the texts without reading. Meanwhile in English textbooks, neglecting evaluative comprehension might lead students to be uncritical. It was also found that most teachers utilized the questions as written and scarcely modified them. So, the questions on the textbooks determined what was exercised in many classrooms. Therefore, it is recommended that both textbook writers and teachers should be more cautious in generating questions, to include all levels of comprehension evenly. Reading teacher should modify or add questions to challenge all the comprehension levels.
  4. 4. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aebersold, J.A., and Field, M.L. (1997). From reader to reading teacher: Issues and strategies for second language classroom. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. in Hedgcock and Ferris, 2009 Alexander , E. (1989). Teaching Reading Illinois. London: Scott, Foresman and Company. Brasell, D. & Rasinski, T. (2008). Comprehension that Works: Taking Students Beyond Ordinary Understanding to Deep Comprehension. Huntington Beach: Shell Education. Briskin, L. (2005). A Guide To Active Reading And Asking Questions: A Handout For Students. Online article. Available at www.yorku.ca/laps/sosc/Foundations/documents/ActiveReading.pdf . Accessed on February 15. 2012. Burnes, D & Page, Glenda. (1985). Insight and Strategies for Teaching Reading. Sydney: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. In Setiadi, R. 2010. Self-Efficacy in Indonesian Literacy Teaching Context: A Theoretical and Empirical Perspective. Bandung: Rizki Press. Carr, S. C. and Thompson, B. (1996). The Effects of prior knowledge and schema activation strategies on the inferential reading comprehension of children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly. 19, 48 - 61. Clymer, T. (1968). ‘What is “reading”?’: some current concepts. 67th Yearbook of National Society for the Study of Education, 1968, 7-29. In Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching Second Language Reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching Second Language Reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hedgecock, J.S. and Ferris, D. R. (2009). Teaching Readers of English: Students, Texts and Contexts. New York: Routledge. Keene, E. O., & Zimmerman, S. (1997) Mosaic of thought: Teaching reading comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. In Pennel, D. (2002). Explicit Instruction for Implicit Meaning: Strategies for Teaching Inferential Reading Comprehension. Available at education.wm.edu accessed on November 12, 2012. Mikulecky, B.S. (1990). A Short Course in Teaching Reading Skills. USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc. Mok, J. 2010 The New Role of English Language Teachers: Developing Students’ Critical Thinking in Hongkong Secondary School Classroom. ASIAN EFL Journal. 12 (2). P. 262-287 Muhamad, A. (1999). What Do We Test When We Test Reading Comprehension? The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. V, No. 12, December 1999 available at http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Nunn-Interacting.html accessed on February 5th, 2012. Myhil, D. Jones, S & Hopper, R. 2006. Talking, Listening, Learning: Effective Talk in Primary Classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open university Press. in Yang, C. C. R. (2010). Teacher questions in Second Language Classrooms: An Investigation of three case studies. Asian EFL Journal. 12 (1) pp. 181-201) Nunan, D & Lamb, C. 1996. Self-Directed Teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In Yang, C. C. R, 2010. Teacher questions in Second Language Classrooms: An Investigation of three case studies. Asian EFL Journal. 12 (1) pp. 181-201
  5. 5. Pennel, D. (2002). Explicit Instruction for Implicit Meaning: Strategies for Teaching Inferential Reading Comprehension. Available at education.wm.edu accessed on November 12, 2012. Setiadi, R. (2010). Self-Efficacy in Indonesian Literacy Teaching Context: A Theoretical and Empirical Perspective. Bandung: Rizki Press. Yang, C. C. R, 2010. Teacher questions in Second Language Classrooms: An Investigation of three case studies. Asian EFL Journal. 12 (1) pp. 181-201. Zohrabi, M. 2011. An Evaluation of Class Activities and Exercises in ELT Classroom for General Purpose Course. Canadian Center of Science and Education. 4 (1). 141-151. In Proquest Documents: English Language Teaching. 84.

×