This study investigated if different response formats (test methods) measure reading comprehension of expository text differently. The study was conducted with 48 semester 6 TESL students at a university in Selangor, Malaysia. These students received an expository passage having descriptive rhetorical structure followed by three response formats, namely, incomplete outline, graphic organizer, and summary writing. Results from Repeated Measures two-way ANOVA indicated that high-achievers outperformed intermediate- and low-achievers across the three response formats. Moreover, the three groups achieved higher scores on incomplete outline and summary writing, respectively. However, graphic organizer appeared as the most difficult task as the respondents achieved the lowest score in this task.
Akhondi, M. (2011). Measuring the knowledge of expository text structure across different text types and response formats in an ESL academic context. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing Reading, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Aulls, M. W. (1975). “Expository paragraph properties that influence literal recall”, Journal of Reading Behavior, 7(4), pp. 391-400.
Arshad abd. S. (2004). Essentials of Language Testing for Malaysian Teachers, Serdang: University Putra Malaysia Press.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing, Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., and Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brantmeier, C. (2006). “Readers’ gender and test method effect in second language reading”, Forum on Public Policy, pp. 1-36.
Brown, J. D., and Hudson, T. (1998). “The alternatives in language assessment”, TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), pp. 653-675.
Buck, G. (2001). Assessing Listening, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P. L. (1992). “Awareness of text structure: effects on recall”, Language Learning, 42(1), pp. 1-20.
Cutting, L. E., and Scarborough, H. S. (2006). “Prediction of reading comprehension: relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured”, Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), pp. 277-299.
Duke, N. K. (2000). “3.6 minutes per day: the scarcity of informational texts in the first grade”, Reading Research Quarterly, 35, pp. 202-224.
Fletcher, J. M. (2006). “Measuring reading comprehension”, Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), pp. 323-330.
Francis, D. J., Snow, C. E., August, D., Carlson, C. D., Miller, J., and Iglesias, A. (2006). “Measures of reading comprehension: a latent variable analysis of the diagnostic assessment of reading comprehension”, Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), pp. 301-322.
Graesser, A. C., Hoffman, N. L., and Clark, L. F. (1980). “Structural components of reading time”, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, pp. 135-151.
Grabe, W., and Stoller, F. (2002). Teaching and Researching Reading, New York: Longman.
Hall, K. M., Markham, J. C., and Culatta, B. (2005). “The development of the early expository comprehension assessment (EECA): a look at reliability”, Communication Disorders Quarterly, 26(4), pp. 195-206.
Hall, K. M., Sabey, B. L., and McClellan, M. (2005). “Expository text comprehension: helping primary-grade teachers use expository texts to full advantage”, Reading Psychology, 26, pp. 211-234.
Johnson, E. S., Jenkins, J. R., and Jewell, M. (2005). “Analyzing components of reading on performance assessments: an expanded simple view”, Reading Psychology, 26, pp. 267-283.
Katz, S., Lautenschalger, G., Blackburn, A., and Harris, F. (1990). “Answering reading comprehension items without passages on the SAT”, Psychological Science, 1, pp. 122-127.
Kendeou, P., and van Den Broek, P. (2007). “The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts”, Memory and Cognition, 35(7), pp. 1567-1577.
Kintsch, W., and Yarbrough, J. C. (1982). “Role of rhetorical structure in text comprehension”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(6), pp. 828-834.
Kobayashi, M. (1995). Effects of text organization and test format on reading comprehension test performance. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Thames Valley University.
Kobayashi, M. (2002). “Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: text organization and response format”, Language Testing, 19(2), pp. 193-220.
Lewkowicz, J. A. (1983). Method effect on testing reading comprehension: Acomparison of three methods. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Lancaster.
Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The Organization of Prose and Its Effects on Memory, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., and Bluth, G. J. (1980). “Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students”, Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), pp. 72-103.
Meyer, B. J. F., and Freedle, R. O. (1984). “Effects of discourse type on recall”, American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), pp. 121-143.
Meyer, B. J. F., and Poon, L. W. (2001). “Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on recall of text”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), pp. 141-159.
Nevo, N. (1989). “Test-taking strategies on a multiple-choice test of reading comprehension”, Language Testing, 6(2), pp. 199-215.
Nassaji, H. (2003). “Higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension”, The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), pp. 261-276.
Nassaji, H. (2007). “Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension: a need for alternative perspectives”, Language Learning, 57(1), pp. 79-113.
Ozuru, Y., Best, R., Bell, C., Witherspoon, A., and McNamara, D. S. (2007). “Influence of question format and text availability on the assessment of expository text comprehension”, Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), pp. 399-438.
Pearson, P. D., and Hamm, D. N. (2005). “The assessment of reading comprehension: A review of practices – past, present, and future”, (pp. 13-69), in Paris, S. G., and Stahl, S. A. (eds.), Children’s Reading Comprehension and Assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp. 131-160.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension, Washington, DC: RAND Education.
Raap, D., and van den Broek, P. (2005). “Dynamic text comprehension: an interactive view of reading”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, pp. 276-279.
Reder, L. M., and Anderson, J. R. (1980). “A comparison of texts and their summaries: Memorial consequences”, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(2), pp. 121-134.
Royer, J. (1990). “The sentence verification technique: a new direction in the assessment of reading comprehension”, in Legg, S. and Algina, J. (eds.), Cognitive Assessment of Language and Math Outcomes, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Shohamy, E. (1984). “Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension”, Language Testing, 1(2), pp. 147-170.
Shohamy, E., and Inbar, O. (1991). “Validation of listening comprehension tests: The effect of text and question type”, Language Testing, 8(1), pp. 23-40.
van den Broek, P., Fletcher, C. R., and Risden, K. (1993). “Investigation of inferential processes in reading: A theoretical and methodological integration”, Discourse Processes, 16, pp. 169-180.
van den Broek, P., and Kremer, K. (1999). “The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading”, in Taylor, B. M., van den Broek, P., and Graves, M. (eds.), Reading for Meaning, New York: Teachers College Press.
Vongpumivitch, V. (2004). Measuring the knowledge of text structure in academic English as a second language (ESL). Unpublished PhD dissertation, UCLA.
Weir, C. (1993). Understanding and Developing Language Tests, London: Prentice Hall.
Williams, J. P. (2005). “Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: a focus on text structure”, Journal of Special Education, 9(1), pp. 6-18.
Williams, J. P., Brook Stafford, K., Lauer, K. D., Hall, K. M., and Pollini, S. (2009). “Embedding reading comprehension training in content-area instruction”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), pp. 1-20.