Inquired about the difficulty level of the two question types, 14 out of the 30 interviewees consider detail questions easier than main idea questions while 13 report just the opposite. The 20 interviewees of the oral-reading groups are further asked about which question type is easier to answer while they perform the oral reading modes, and 16 out of the 20 interviewees consider detail questions easier. The
interview report does not accord with the test results, which show that the two groups of oral reading perform not so well as the silent-reading group in the detail questions, but not the main idea questions. But the 16 interviewees who consider detail questions easier generally believe detail questions can be answered by “understanding certain sentences” while main idea questions should be answered by “knowing all the key words or the grammar” or “after reading the whole text.” It seems that they think detail questions are easier because understanding the meanings of certain sentences are easier than understand the whole text. Maybe such impression does not correspond to their real performance because sometimes main idea questions can be answered easily by identifying the topic sentence while detail questions, such as true-false questions, involve integration of numerous details in the texts. In such cases, answering main idea questions is comparatively easier. As Lu (2002) has provided evidence from 8-year Subject Ability Tests that the examinees generally perform better in main idea questions than in detail questions, it stands to reason that the detail questions are more challenging for the students, leading to the three groups’
significantly different performance in the detail questions, but not in main idea
questions.
4.4. Summary
In this chapter, the results of this study are presented and the possible reasons for the results are discussed. Some interview reports are also included within the relevant discussion. The results and discussion can be summarized as follows.
First, according to the three groups’ performance in overall reading
comprehension, silent reading is shown to be the most effective mode to the students’
reading comprehension, and oral reading inhibits the students’ comprehension. The reports from the interview also support this result. 15 out of 20 interviewees of the oral-reading groups think that silent reading benefits their reading comprehension more. The interviewees mention three reasons against the oral reading modes: the sound as a distractor, the controlled reading speed, and their habitual reading.
However, the result is in contrast with that of Hsieh’s study (2000). Two possible reasons are discussed for such consequence: the subjects’ different needs for English and the different methods applied in the studies.
Further investigation with one-way ANOVA shows the significant difference among the three groups occurs only between the group of silent reading and the group of teacher’s reading aloud. No significant difference between the group of self-reading aloud and the group of teacher’s reading aloud implies that reading in larger semantic units doesn’t have obvious benefit for the students’ reading comprehension. No significant difference between the group of silent reading and the group of
self-reading aloud suggests that the students tend to read word by word even when reading silently. The teacher’s reading in larger semantic units forces the students to read faster than word by word and brings about inferior performance of the teachers’
reading aloud group.
Second, as far as the two text types are concerned, there is no significant difference among the three groups’ performance in exposition, but significant
difference is found between two of the three groups in narration—the group of silent reading significantly outperforms the group of teacher’s reading aloud. The sequent structure of narration and the non-chronological quality of exposition are discussed as the main reason for the consequence. The group of silent reading could read back or forth the texts to fully understand the series of events and thus have better
performance in comprehending narrative texts. Since exposition doesn’t have sequence structures, such advantage of silent reading didn’t show its effect on the students’ performance. As for teacher’s-reading-aloud group, the teacher’s reading pace might be an obstacle for the group members to fully comprehend the sequencing events of the narrative texts, and they consequently couldn’t perform as well as the other two groups. The interview reports about the two text types corresponds to the test results, for one out of 20 interviewees of the oral-reading groups reports finding it hard to comprehend the sequence structure of narratives while performing
self-reading aloud. Other interviewees seem to have no awareness of the different organizations between the two text types.
Third, with regard to the three groups’ performances in answering main idea questions, no significant difference is found among the three groups. This maybe because there are usually clues for the main idea through out a text. Besides, the gist of a text sometimes can even be easily found by identifying the topic sentence.
Consequently, the distraction on comprehension caused by sound is not so obvious, leading to no significant difference among the students’ performance in answering main idea questions. The three groups’ performances on main idea questions of the
two different text types are further investigated because the gist in exposition is often clearly stated while that in narration is not, and the latter is generally more difficult for the students. Two of the interviewees, while being asking which question type is harder to answer, show their awareness about the difference of main idea questions in the two text types and report that main idea questions in narratives are the more difficult one for them. But the test results show no significant difference among the three groups in answering the main idea questions of both text types. A possible explanation could be that the narrative texts applied in this study are not so difficult for the students to infer the gist of the texts.
Fourth, concerning the three groups’ performance in answering detail questions, the group of silent reading outperforms the group of self-reading aloud, which in turn outperforms the group of teacher’s reading aloud. But significant difference is found only between the silent-reading group and the teacher’s-reading-aloud group. With various subtypes, detail questions are generally more difficult for the students than main idea questions. The separation of reading texts and their comprehension questions in this study makes answering detail questions even more difficult, for the students have to completely understand or even memorize the details to have good performance. But the students of the oral-reading groups, distracted by the sound, couldn’t fully comprehend the details of a text. The students of the
teacher’s-reading-aloud group, apart from reading with sound as a distractor, are also constrained by the teacher’s reading pace, consequently couldn’t perform as well as the other two groups.
The three groups’ performances in answering detail questions of the two text types are further explored. The test results reveal no significant difference among the three groups’ performance in exposition, but significant difference is found in
narration between the silent-reading group and teacher’s-reading-aloud group. This result further supports the finding concerning the two different text types: the
sequence structure of narratives is an influential factor for the three groups’ different performances. The silent-reading group takes advantage of being able to read back or forth the text, and thus have better performance in comprehending narratives. The group also benefits from reading without sound as distraction and without controlled reading speed, thereby better comprehending the detail questions in narratives.
However, it should be noted that the interview reports about main idea and detail questions are not consistent with the test results. Most of the interviewees of the oral-reading groups consider answering detail questions easier while performing their oral reading modes. But they report it easier generally because they think
understanding the meanings of certain sentences are easier than understanding the whole text. Since main idea questions sometimes can be answered easily by
identifying only the topic sentences of the texts while detail questions might involve integration of numerous sentences, the interviewees’ impression of the two question types is very likely to have a gap with their real performance, and this could be the reason for the inconsistence between the interview reports and the test results.
From all the above results, it can be concluded that the silent reading is the most beneficial mode to the high school students’ reading comprehension, no matter in their comprehending exposition, narration or in answering main idea questions and detail questions. The reports from the interview also show the students’ preference for silent reading. The sound and the controlled reading speed of the oral reading modes are found to inhibit the students’ comprehension. The teacher’s reading aloud by phrases or clauses is also a reason for the poor comprehension of the students, who tend to read word by word. Few of the interviewees are aware of the different text structures
of narration and exposition, and the different forms of main ideas presented in the two text types; therefore, instruction on these aspects could be included in the students’
reading classes.