Variations in readers' content schemata explain why different readers may construct different meanings for a given text and still be in the right. When aiming to reflect this meaning relatively in meaning construction tests, test developers may face theoretical, ethical and practical questions: Are any limits on the free interpretation of a text justifiable? If so, what are these limits? If these limits are set, how can they be reflected in a fair, objective and feasible reading test? Following principles emerging from work by Van Dijk and Kintsch (1983) and Alderson and Short (1981), a meaning consensus criterion answer (MCCA) is suggested as a basis for a relative meaning reading com prehension test. The MCCA is derived from analyses of model answers of a sample of readers from diverse professional backgrounds and levels of expertise. Thus, the MCCA represents both essential, full-consensus compo nents of text meaning, as well as partial, but still considerable, consensus com ponents. It is recommended that the MCCA be used as a basis for item scoring in order to ensure a more feasible objective, yet more relative and, therefore, an unbiased tool for the testing of meaning construction. The paper includes a discussion of the theoretical rationale for the MCCA, and a detailed and an exemplified report on the procedures the MCCA involves. A discussion of MCCA reliability, interconsistency, discrimination power and score meaning follows, and suggestions for future research are made.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, M.L. and Collins, A.1979: A schema-theoretic view of reading. In Freedle, R. editor, New directions in discourse processing, Vol. II, Norwood, NJ: Albex.
2.
Alderson, J.C.1984: Reading in a foreign language: a reading problem or a language problem? In Alderson, J. C. and Urquhart, A., editors, Reading in a foreign language, London: Longman.
3.
Alderson, J.C. and Short, M.1981: Reading literature. Paper read at the B. A. D. Conference, University of Lancaster , September.
4.
Anderson, R.C.1977: The notion of schema and the educational enterprise . In Anderson, R. C., Spiro, R. and Montague, W. , editors, Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5.
Anderson, R.C., Reynolds, R.E., Sharlette, D.L. and Goetz, E.T.1977: Frameworks for understanding discourse. American Educational Research Journal15, 433-40.
6.
Baker, L. and Brown, A.L.1984: Metacognitive skills and reading. In Pearson, D., editor, Handbook of reading research , New York: Longman.
7.
Bartlette, F.C.1932: Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Berman, R.1979: A technique for advanced level reading. TESOL Quarterly9,243-51.
9.
— 1984: Syntactic components of the foreign language reading process . In Alderson, J. C. and Urquhart, A., editors, Reading in a foreign language, London: Longman.
10.
Brown, A.L.1982: Learning and development: the problem of compatibility, access and induction. Human Development25, 89-115. Brown, A.L., Campione, J. and Day, J.D.1982: Learning to learn: on training students to learn from texts. Educational Research10, 14-21. Clarke, M.1979: Reading in Spanish and English: evidence from ESL students . Language Learning19, 121-47.
11.
Corder, S.P.1973: Interpretive procedures: seeing, reading and understanding discourse. In Anderson, R., editor, New dimensions in second language acquisition research, Rowley, MS: Newbury House.
12.
Cowan, J.R.1976: Reading, perceptual strategies and contrastive analysis . Language Learning26, 95-109.
13.
Cowan, J.R. and Sarmad, Z.1976: Reading performance of bilingual children, according to type of school and home language. Working Papers onBilingualism11, 74-114.
14.
Cziko, G.1978: Difference in first and second language reading: the use of syntactic, semantic and discourse constraints. The Canadian Modern Language Review34, 473-89.
15.
— 1980: Language competence and reading strategies: a comparison of first and second language oral reading errors. Language Learning30, 101-16.
16.
Devine, J. (1987): General language competence and adult second language learning. In Devine, J., Carrel, P. L. and Eskey, D.E., editors, Research in reading in English as a second language, Washington, DC: TESOL Publications.
17.
Downing, J. and Leong, C.K.1981: Psychology of reading. New York and London: Macmillan.
18.
Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., Meloth, M.S., Vavrus, L.G., Book, C., Putnam, J. and Wasserman, R.1986: The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading skill instruction and student awareness and achievement: a study of reading teacher effect. Reading Research Quarterly21, 273-53.
19.
Fitzgerald, J.1984: The relation between reading ability and expectations for story grammar. DiscourseAnalysis7, 21-41.
20.
Fitzgerald, J. and Teasley, A.1986: Effects of instruction in narrative structure on children's writing. Journal of Educational Psychology78, 430-57.
