CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42Educational Assessment and PedagogyEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lower-order and Higher-order Reading Questions in Secondary and University Level EFL Textbooks in Jordan

Open access
Freahat, Nasser M., Smadi, Oqlah M.·2014·Theory and Practice in Language Studies
DOI 10.4304/tpls.4.9.1804-1813
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze thinking levels of the reading comprehension questions in Action Pack 11 (hereafter AP 11) which is taught for grade 11, Action Pack 12 (hereafter AP 12) that is taught for grade 12 at the schools of The Jordanian Ministry of Education and New Headway Plus Pre-intermediate (hereafter NHWP) that is taught for the first English language course taught at Yarmouk University.All WHquestions in the three textbooks analyzed according to Bloom's Taxonomy.The researchers calculated the percentages and frequencies of the cognitive levels of the questions in the three textbooks.Chi square (χ2) was used to draw comparisons between the cognitive levels of the questions.The results indicated that low-level questions are dominant in the three.It was also found that low-level questions were dominant in both stages.An interesting conclusion was that the reading material of the university textbook does not show a higher level of thinking.On the contrary, the reading content in the high school textbooks revealed more concentration on higher-level thinking questions.As a result, the study recommended that there should be more communication between secondary schools and universities to bridge the gap between them.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4304/tpls.4.9.1804-1813

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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: 5

  1. [3] Barret, T., Smith, R. (1974). Teaching reading in the middle grades. MA: Addison-Wisley
  2. [6] Haines, S. (2009). Action pack 11, Student's Book. London: York Press
  3. [7] Haines, S. (2009). Action pack 12, Student's Book. London: York Press
  4. [15] Soars, J., & Soars, L. (2006). New Headway Plus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  5. [17] Underhill, N. (1991). Testing Spoken English. testing: A handbook of oral testing techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

See all 42

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Freahat, N. M., & Smadi, O. M.
Affiliations
  • Imam Mohammad ibn Saud Islamic University (SA)
  • Yarmouk University (JO)
Venue
Theory and Practice in Language Studies
Publisher
Academy Publication
Published
2014-09-01
Volume
4
Issue
9
ISSN
1799-2591 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.4304/tpls.4.9.1804-1813
OpenAlex
W2007816443
Cited by
39
References
10
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Theory and Practice in Language Studies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
  • 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
Keywords
reading comprehension questions, EFL textbooks, Bloom's taxonomy, cognitive levels, higher-order thinking skills, lower-order thinking, secondary education

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