Textbooks play a key role in language learning and teaching (Garton & Graves, 2014; Richards, 2014; Tomlinson, 2012). They are considered as “the visible heart of any ELT programme” (Sheldon, 1988, p.237). In this sense, one of the most important sections of the textbooks is reading. Reading either for pleasure or for information (Ur, 1996) is deemed to be an indispensable skill to refresh one’s bulk of knowledge (Mckee, 2012) and to facilitate language learning (Freeman, 2014).
In EFL textbooks, for enhancing the effectiveness and attraction of the reading for the language learners and tailoring it to the learning objectives (Ur, 1996), comprehension questions are included (Masuhara, 2013). Being able to answer the comprehension questions as “frequent and time-honored activities” (Aebersold & Field, 1997, p.117) promotes the language learners’ reading comprehension (Anderson & Biddle, as cited in Grabe, 2009) and thereby, lead them both to take great delight in reading a passage and expand their knowledge (Willis, 2008).
Within the past decades, reading comprehension questions have been examined in light of a cognitively based taxonomy put forth by Bloom (1956). This taxonomy entails six levels: Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation. The first three levels encompass less cognitively challenging tasks and questions while the next three levels target higher-order cognitive abilities. Numerous studies have focused on deciphering the levels of tasks and activities in EFL textbooks. For instance, Roohani, Taheri, & Poorzanganeh (2014) analyzed Four Corners 2 & 3 and demonstrated the lower-order level of the activities in these two books. In another study, Interchange Series (2005) was contrarily shown to include activities gearing to higher-order thinking skills (Razmjoo & Kazempourfard, 2012).
Bloom’s taxonomy was used to analyze the reading comprehension questions in elementary and advanced levels of two textbooks, American Headway and Inside Reading (Adli & Mahmoudi, 2017). The findings were indicative of the dominance of the lower-order thinking skills. Comparing two levels of these books in light of the cognitive levels in Bloom’s taxonomy, they found significant differences for Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Evaluation levels while no marked dissimilarities were spotted among the question types in terms of Analysis and Synthesis levels.
Notwithstanding the above studies in which Bloom’s taxonomy has been taken as the point of departure, few studies have been allocated to inspecting reading comprehension questions and tasks adopting this framework (Adli & Mahmoudi, 2017). On the one hand, this model was not especially devised for divulging the cognitive level of L2 reading tasks (Freeman, 2014). On the other hand, several taxonomies have been proposed for scrutinizing reading materials, but they have been given scant attention. For instance, Nuttall (1996) put forth six categories of reading comprehension questions including Literal comprehension, Reorganization and reinterpretation, Inferencing, Evaluation, Personal response, and Writer’s wording. Likewise, Day and Park (2005) suggested six question types, namely Literal, Reorganization, Inference, Prediction, Evaluation, and Personal response.
Having undertaken a wide-ranging review of the existing frameworks for categorizing reading comprehension questions, Freeman (2014) proclaimed that “no single taxonomy proved to be wholly suitable and superior to its counterparts” (p.77). Hence, she drew on a combination of the previous taxonomies and new categories and purveyed a fully comprehensive taxonomy. It encompassed three major types of questions, Content, Language, and Affect types. Content questions encompass Explicit, Implicit, and Inferential categories and target the information injected in the text. Language questions consist of Reorganization, Lexical, and Form, and incorporate “language-related tasks” (p.80). Affect questions entails the readers’ response to the text comprising Personal Response and Evaluation categories.
Freeman (2014) embarked on her new taxonomy and inquired into the post-reading comprehension questions and task types in four intermediate EFL textbook series including Headway (4 series), American File (2 series), Cutting Edge (2 series), and Inside Out (2 series). The findings revealed the dominance of Content questions in all series, particularly in Headway. Furthermore, the most frequently presented category was Form in American File, which mostly focused on lexical knowledge. The findings further demonstrated the prevalence of Personal Response compared to Evaluation category, which was particularly noticeable in Inside Out.
Baleghizadeh and Zakervafaei (2020) adopted Freeman’s (2014) taxonomy and analyzed the post-reading comprehension questions and task types in the Four Corners series. They found that Content questions were the most prevalent categories in the first three levels while language types were dominant in level four. They also found that the most frequent categories in levels one, two, three, and four were Explicit, Personal, Implicit, and Lexical, respectively. Besides, the findings revealed a significant difference among four levels with regard to Explicit, Implicit, Lexical, and Reorganization types. Considering the entire series, Personal Response category had the highest frequency while no reading comprehension questions fell under the Form category.
Except for Freeman (2014) and Baleghizadeh and Zakervafaei (2020), to the best knowledge of the researchers, no study has yet lodged an appeal to this taxonomy for analyzing the reading sections of EFL materials. Freeman (2014) urged that further research should be carried out to peruse the post-reading comprehension questions in various EFL textbooks. On the other hand, the existing studies had taken no notice of comparing the post-reading comprehension questions and tasks of student books and their accompanying workbooks (Baleghizadeh & Zakervafaei, 2020). Trying to respond to this call for further research and striving to bridge this big gap, the current study aimed to analyze post-reading comprehension questions in the seemingly new series of EFL textbooks introduced into the mainstream education, Vision student books and the accompanying workbooks.
This taxonomy unveils different types of questions and tasks that follow a reading passage and can fulfill the function of a reading evaluation checklist (Freeman, 2014). Moreover, it contributes to the teachers’ professional expertise in developing materials and illuminates the constituents of a suitable reading passage. Charles (2015) pointed to it as a “useful taxonomy of reading comprehension question types” (p.898). Bearing this in mind, the current study attempted to answer the following research questions:
1) What reading comprehension questions have the highest frequency in Vision 1, 2, 3 student books and workbooks?
2) Is there a significant difference among the frequencies of reading comprehension questions across Vision 1, 2, 3 student books and workbooks?
3) Which reading comprehension questions have the highest and lowest frequency means within Vision series?