An Analysis of Reading Comprehension Questions on the SAET and the DRET Using Revised Bloom's Taxonomy

• Main Authors: Wei-Hua Lan, 藍偉華
• Other Authors: Chiou-Lan Chern
• Format: Others
• Language: en_US
• Published: 2007
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/18258767539681279487

碩士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 英語學系 === 95 === ABSTRACT This study aimed to investigate the cognitive process levels and knowledge types in the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy tested on the reading comprehension items on the SAET (Scholastic Achievement English Test) and the DRET (Department Required English Test) administered from 2002 to 2006, and to explore how test takers (all examinees, high scorers, and low scorers) performed on different types of items. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses were adopted. The qualitative analysis was conducted by categorizing each of the 140 comprehension items into a major and a sub cognitive process and a major and a sub knowledge type in the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. SPSS 14.0 statistical package was used to do the quantitative analysis. The frequency distribution of the question types (i.e., combinations of the cognitive levels and knowledge types identified) was done by the Crosstabulation analysis. The two-way ANOVA test was applied to the SAET and the DRET to investigate whether there were significant differences among the passing rates of various question types and to examine whether these differences were consistent through years. Moreover, to see how the high and low scorers differed while answering different types of questions each year, the discrimination indexes were analyzed via the one-way ANOVA test. The results of this study are summarized as follows: First, in both test item analyses, four lowest levels in the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Remember, Understand, Apply, and Analyze) along with eight sub-levels, and three types of knowledge (Factual, Conceptual, and Procedural) along with three subtypes were identified, together comprising five major question types and nine subtypes of questions. Second, items on Remember Factual Knowledge and Understand Factual Knowledge were the majority in the two tests. Few items were found at higher levels of Apply and Analyze. The major differences between the SAET and the DRET were the frequency, occurrence, and distribution of items testing different cognitive sub-skills and knowledge subtypes. It was found that Executing/Apply items were more favored in the SAET, whereas the DRET had more items on Inferring (a subtype under Understand category). Third, in the SAET, no general pattern was found in the significant discrepancy among the passing rates of various question types in these years; whereas a general pattern emerged in the DRET, with Understand Conceptual Knowledge items being significantly best performed. However, examinees performed extremely poor on sub question type of inferring unstated details. Finally, a gap around 50 was found between the passing rates of the high and low scorers regardless of the question types in the SAET and the DRET. Yet, it was found that, in the DRET, the high scorers performed worst in answering questions on Inferring specific details, making this type of question obtain unsatisfactory discriminatory power. It is suggested that English teacher should help learners develop the four needed cognitive skills, especially the inferring sub-skills of understanding, in reading or test preparing.