Estimating the Difficulty Level of EFL Texts: Applying Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

Natasha Pourdana, John S. Rajeski

Abstract


The purpose of the present study was to explore the impact of difficulty level of texts on EFL learners’ reading comprehension through the application of Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy. The researchers’ primary assumption was that reading EFL texts would become more difficult as the learners’ performance proceeds from a text targeting their Knowledge abilities through the texts tapping on their Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis to Evaluation abilities. To fulfil the ultimate purpose of the research, 32 undergraduate students majoring in English translation at Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Iran took part in this investigation in 2011. In addition to Comprehensive English Language Test (CELT), the participants were given a teacher–made reading comprehension test, included six short reading passages from 154 to 166 ranges of words and 30 multiple- choice items which compiled and constructed based on the six levels in the hierarchy of Bloom’s cognitive taxonomy. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) proved that except for the fifth level, the Synthesis text, the EFL learners’ performance was graded properly based on the difficulty levels expected and explored in Bloom’s levels of Cognitive Domain. The findings in this study are considerably practical in developing EFL materials and teaching reading skills and strategies.

 


Keywords


Difficulty level, EFL, Bloom’s Hierarchy of Educational Objectives, Cognitive Domain, Reading

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alderson, J. C. (2001). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Al-Yousef. H. S. (2005). Teaching reading comprehension to ESLEFL learners. The Reading Matrix. 5(2): 387-394.

Berardo, S. A. (2006). The use of authentic materials in the teaching of reading. The Reading Matrix, 6(2): 1-10.

Bloom, B. S., Engehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, V. H., and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Longmans Green: New York.

Cain, K., Bryant, P. and Oakhill, J. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 96: 31-42.

Goodman, K. S. (1987). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the reading specialist, 6: 126-135.

Khorsand, K. (2009). Cognitive levels of questions used by Iranian EFL teachers in advanced reading comprehension tests. Vikas Publishing House: PVT.

Redondo. M. (1997). Reading models in foreign language teaching. Revista Alicantinade Estudios Inglesses, 10:139-161.

Rumelhart, D. E and McClelland, J. L. (1981) Interactive processing through spreading activation. Hills Dale NJ: Erlbaum.

Rumptz. D. Theoretical model of reading ability. Retrieved 14 Oct., 2008http: //www.geocities.com/rumptz_sh8kr/Modelofreading.htm.

Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly. 16(1): 32-71.

Vanden Broek, P. (2009). Improving reading comprehension: Connecting cognitive science and education. Cognitive Critique, 2: 1-25.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.6p.202

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.