CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningEnglish Language Learning and Teaching

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reading Comprehension Questions: The Distribution of Different Types in Global EFL Textbooks

Freeman, Diana·2014·English Language Teaching Textbooks
DOI 10.1057/9781137276285_3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This chapter presents research into the types of questions and tasks that accompany the reading texts in global EFL textbooks. In essence, the rationale for undertaking such an investigation is the crucial role that reading and questions play both in learning per se and in language learning in particular and the still dominant place that textbooks hold in many classrooms. I have identified the different types of comprehension questions and tasks in textbooks and created a taxonomy which consists of two tiers: the first tier represents pre-reading question types and is composed of five different types, and the second tier, which will be the focus of this chapter, represents post-reading comprehension and task question types (comp-qs). The latter, the comp-q types, comprises eight different question types, and these are grouped into three categories: Content, comprising three question types spanning lower to higher order thinking; Language, comprising three question types, not hierarchical; and Affect, two question types, one lower order and the other higher order. Then apply this taxonomy to the questions and tasks accompanying the readings in four series of global intermediatelevel EFL textbooks, each of which has undergone at least one revised edition: Cutting Edge (Cunningham and Moor, 1998,2005), English File (Oxenden and Latham-Koenig, 1999, 2006), Headway (Soars and Soars, 1986, 1996, 2003, 2009), and Inside Out (Kay and Jones, 2000, 2009). 1 have considered the distribution of the question types in terms of frequency, which measures how many of each question type is asked; in terms of their occurrence, which measures which question types are present or not in a given reading, regardless of how many times they appear; and in terms of their range, which measures how many different question types there are in any given text, edition or series (that is, how many out of the eight possible comprehension question types are used, irrespective of how many of each type, or which type). The results contain a combination of the expected — the existence of very basic, lower order questions—and the perhaps less anticipated — the proportion of questions that promote higher order thinking and linguistic skills. Across all ten textbooks in the study, the most widely used comprehension question types are those that require inferential comprehension, although different series demonstrate their own preferences. In order to provide an informed discussion of these results, I held semi-structured interviews with the writers and editors of the series in this study. This has allowed me to gain an insight into the approaches and priorities these writers have when they are creating the reading skills elements of their textbooks.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/9781137276285_3

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Littlejohn, A.P. (1992). Why are English language teaching materials the way they are? Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Lancaster.
  2. Nation, I.S.P. (1979). The curse of the comprehension question: Some alternatives. Guidelines, 2, 85–103.
  3. Oxford University Press. (2006). The story of Headway. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  4. Oxenden, C. and Latham-Koenig, C. (1999). English file 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. Smith, R.J. and Barrett, T.C. (1974). Teaching reading in the middle grades. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
  6. Soars, L. and Soars, J. (1986). Headway intermediate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. Soars, L. and Soars, J. (2003). Headway intermediate (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  8. Soars, L., and Soars, J. (2009). Headway intermediate (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 26

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Freeman, D.
Affiliations
University of Essex (GB)
Corresponding author
Freeman, Diana
Venue
English Language Teaching Textbooks
Publisher
Palgrave Macmillan UK
Published
2014
Pages
72-110
DOI
10.1057/9781137276285_3
OpenAlex
W2505429785
Cited by
26
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
3.31
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (unspecified)
Locations
  • Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • Create (Canterbury Christ Church University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › English Language Learning and Teaching
Keywords
reading comprehension questions, EFL textbooks, question taxonomy, higher-order thinking skills, inferential comprehension, language skills, cutting edge, English File, headway, Inside Out, task-based language learning, learner autonomy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review