21.
Giora, R.1985: A note towards a theory of coherence. Poetics Today6, 677-93.
22.
Haynes, M.1983: Patterns and perils in second language reading . Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, English Language Center.
23.
Hoyle, F.1967: Of man and galaxies. In Alexander, L. G., editor, New concept English, fluency in English, London: Longman.
24.
Johns, A.1986: Coherence and academic writing. TESOL Quarterly20, 247-65.
25.
Johnson, P.1981: Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural background. TESOL Quarterly15, 169-83.
26.
Kant, I.1781. (First edition, translation by Smith, K., 1963). Critique of pure reason. London: Macmillan .
27.
Kintsch, W. and Van Dijk, T.1978: Toward a model of text comprehension and production . Psychological Review85, 363-94.
28.
Laufer, B. and Sim, D.1984: Taking the easy way out - non-use and misuse of cues in EFL reading. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Foreign Languages , Haifa University.
29.
Lipson, M.Y.1984: Some unexpected issues in prior knowledge and comprehension. ReadingTeacher378, 761-63.
30.
Mann, 1983: Problems in reading and how they may be solved by the reader. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Educational Research, University of Lancaster.
31.
Marcuse, H.1967: Utopia and reality. In Tessler, D., editor, Studies in the ideology of the industrial society, Merhavia: Sifriat Poalim (Hebrew Translation).
32.
Marshall, N. and Glock, M.D.1978-1979: Comprehension of connected discourse: a study into the relationships between the structure of text and information recalled. Reading Research Quarterly14, 10-56. Meyer, B.J.F., Brandt, D.A. and Bluth, G.J.1980: Use of top-level structure in text: key for reading comprehension of ninth grade students. Reading Research Quarterly16, 72-103.
33.
Neufeld, J.K. and Webb, M.R.1981: Strategies for developing reading fluency. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa.
34.
Nevo, D.1982: Standards for educational testing methods. Unpublished manuscript, Evaluation and Measurement Department, Tel-Aviv University.
Piaget, J.1969: The mechanisms of perception. London : Routledge and Kegan Paul.
37.
Rahman, T. and Bisanz, G.L.1986: Reading ability and the use of story schema in recalling and reconstructing information. Journal ofeducationalPsychology78, 323-33.
38.
Rumelhart, D.E.1980: Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In Spiro, R., Bruce, B. and Brewer, W., editors, Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39.
Sarig, G.1985a: Comprehension of academic texts in the first and in a foreign language. Doctoral Thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
40.
— 1985b: Compensation strategies in L2 reading. Paper presented at the international TESOL conference, 'Looking ahead'. Jerusalem, July 1985.
41.
— 1987: High-level reading in the first and in the foreign language: some comparative process data. In Devine, J., Carrel, P. L. and Eskey, D.E., editors, Research in reading in English as a second language, Washington, DC: TESOL Publications.
42.
Sarig, G. and Folman, S. (in press): Metacognitive awareness and theoretical knowledge in coherence production.
43.
Schmidt, S.J.1978: Some problems in communicative text theories. In Dressler, W. V., editor, Current trends in text linguistics, Berlin (West): W. DeGruyter .
44.
Schunk, D.H. and Cox, P.D.1986: Strategy training and attributional feedback with learning disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology78, 201-209.
45.
Shimron, J. and Goren, L.1987: Effect of vocabulary knowledge and syntactic components on comprehension of spoken and literary language texts. Paper presented at the Second SCRIPT Congress, Kiryat Anavim, February 1987.
46.
Steffensen, M.S. and Joag-Dev, C.1984: Cultural knowledge and reading. In Alderson, J. C. and Urquhart, A. H., editors, Reading in a foreign language, London: Longman, 48-62.
47.
Van Dijk, T. and Kintsch, W.1983: Strategies of discourse comprehension. Orlando: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich; Academic Press.
48.
Widdowson, H.G.1983: New starts and different kinds of failure. In Freedman, A. and Yalden, J., editors, Learning to write: first language/second language research, New York: Longman .
49.
— 1984: Reading and communication. In Alderson, J. C. and Urquhart, A. H., editors, Reading in a foreign language, London: Longman.
50.
Zuck, L.V. and Zuck, J.G.1984: The main idea: specialist and non-specialist judgements . In Ulijn, J. and Pugh, A., editors, Reading for professional purposes: studies and practices in native and foreign languages, London: Heinemann.
