Two theories are common for describing reading comprehension: one views reading comprehension as a unitary skill which cannot be broken down into separate sub-skills (e.g., Alderson, 2000; Wallace, 1992) whereas the other views reading comprehension as an aggregate of sub-skills such as finding the main idea or interpreting inferences in a text (e.g., Carver, 1978; Grabe, 1986; Grellet, 1981; Mo, 1987; Nuttall, 1996; Raygor & Raygor, 1985). Though there is inconsistency of the evidence for distinct reading skills, it has not prevented material writers to include some of them in EFL reading materials (Williams, E. & Moran, 1989) and so far there has been no evidence to prove that reading subskills do no exist.
Reading comprehension is such a complex cognitive process that researchers attempt to explain the process by analyzing it into a set of component skills. It has been assumed by researchers, teachers, and test writers that reading can be broken down into “underlying skills components” for the purposes of teaching and testing (Grabe, 1991). Researchers suggested that reading comprehension test items be
written to measure reading skills so that they call for different types of reading (e.g., Cohen, 1994; Mo, 1987). Many different lists, taxonomies and even hierarchies of skills have been drawn up by researchers, yet little consensus concerning the content and terminologies can be found (Williams & Moran, 1989). What’s more, there has been a fair amount of confusion regarding the use of the terms “skill” and “strategy”
in literature. The distinction between these two terms is not clear and they often appear to be used interchangeably. “In EFL reading material, the tendency is for the term “skill” to be used to the exclusion of ‘strategy’ and even of ‘style’ (Williams, E.
& Moran, 1989, p. 223).” Urquhart & Weir (1998) made a distinction between “skill”
and “strategy.” They argued that strategies are “reader-oriented” whereas skills are
“text-oriented.” Richards & Schmidt (2002) identified reading skills as “abilities required for skillful reading” and reading strategies as “ways of accessing the meaning of texts, which are employed flexibly and selectively in the course of reading.” In principle, skills are what the reader automatically and unconsciously contributes to the text (text-oriented) while strategies represent conscious decisions taken by the reader to respond to problems during the reading process (e.g., failure to understand a word or sentence) (Williams, & Moran, 1989; Urquhart & Weir, 1998).
The present study sees reading as consisting of an aggregate of subskills rather than strategies which readers use to check, monitor, and evaluate their thinking and performance. Detailed discussion of what distinguishes a ‘skill’ from a ‘strategy’ is outside the scope of this study.
Theoretical Reading Skill Frameworks
Second/foreign language reading ability was viewed as the mastery of specific reading subskills and this view has continued to inform approaches to the teaching of reading today (Richards, 2002). The investigations of ESL/EFL reading skills have produced a wide variety of skill inventories and classification schemes. Although
there are differences among various classification schemes, most schemes contain one or more of the reading skills listed below, even when the term “strategy” is used rather than “skill” (e.g., Abbott, 2007; Alderson, 1991; Brown, 2003; Grabe, 1986;
Grellet, 1981; Mo, 1987; Munby, 1978; Nuttall, 1996; Phakiti, 2003; Purpura, 1997;
Raygor & Raygor, 1985; Richards, 2002).
1. Deducing the meaning and use of unfamiliar words 2. Noticing specific details
3. Recognizing cohesive devices 4. Recognizing discourse markers 5. Identifying the main idea
6. Identifying the writer’s point of view 7. Recognizing the organization of text 8. Drawing inferences and conclusion 9. Determining functional values 10. Making predictions
As aforementioned, two researchers in Taiwan (Lu, 2002; Hsu, 2005) adopted Mo’s taxonomy to categorize the reading comprehension items on the SAET and DRET. Mo summarized six types of reading skills by reviewing the categories proposed by Carver (1878) and Raygor & Raygor (1985). Mo (1987) excluded skills unrelated to text structure such as skills related to reading speed, habit and pleasure, and identified six reading skills: (1) identifying the main idea, (2) finding specific details mentioned in the passage, (3) finding implications and drawing inferences and conclusions from the text, (4) recognizing style and tone, (5) determining the special techniques used by the author to achieve his effect, and (6) determining the meaning of strange words or phrases as used in the text. However, as briefly mentioned in Chapter One, Mo’s categorization is so general that it could possibly make it difficult for raters to categorize items appropriately. According to Mo, the fifth skill refers to the skill to understand the organization of a text, the skill to interpret the cohesive
devices used by the writer and any other skills relevant to interpreting the main idea of an article. Thus, the fifth skill in fact involves various different skills. According to Mo (1978), items that measure the reader’s ability to recognize cohesive devices, items that measure the reader’s ability to recognize the organization of a passage, or items that measure any other techniques that the writer uses to develop the main idea of an article should all be categorized as one skill. This could possibly result in difficulty of item categorization and make the results of categorization unclear.
Usually, in most taxonomies, recognizing cohesive devices, which deals with more local information in texts, and recognizing the organization of texts, which deals with more global information in texts, are treated as separate skills. Nevertheless, Mo combined these two skills and other skills into one skill, making the skill ill-defined and complicated. This could possibly be the reason why the researchers in two previous studies, Lu (2002) and Hsu (2005), categorized items that measured cohesive devices and text organization into other types of skills such as items on details or items on inference. Another weakness with Mo’s taxonomy was that items which measure test takers’ ability to recognize the functional values of sentences or paragraphs were categorized as items on inference since Mo’s taxonomy was not able to reflect this skill. Thus, being too general and ill-defined, Mo’s taxonomy seemed ineffective in classifying several types of reading comprehension test items on the SAET and DRET.
The Original Nuttall’s Taxonomy
Nuttall (1996), in a book designed to teach ESL/EFL reading, developed a reading skill taxonomy which included two major skill categories: word-attack skills and text-attack skills. In terms of work-attack skills, Nuttall (1996) identified three skills required for coping with difficult words while reading: (1) interpreting structural clues, (2) inference from text, and (3) using a dictionary. Knowing what a
word means is recognized as a necessary skill for reading comprehension by researchers. Text attack skills are divided into skills necessary to read for plain sense (bottom-up skills) and skills necessary to understand discourse (top-down skills).
Skills to reading for plain sense involve: (1) understanding syntax, (2) recognizing and interpreting cohesive devices, and (3) interpreting discourse markers. Skills necessary to understand discourse are: (1) recognizing functional value, (2) recognizing text organization, (3) recognizing the presuppositions underlying the text, (4) recognizing implications and making inferences, and (5) prediction. A detailed description of Nuttall’s taxonomy is presented as follows and modifications made to the taxonomy will be presented in Chapter Three.
Word Attack Skills. Word attack skills are applied when readers need to figure out the meaning of unknown words or phrases. Three word attack skills were identified by Nuttall: interpreting structural clues, inference from context, and using a dictionary.
Word Attack Skill 1: Interpreting Structural Clues
This skill is applied to facilitate understanding when readers are required to determine words by interpreting either of the two following aspects of a word: (1) the grammatical function of the word, and (2) the morphology of the word. By looking at the position of a word, namely its place in the sentence, we can establish its grammatical category and this tells us the kind of meaning to look for. Nuttall also maintained that by adopting an analytic approach to morphology, that is, analyzing the bases, prefixes and affixes of words, readers are able to work out the meanings of new words.
Word Attack Skill 2: Inference from Context
This skill is used when readers try to look for contextual clues in the text in order to infer the meaning of unfamiliar lexical items. According to Nuttall, readers get a
rough idea of the meaning of a word from the context in which it occurred; and with all of the subsequent occurrences of the word, the meaning became more precise to the readers. Nuttall pointed out that this skill is invaluable for less fluent readers.
Word Attack Skill 3: Using a Dictionary
This skill requires readers to look up unfamiliar words in a dictionary. By this skill, readers have to be trained what words should be looked up and what should be done to make use of the information in the dictionary. For example, some readers may find it difficult to find the words they want to quickly enough. Therefore, as Nuttall stated, exercises on alphabetical order and using the guide words at the end of each page will help.
Text Attack Skills. There are a total of eight types of text attack skills:
Understanding Syntax, Recognizing and Interpreting Cohesive Devices, Interpreting Discourse Markers, Recognizing Functional Value, Recognizing Text Organization, Recognizing the Presuppositions Underlying the Text, Recognizing Implications and Making Inferences, and Prediction. These skills will be discussed in details in this section.
Text Attack Skill 1: Understanding Syntax
Texts with long sentences or difficult syntax could be difficult to understand even when vocabulary is familiar to the readers. This skill is employed when readers are required to understand long sentences or sentences of difficult syntax. Therefore, students need to break down long sentences into smaller units.
Text Attack Skill 2: Recognizing and Interpreting Cohesive Devices
This skill is applied when readers are required to recognize and interpret cohesive devices in order to facilitate understanding of texts. Items that measure the readers’ ability to interpret pro-forms, elliptical expressions or lexical cohesion are considered as measuring this skill. To identify pro-forms, readers are required to
identify the meanings of words like it, our, this, those, then, one (as in the wrong one), so/no (as in I think so, it appears not), and comparatives (smaller, same, additional, such, other, etc). Words like these are used by writers to avoid needless repetition.
With this skill, readers should be able to identify the person, object, or anything referred to and retrieve the reference from the text. This skill is applied when readers are required to identify either anaphoric reference (looking backwards in the text) or cataphoric reference (look forwards). As for interpreting elliptical expressions, readers are required to retrieve the meaning of something left unsaid but has already been mentioned in the text previously. To interpret lexical cohesion, readers are required to interpret the relationship between a lexical item and other parts of the discourse, e.g., synonyms, hyponyms, metaphors, etc.). In sum, items that measure the readers’ ability to interpret pro-forms, elliptical expressions or lexical cohesion are considered as measuring this skill.
Text Attack Skill 3: Interpreting Discourse Markers
This skill is concerned with signaling relationships between different parts of the discourse or between the writer and his or her message. Discourse markers often indicate the functional value of the sentence in which they occur and show the relationship the writer intends between two parts of the text. This skill involves interpreting either one of three types of discourse markers: (1) markers that signal the sequence of events (e.g., then, first, at once, next, the following day), (2) markers that signal discourse organization (in conclusion, that is to say, for example, to resume, in short), and (3) markers that signal the writer’s point of view (e.g., moreover, incidentally, similarly, however, as a matter of fact, in any case, therefore, in order to, if, certainly, more importantly).
Text Attack Skill 4: Recognizing Functional Value
Nuttall (1996, p. 100) stated that understanding discourse depends on
understanding the functional value of the text sentences. Nuttall divided functional value into three categories: (1) independent functions (associated with propositional meaning; e.g., defining, classifying, generalizing, naming, describing, reporting, speculating, predicting, etc.), (2) text-dependent functions (associated with contextual meaning; e.g., asserting, exemplifying, explaining, reinforcing, explicating, hypothesizing, commenting, concluding, etc.), and (3) interaction-dependent functions (associated with pragmatic meaning; e.g., conceding, evaluating, inviting, instructing, apologizing, suggesting, complaining, complimenting, warning, etc.).
Text Attack Skill 5: Recognizing Text Organization
Skill of this type is used when the reader is required to trace the rhetorical development of a text and to analyze the rhetorical organization of a text. In general, paragraphs can be organized in many patterns (e.g., definition, description, cause-effect, classification, comparison-contrast, process, hypothesis, argumentation, exemplification, etc.). It is easier for readers to interpret difficult sentences if they can identify the principle by which the text is organized and see how the ideas hang together (Nuttall, 1996, p.106).
Text Attack Skill 6: Recognizing the Presuppositions Underlying the Text
This skill is applied when the reader is required to figure out presuppositions such as the knowledge and experience that the writer expects the reader to have or the opinions, attitudes, emotions that the writer expects the reader to share, or at least to understand.
Text Attack Skill 7: Recognizing Implications and Making Inferences
This skill is necessary when the reader is expected to understand information implicitly stated in the text or draw certain unstated conclusions, points in an argument from the text. The answer of a question of this type cannot be directly located but has to be inferred.
Text Attack Skill 8: Prediction
This skill involves readers using their understanding of the passage and their background knowledge to determine what might happen next or after a text ends.
Prediction involves using schemata about the way stories work, the way texts are constructed, and the way people tend to think. By prediction, readers are able to predict what the writer is likely to put forward next.
In sum, Nuttall’s taxonomy consists of three word attack skills and eight text attack skills. The structure of Nuttall’s taxonomy is presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Structure of Nuttall’s Original Taxonomy Word attack skills
1. Structural Clues 2. Inference from Context 3. Using a Dictionary Text attack skills
Skills necessary to read for plain sense (Bottom-up skills) 1. Understanding Syntax
2. Recognizing and Interpreting Cohesive Devices 3. Interpreting Discourse Markers
Skills necessary for reading beyond plain sense and into discourse (Top-down skills)
Note. Adopted from Nuttall’s original taxonomy: Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language, by Nuttall, 1996.
However, a few weaknesses and practical limitations could be found in the original taxonomy. The skills proposed by Nuttall are important for efficient and effective reading; however, skills which are not supposed to be measured on the reading comprehension section and skills which are not able to be measured in testing
situations should be excluded for the purpose of the present study. In terms of word attack skills, the first word attack skill “Interpreting Structural Clues” is usually measured in the section which tests vocabulary knowledge, not in the reading comprehension section. Therefore, this skill is excluded from the analysis of the current study. In addition, the second word attack skill “Using a Dictionary” is obviously not applicable in testing situations as the examinees are not allowed to use a dictionary during testing. Therefore, this skill is also excluded. Thus, the only skill left is the second word attack skill “Inference from Context.” As for the skills under text attack skills, some skills are not measured or are usually measured in other sections on the SAET or DRET rather than in the reading comprehension section.
First, “Understanding Syntax” requires the reader to break down long sentences in order to arrive at meaning. According to Nuttall, when a reader encounters structural difficulty, he or she must take an analytic approach to analyze long or difficult sentences. For example, the reader is suggested to identify the cohesive elements, rewrite the sentence, find the nouns, and identify the verbs, etc. These are more related to analyze the grammar rules of a sentence, but reading comprehension tests do not require an examinee to analyze the grammar of sentences. Therefore, this skill is excluded as well. Secondly, “Interpreting Discourse Markers” which requires the reader to identify and interpret discourse markers is usually measured in the cloze test instead of the reading comprehension test. Thirdly, “Prediction” involves readers using their understanding of the passage and their background knowledge to determine what might happen next or after a text ends. In testing situations, this skill cannot be used and thus is excluded as well. Thus, the original taxonomy was revised to fit the purpose of the present study and the revised taxonomy is presented in Chapter Three.